Natural (unalienable) Rights

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These are words every American is probably familiar with and something every child reads in school. But what are “unalienable rights”?  The Declaration of Independence provides some insight to them in the text that follows, that among them are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, but if these are only part among others, what are the rest?

Perhaps the first best place to look is the primary author of the Declaration of Independence itself, Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson said, “Bacon, Locke and Newton. I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception, and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the Physical and Moral sciences”¹. Francis Bacon influenced on separating religion and philosophy, Isaac Newton influenced him in science, but it was John Locke who influenced Thomas Jefferson on the Natural rights most.

So what is “Unalienable”? It simply means it cannot be alienated, or separated. These Rights can not be taken or separated from a person. They always belong to the individual, and never to anybody else. So what rights cannot separated from a person?

John Locke: Two Treatises of Government

John Locke discussed Natural Rights most predominantly in his books Two Treatises of Government, with the second treatises on Civil government in particular discussing Natural rights. It was Chapter II of Book II, the State of Nature that Locke talks about Natural Rights in 11 parts, this what Thomas Jefferson would later call the unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. Locke starts off with this statement,

Which Document did it come from?

Where did the phrase come from? » online testing

Quick Thoughts: The Bill of Rights does not enumerate the People’s Rights!

 

On May 17, 2011 a Federal District Court Judge made a ruling that caught my interest, not the subject itself completely (though the subject still did catch my interest) but rather the rationale in the decision made. This decision was not based directly off of the Constitution itself for what it says, but rather off of previous courts decisions alone, using stare decisis. As I discuss in an article of stare decisis, stare decisis is prudent provided it used properly and in the correct manner and this is not a situation in which it was, by the Judges own admission in his opinion.

The background of this case concerns concealed weapons, the actual subject of the case is of actual little matter to my opinion here, rather it is his jurisprudence that I will examine. Yolo County CA banned concealed weapons, and a challenge was brought against the County citing 2nd Amendment protections.

The plaintiffs (contending the ban was unconstitutional) argued the same manner of interpretation should be applied to the Second Amendment as is the First Amendment (it is to protect maximum freedom of the subject). The Judges response to this was,

The Court sees no reason to analogize rights under the Second Amendment to those under the First, as plenty of case authority exists to provide a clear framework of analysis to facial challenges, without poaching precedent from another Amendment’s framework.

Quick Thoughts: Government run Anti-Rumor Agency

Recently Former President, Bill Clinton suggested their should be a United States or United Nation run agency for the purpose of debunking malicious rumors. This may sound good too some, but may also present a very troubling scenario. A Government run anti-rumor Agency would be one where the State is set up to be the sole source of “legitimate” information, and other sources or information that may be counter to this would be by default, treated as non-credible to the public. Leaving Government as the sole holder of what “truth” is regardless of the situation or scenario can only result in the State declaring what is valid and what is not. When Governments do this regardless of the motivations, this IS nothing more than propaganda.

If a story or source or information is critical of the government, and the government has declared itself as the final legitimate holder of truth, this presents a ways and means for governments to prevent and disregard potential legitimate concerns, ideas or questions of any subject. It would be nice to be able to trust a government to be prudent and proper with this responsibility, but history has a long dark history of this NEVER being the case, including the United States.

No one person, group, organization, government or nation should ever be able to declare a monopoly on what truth is. It is fine for government to present its facts or information in the public discourse, but these facts and information should ALWAYS be subject to public scrutiny, with no one place having the power to declare any questions regarding it as “rumor” and that to carry the public confidence in the form of a government agency.

The free flow and scrutiny of information from all sources and places must never be inhibited, and NONE should ever have a monopoly or the power to have a final say in “truth”. In a free society, there will be rumors, there will be misinformation, and there will be twists of what facts are to suit a specific purpose. But as long as all the information is available to all the people, with no single place having ANY authority to declare what “fact and truth” is, the people are better informed and are much better suited to decide on their own what the actual truth really is.

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpps/news/clinton-wants-internet-rumor-debunking-agency-dpgonc-km-20110514_13204832

A short quiz to see how you interpret the Constitution.

Not a long quiz, but should give a basic idea on you see the Constitution!

Are you an Originalist? » Quiz Maker