[Pants-of-dog]

@The Resister

The claim that unalienable rights exist is contradicted by the historical facts that have been presented.

At the time that Jefferson wrote that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were unalienable rights, he and his fellow founding fathers were literally alienating people from those exact rights.

Therefore, the rights are not unalienable.

[Julian658]

@The Resister

The claim that unalienable rights exist is contradicted by the historical facts that have been presented.

At the time that Jefferson wrote that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were unalienable rights, he and his fellow founding fathers were literally alienating people from those exact rights.

Therefore, the rights are not unalienable.

POD
That was another era. Furthermore, quite often rational people take illogical positions and believe they are correct. For example there is such a thing as a group that is called "Queers for palestine" http://zombietime.com/sf_rally_septembe ... palestine/


There are other groups that see anti-racism as religion.


It is all the same POD

[annatar1914]

Okay, I literally just typed in a google search; ''the charter and proclamation of the rights of man'' and read an interesting manifesto on a certain site. @The Resister , you are definitely a Freeman/Sovereign Citizen type of guy if this manifesto I saw is the same document that you profess and wish to replace the (''nullified''?) US Constitution with. Why be coy about it? We've had people on PoFo of all political persuasions, from Monarchists and Fascists to Commies and Socialists, Libertarians, you name it, including folks that believe in Technocracy, that political sect invented in the 1930's.

I'm basically for all practical purposes politically neutral in this day and age and place in the world, my political ideal being very far from being realized in the modern age, but it's not something I personally am all worked up about. At least not anymore...

But you're an Anarchist in all but name, basically, right? How are you not one?

[The Resister]

@The Resister

The claim that unalienable rights exist is contradicted by the historical facts that have been presented.

At the time that Jefferson wrote that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were unalienable rights, he and his fellow founding fathers were literally alienating people from those exact rights.

Therefore, the rights are not unalienable.

No such evidence provided. You are absolutely wrong.

[The Resister]

The right to keep and bear arms is not inalienable.

Arguing over state's rights or individual rights, prefatory or operative clauses, whatever, does not change the fact that the Amendment was seen as a bar only to federal action, not state or private restraints.


Because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave, the Court did not reconsider its prior decisions that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

Wrong. You are trolling. Heller overturned prior United States Supreme Court holdings.

[The Resister]

Okay, I literally just typed in a google search; ''the charter and proclamation of the rights of man'' and read an interesting manifesto on a certain site. @The Resister , you are definitely a Freeman/Sovereign Citizen type of guy if this manifesto I saw is the same document that you profess and wish to replace the (''nullified''?) US Constitution with. Why be coy about it? We've had people on PoFo of all political persuasions, from Monarchists and Fascists to Commies and Socialists, Libertarians, you name it, including folks that believe in Technocracy, that political sect invented in the 1930's.

I'm basically for all practical purposes politically neutral in this day and age and place in the world, my political ideal being very far from being realized in the modern age, but it's not something I personally am all worked up about. At least not anymore...

But you're an Anarchist in all but name, basically, right? How are you not one?

Lost my links. Look, no disrespect, but you are not qualified to pigeon hole me nor make judgments about me. It's obvious that you have nothing except that I have posted on other boards. I'm not looking to replace the Constitution. Those who oppose enforcing the provisions contained in the Constitution are the ones waging war on it. I do not advocate nor promote and certainly do not practice in any solution that does not require one to first exhaust all nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress.

[The Resister]

Garbage. You are unhinged.

We have a constitution. 330 million people live by it. You may not like the interpretations and amendments over the last couple of hundred years but the overwhelming majority of us do. And that constitutes the "consent of the governed" which you posted in your Sacred first three posts.

The very idea that possessing an automatic rifle or bazooka is a God given right is patently absurd. And it is one that same overwhelming majority of people would not support. So since the government exists at the pleasure of the people, as the founders intended it, the point is moot anyway.

The people giveth and the people taketh away. That is how the founders wanted it. If thy had wanted irrevocable portions of the constitution they would have written that into the document.

As for you equally absurd idea that the 14th Amendment is not valid. And you seem to have pulled this right out of your ass. Can you explain to us how it is invalid in any way?

You can deny labels all that you want to. We are free to categorize anyone as may suit our fancy.

As for encouraging us to "sign" your Declaration. I will not. It is a document that is seditious on the face of it and flies in the face of conservative ideas and ideals.

Then there is the practical reasons I will not sign it. I disagree with this:


I do not believe that the individual right to bear arms (note the odd capitalization in this rag) should be unfettered. I can think of a vast array of weaponry that should not fall into the hands of anyone who wants it. I can think of any number of people whose actions or illness deprives them of this right.

I do not believe that any "right" claimed by anyone in the US exists outside of the constitution. The constitution is our overarching governing document. Should any part of it, as Jefferson frequently wrote, become obsolete it contains the mechanism for change and that mechanism protects the document form mere whim.

I do not believe that any citizen of the US has the right to take up arms against the government.

In my opinion your position, though certainly not uncommon, is a mere lashing out at the inevitable change all people see in the progression of time. I do not want to "go back" to the good old days of the 50's. (1850s or 1950s though God knows I would be one of the undisputed winners if we did.)

Your problem The Resistor is that you can't sell what you are selling. You have run into a forum embracing people who are smart enough to see what you are advocating and smart enough to see the devil in all of the details.

What I've run into is a few people who have no insight. Not everybody agrees with you. What point do you REALLY want me to address? Oh, we're doing pretty good with "selling" people on the idea of Liberty.

[The Resister]

Rights don't exist in some universal form, rights are constructs we've created.

The universe itself doesn't give a shit if I murder someone.

So, what is your real point? Race is a social construct until the BLM wants reparations.

[The Resister]

If you mean “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” when you are discussing unalienable rights, then it is a historical fact that chattel slavery existed in the US colonies and later the USA at the time.

Slavery, obviously, makes it impossible for slaves to enjoy their liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

You don't know the history of this country. The United States never legalized slavery and over half the states outlawed it before the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. The states in the newly forming United States were the first in modern history to outlaw slavery.

[The Resister]

In the real world, we are social beings. If you choose to live in society, you have chosen ("consented") to give up a portion of your freedoms.


We have shown, collectively, there are no such things as unlimited 'unalienable' rights as you define them.

Collectivists never show anything except that majority rule is flawed as much as it was when the people worshiped the Golden Calf in biblical times. I had no choice where I was born, so I did not "choose" to be governed by tyrants.

[Unthinking Majority]

@The Resister

The claim that unalienable rights exist is contradicted by the historical facts that have been presented.

At the time that Jefferson wrote that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were unalienable rights, he and his fellow founding fathers were literally alienating people from those exact rights.

Therefore, the rights are not unalienable.

I think Jefferson meant that certain rights should be considered inalienable, not that they always are. He knew monarchs present and past deny people these rights all the time, including people in US colonies.

[The Resister]

I think Jefferson meant that certain rights should be considered inalienable, not that they always are. He knew monarchs present and past deny people these rights all the time, including people in US colonies.

There is a legal difference between an inalienable right and an unalienable Right. The official word in the Declaration of Independence as published in the United States Code (the official laws of the United States) is unalienable. I realize that all those grammarists are reaching for their dictionaries to prove the two words are synonymous; however, in the world of legal interpretation, the two words are defined differently in case law. The way that the courts interpret words is much more authoritative in the legal realm than what laymen dictionaries say.

Secondly, bear in mind that the road to Liberty with unalienable Rights is a journey, not a destination. We travel the road, but you have Rights and I have Rights. The challenge is to figure out how to respect each other's Rights without infringing on them.

Under the current laws, the United States Supreme Court illegally changed the law so that unalienable Rights were reduced to mere privileges to be doled out by a tyrannical government. They did so by incorporating the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment does NOT guarantee anyone any kind of right (Right). It is about privileges and immunities.

"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_ ... %20against

Also check out this link:

https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/con ... f-chicago/

The Court was absolutely wrong. The Bill of Rights codified the unalienable Rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence:

"The genius of the Constitution, which was drafted in 1787 and came into effect in 1788, was to establish a unique design for a government capable of securing the unalienable rights affirmed by the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution translates the universal promise of fundamental rights belonging to all persons into the distinctive positive law of the American republic..."

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/upload ... Rights.pdf

The illegally ratified 14th Amendment nullified your unalienable Rights and reduced them to mere privileges. This is made abundantly clear in the MacDonald ruling by the United States Supreme Court as well as the Heller decision just a few years earlier.

[Pants-of-dog]

No such evidence provided. You are absolutely wrong.

It is a historical fact that many of the founding fathers, such as Jefferson, owned slaves.

Slavery is a very good example of depriving others of life and liberty.

———————

I think Jefferson meant that certain rights should be considered inalienable, not that they always are. He knew monarchs present and past deny people these rights all the time, including people in US colonies.

Right, that makes much more sense, especially since we know that Jefferson and his ilk were knowledgeable about history and politics.

[Odiseizam]

@Pants-of-dog TJ owned slaves but was obligated to that, altho also opposing to that [1]

@The Resister go back trough my previous posts You didnt get my points, simply You dont understand that in usA rulz plutocracy and as such it interprets the constitution as it wants! take a look at the next excerpt of the quoted yale pamphlet titled TO ALTER OR ABOLISH ~ Jack M. Balkin & Sanford Levinson in twisted manner pointing that the usA has revolutionary constitution but still the same is interpreted as the elites wish, and if we know who founded usA this should be more than obvious, I mean if freemasonry didnt got the grip then usA would be Christian and not secular bastion, my point is just dont bother its simple federalized republicanisn imposing might over the ruled, it would be rude to say its word for fraud, but knowing the skims of freemasonry that last since the rush of the enlightenment era the us'constitution emerged mids ultimate fraudalism circumstances when beic as freemasonic corporation got in motion overtaking the queens colonies and grabing it for own perspective, thus introduced revolution and just add to the skim enough motivation for people to follow i.e. dying for a cause of independence and liberty (not just in and around uk but everywhere) actually people were lured for the ideal of nation but just got new masters in the place of the previous, otherwise how You will explain the continual abolishment of the constitution from the courts in usA in different ways and cases!? tell me can You announce free territory with Your friends in Your hood, the us'constitution says You have that right, but how really You do!?

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6167&context=fss_papers]

405-407
B. POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY OR INALIENABLE RIGHTS?

The Declaration attempts to link the rights of popular sovereignty ands elf-determination to the preservation and protection of the inalienableindividual rights that governments are created to serve. But the connectionbetween these ideas is contingent: the consent of the governed is conceptually distinct from the preservation of individual rights.

Indeed, the tension between protecting individual rights and respecting popular sovereignty is a recurring issue in liberal political and constitutional theory.21 Obviously, governments that govern without popular consent may feelfree to violate individual rights, but sometimes they may actually protect them better, depending on the nature of the right. For example, a monarchy may respect religious pluralism more effectively than a democracy; a plutocracy or oligarchy may protect property rights far better than are distribution-minded popular government, and so on.Yet even if a government respects individual rights, it may still govern without the people's consent. And governing without popular consent by itself violates the right to self-determination that the Declaration posits.

A people-however defined-possesses the collective right to govern itself free from what it comes to regard as an alien power. It follows, then, that the colonies had a right to revolt and establish an American nation even without a showing of a "long train of Abuses."22 A benevolent despot is still a despot. What the Declaration seeks to join together-the consent of the governed and the protection of individual liberties-is therefore not required logically, and has often been severed in practice. This fact has been demonstrated all too often in the history of political revolutions; sometimes they protect people's rights, but sometimes they do not. And much depends on which people's rights we are asking about-the losers in a regime change often lose rights they enjoyed beforehand. Thus, the right of self-determination need have little to do with strong theories of individual rights, inalienable or not. Instead, the right of self-determination has everything to do with assertions of collective identity and the political rights that are assumed to attach to this identity. The right of self-determination is a nationalist right: the right of a people to define itself, and then to govern itself. Unless there is only "one People"23 occupying a particular territory, it is likely that self-determination by a particular group of people will come at the price of diminishing or even ignoring rights held by a different people in the same territory.

...

419
C. SELF-DETERMINATION / SECESSION

Finally, suppose that several counties in the state of Montana decide that they want no more of the United States of America and decide to secede. Or imagine that a group of conservative Christians decide to move to those counties to create a Christian homeland free from the strictures of secular government. According to the Declaration, do the citizens in this part of the state have the "self-evident" right to leave the Union and"institute new Government"?77 This, of course, was the assertion of the states of the Confederacy when they left the Union.One might insist that, despite its language, the Declaration does notactually recognize such a right. All that it guarantees is the right of the United States as a whole to decide whether to split up, and it must do so through a fair, open, and democratic process. If Congress agrees to allow part of Montana to go its own way, the rights guaranteed in the Declaration have been served.Yet once again the actual context of the Declaration undermines the idea that the right to alter or abolish can be limited in this way. After all,the colonies did not think that they needed the permission of Great Britain to leave, or that secession would be legitimate only if it emerged from afair, open, and democratic process within the British Empire. Moreover, as noted earlier, the precedent of the Philadelphia Convention points in the opposite direction. Following the Convention, nine states decided to secede from the "perpetual union" established by the Articles of Confederation78to create the new government of the United States of America. Even if the other four states had not eventually joined them, they had asserted their right to begin a new political regime without obtaining the permission of the states left behind. Louisiana Senator Judah Benjamin made preciselythis point to his colleagues in his farewell speech in December 1860, before leaving Washington to join the Confederate States of America,which had decided to break with the Union and form a new constitution inFebruary 1861.

D. UNUM OR E PLURIBUS?

Secession, of course, can involve not only breaking away from alarger entity, but also a decision to join another polity after leaving the first.New England, for example, might secede from the United States to joinCanada, much as Texas left Mexico only to join the United States severalyears later. Nor does secession require that a single entity be formed. Theend of British rule in India quickly led to the creation of the separatecountries of India and Pakistan, and, sometime later, the secession ofBangladesh from Pakistan.

...

[The Resister]

It is a historical fact that many of the founding fathers, such as Jefferson, owned slaves.

Slavery is a very good example of depriving others of life and liberty.

———————



Right, that makes much more sense, especially since we know that Jefferson and his ilk were knowledgeable about history and politics.

You're kidding, right? Be honest. Since biblical times people have owned slaves and there doesn't seem to be anything people can point to that says the practice is immoral in and of itself. Did Jefferson practice slavery? Yep.

Let's talk about you for a moment. Do you pay the income tax? Are you aware that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified; that it was intended to be a temporary tax; that it is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto? Are you a communist? You go along to get along and you work within the legal parameters that law and society provide for. Thomas Jefferson inherited slaves. He got some of them when his father died and he got more of them when he married the daughter of a slave trader. The fact is Jefferson owned more slaves than virtually any other American. Yet in 1787 Jefferson wrote:

“This abomination must have an end..." Thomas Jefferson to Edward Rutledge, 14 July 1787,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified February 1, 2018, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/ ... 11-02-0506

What did liberals think Jefferson could do? He could kick the slaves out into a country where they would not be able to become self sustaining. Then, maybe the local constabularies might come along and arrest him, sell the slaves, put Jefferson in prison on some charge of abandoning his slaves, mistreating them, endangering society, or whatever charge that might have existed. He worked within the system, just as you do every day, and he made the best of a bad situation. I'd bet dollars against doughnuts you have some simplistic response here, but from personal experience:

My wife has a son through a previous marriage. He's determined not to work. He would literally lay in the streets and starve to death before he would work. He has been on his deathbed in the hospital and he still won't get out and get a job. My wife paid all his bills until she was facing bankruptcy and she uses marital blackmail to force me to let that POS stay in my home. And I can't "kick him out." I'm not even supposed to get in a altercation with him. That would be domestic violence and I'd lose my constitutional privileges (we have no Rights). I, like Jefferson, make the best of a bad situation and I work toward making that situation better.

Now, let me be just as realistic as I can with you. In Jefferson's day, slaves were property. Jefferson was heavily leveraged against his property and owed his creditors a buttload of money. He couldn't get rid of his property. The law of the day wouldn't allow it. Are you really aware of what the men who signed the Declaration of Independence were trying to accomplish?

I find it appalling that people try to use the slavery card when they will walk into a store and buy goods that are made by slaves in communist countries in conditions far worse than slaves in America EVER had it. You have the opportunity to work around it. But, no, most of you shop at places like Walmart... and Walmart was found guilty of knowingly hiring undocumented workers. You go to Walmart because it's cheaper. How is that any less egregious than owning a slave? You're enabling the practice, so come off that high horse, remove that halo and let's have a serious conversation here.

[The Resister]

@Pants-of-dog TJ owned slaves but was obligated to that, altho also opposing to that [1]

@The Resister go back trough my previous posts You didnt get my points, simply You dont understand that in usA rulz plutocracy and as such it interprets the constitution as it wants! take a look at the next excerpt of the quoted yale pamphlet titled TO ALTER OR ABOLISH ~ Jack M. Balkin & Sanford Levinson in twisted manner pointing that the usA has revolutionary constitution but still the same is interpreted as the elites wish, and if we know who founded usA this should be more than obvious, I mean if freemasonry didnt got the grip then usA would be Christian and not secular bastion, my point is just dont bother its simple federalized republicanisn imposing might over the ruled, it would be rude to say its word for fraud, but knowing the skims of freemasonry that last since the rush of the enlightenment era the us'constitution emerged mids ultimate fraudalism circumstances when beic as freemasonic corporation got in motion overtaking the queens colonies and grabing it for own perspective, thus introduced revolution and just add to the skim enough motivation for people to follow i.e. dying for a cause of independence and liberty (not just in and around uk but everywhere) actually people were lured for the ideal of nation but just got new masters in the place of the previous, otherwise how You will explain the continual abolishment of the constitution from the courts in usA in different ways and cases!? tell me can You announce free territory with Your friends in Your hood, the us'constitution says You have that right, but how really You do!?

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6167&context=fss_papers]

I read what you wrote. It simply has NO bearing on anything I've written and nothing I advocate. There is no link. Furthermore, until you learn the legal difference between an unalienable Right and an inalienable right, we probably will not have too productive a conversation.

[Pants-of-dog]

@The Resister

So we agree that Jefferson and other founding fathers of the USA owned slaves.

Now, did that particular form of chattel slavery deprive others of life and liberty?

[The Resister]

@The Resister

So we agree that Jefferson and other founding fathers of the USA owned slaves.

Now, did that particular form of chattel slavery deprive others of life and liberty?

What is your point? Are you blaming Jefferson for the evil government of King George? Where are you going with this? Jefferson didn't start slavery. He worked to end it. WTH? The Constitution gave the slavers a decade to get out of the slaving business upon ratification of the Constitution. I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

Jefferson penned the document that declared that we have unalienable Rights. Prior to that the whole freaking world was practicing slavery. Brazil took in more slaves than the United States. If your gotcha question had a point, you might get someone with an IQ no bigger than their shoe size to take the bait. Problem is, you don't have a point. Unalienable Rights were guaranteed with the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Jefferson supported the Bill of Rights. I don't think you read nor understand my last post.

[Odiseizam]

I read what you wrote. It simply has NO bearing on anything I've written and nothing I advocate. There is no link. Furthermore, until you learn the legal difference between an unalienable Right and an inalienable right, we probably will not have too productive a conversation.

dont worry I know the difference, the question is do You know that for the elites that dont matters!? MY POINT IS SIMPLE PLUTOCRACY DECIDE nowadays HOW WILL BE INTERPRETED THE US'CONSTITUTION, as pointed in previous posts earlier in this thread [1][1]

You simply dont want to accept that the us'constitution is even shaped and still used as it feats the elites as in the beginning so as now, citizens are just their resources, I've intentionally pointed to the yale pamphlet so You would answer is that reachable what suggests Jack Balkin, probably You've read the proposed theme in the yale link!?

simply there is breach in all legal rights in usA what about the natural one, from Your angle how would You explain the patriotic'act or the black'op funds or the fixed imposed minimum wage etc. etc. probably You are after literal constitutionalism but that will not get You anywhere in the power system of the current plutocratic elitism in usA, keep reading the Fraudalism Thread also suggested in the previous post You may found answer to Your dilemma why and how deception is interwoven in all western societies!

by Your logic in this respect freedom of speech also should be widely exercised, yet the same is confined only to the government and not media [1][2][2]

... so eg. in case of free speech as can be seen from the wiki link in the last footnote its matter of interpretation by the courts ... simply Your will to interpret the constitution (as I already said) will lead for sure to any county independence and believe me such freedom usA will not allow! us'constitution is legal enough as it suits the prevalent political narrative , but when and if comes to that some group of people to decide to use the unalienable rights as they fit them then instantly they will be chopped > the waco davidians and alike pop to mind in this respect ///

my conclusion is that is war of words, but that will not give to the citizens true freedom in the way You are interpreting the constitution, Thats The Fraud On West while acting democracy imposing imperial authoritarianism, so this wouldnt be obvious not rarely assassinations in form of accidents are regular occurrence and not just to common people but political figures too JFK King Hendrix etc. ... check the next parse they will act blind long ahead ...

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-founders-originalism

... for them what matters is that they've got voting consent even the elections were framed [1] its same in international politics its same in economy FRAUD became norm and is implemented extra easily in corrupt place like uK eU or usA [2][2] its money jukebox and nothing else, an farce of modern hidden imperialism in plain sight, sometimes exercised easily sometimes in withdrawal changing the political puppets so the masses will be calm quickly, and the difference with the eastern empires is that in the western the true puppet master are behind the scenes, simple the same circumstance is side effect of the enlightenment skim for swapping the vatican authority and its royalism with freemasons and republicanism but as I said so people would follow back then the fm elites trowed them the false ideal of freedom, yeah free to kneel again!

The Original Understanding of Constitutional Legitimacy ` Ilan Wurman
...
The literature too often ignores the connection between the Declaration and the Constitution, and many scholars have historically argued that the Constitution of 1787 was a repudiation of the principles of 1776. Nevertheless, in the Declaration, the Founders felt that they must “declare the causes which impel them to the separation” from the political bands that had previously connected them, and thus it manifestly provides insight into general notions of political legitimacy at the time of the Founding. Indeed, this Part will show that the writing of the Constitution and its purposes at the time of the Framing evoke the same principles at play in the Declaration.

What, in the minds of the author and signers of the Declaration, made such a break from their previous bonds legitimate? The key clause is well known but also often overlooked: all men are created equal, they are endowed with unalienable rights including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and “[t]hat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

In this one line the Founders offered the two most crucial bases for constitutional legitimacy: government must derive its power from the consent of the governed—a social contract of sorts—and it must secure our unalienable rights. In one fell swoop—at least if we buy the Founders’ account—we see that perhaps both the libertarian-originalists and the popular-sovereignty conservatives simplify their own grounds for constitutional legitimacy.123
_____________________________________
123. Ely would have a response to my claims, as he himself consulted the Declaration but rejected this kind of comprehensive account of constitutional legitimacy. He argues that the Declaration of Independence was like a legal brief, and “[p]eople writing briefs are likely, and often well advised, to throw in arguments of every hue.” Specifically, “[p]eople writing briefs for revolution are obviously unlikely to have apparent positive law on their side, and are therefore well advised to rely on natural law.” ELY, supra note 55, at 49. Ely’s reasoning is unpersuasive, however. First, it is very likely that in justifying a break from positive law obligations, the Founders, as I’ve suggested, had to think long and hard about what gave them the right to do so. It is very possible, and in fact very likely, that they believed they had to appeal to natural rights because that was what was necessary for their act to be legitimate.

p.849 https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2938&context=lawreview

[Pants-of-dog]

What is your point? Are you blaming Jefferson for the evil government of King George? Where are you going with this? Jefferson didn't start slavery. He worked to end it. WTH? The Constitution gave the slavers a decade to get out of the slaving business upon ratification of the Constitution. I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

Jefferson penned the document that declared that we have unalienable Rights. Prior to that the whole freaking world was practicing slavery. Brazil took in more slaves than the United States. If your gotcha question had a point, you might get someone with an IQ no bigger than their shoe size to take the bait. Problem is, you don't have a point. Unalienable Rights were guaranteed with the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Jefferson supported the Bill of Rights. I don't think you read nor understand my last post.

My point was that there are no unalienable rights, and the people you claim were the defenders of unalienable rights went about alienating people from the rights of life and liberty.

You do not disagree. You simply say this was fine because others were doing it at the time.