There are all kinds of "
rights." In most cases, rights are a grant given by the government. In the 14th Amendment, the government purports to give people "
privileges and immunities." In the Declaration of Independence, the presuppositional thinking was that you have
unalienable Rights, bestowed upon you by a
Creator. In
law, these
unalienable Rights have been defined in court rulings and some of they synonymous language is irrevocable, absolute, natural, inherent, and above the law. We also refer to these Rights as God given (since they are bestowed upon you by your Creator, your God, whomever you deem that to be). Let's see how the early court decisions interpreted your
unalienable Rights.
"
By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}
“
The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
In short, your
unalienable / absolute Rights do not depend on the Constitution for their existence. They exist with or without the Constitution as they predate the Constitution. They are above the reach of the government. Don't believe me? Let's go to a United States Supreme Court holding:
"..T
he right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)
So you have Rights that are
NOT granted by the Constitution; they are
NOT dependent on the Constitution for their existence; those Rights exist. The United States Supreme Court in Cruikshank upheld all of the earlier court decisions that echoed this sentiment. Let's look at a couple of Second Amendment rulings by the state courts so that you understand the concept:
"
The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States
In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:
“
The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:
"
The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
The United States Supreme Court in its
earliest decisions ruled:
“
Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. " BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
So, what in the world happened here? Today, the rules are 180 degrees opposite of what the Constitution was meant to say. I have more that I want you to consider:
In Marbury v. Madison the United States Supreme Court began trying to crown itself as the ultimate dictatorial power in America by ruling themselves to be the "
final arbiters" of what the law is. They began reinterpreting their own rulings until they changed the entire meaning of the Constitution. They set themselves up to legislate from the bench; they began to pretend they could give powers to the other two branches of government. Then, of course was the
illegally ratified 14th Amendment that rescinded the Bill of Rights and made them subject to the courts. This is an important point. It is one
NOBODY here should miss.
Our country was founded on the presupposition that you have
absolute Rights. Our earliest courts understood and ruled consistent with the sentiments of the founders and framers:
"
Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824
“
Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature” Benjamin Franklin
“
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Patrick Henry
“..
.rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual" Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany - 1819)
"
You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." John Adams, second President of the United States
There is one more thing I'd like to quote for you to consider. In George Washington's Farewell Address, he admonished us:
"
If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
http://www.mountvernon.org/library/digi ... -though-t/George Washington was right and history proved him right. Today you have a bunch of babbling buffoons with the mind games telling you that
unalienable isn't
unalienable based upon their private interpretations. All I can say is that the matter has been argued, litigated, and defined. The courts had
NO AUTHORITY to change the meaning of the law. We were lied to, deceived, hornswoggled, duped; we were forced through duress; cheated through fraud and the social contract known as the Constitution of the United States was breached to the point that it cannot be fixed. So, you can choose to accept the interpretations of Marxists, Socialists, Communists, Democrats, Progressives, or some devious political propaganda prostitute
OR the interpretations of the founders and framers and confirmed by the earliest court decisions. It's up to you. In my final installment, I will explain HOW the puppetmasters rescinded your Rights.