Is there really such a thing as an inalienable-right cant all rights be taken away?

Answer 1

Yes troop36sc, Inalienable rights do exist and cannot be taken away. They are, you see, the gift of God.

Inalienable rights can, however, be lost in a variety of ways. Among those are blind ignorance, legal perversion and outright deception.

Yours is a grand question for it speaks to the glory of every true victory this country ever had and cuts to the heart of every cancer it fought. Your question is the crux of what once made America great.

"We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Without God in the Constitution there is no equality and their are no inalienable rights. Most think some attorney gets their rights; or that they come from the Supreme Court or the halls of Congress. Such are already deceived. The power hungry will always take your rights and any false credit you give them.

Over thousands of years rights have been accorded by sex, by force, by family, by religion, by organization, by kings, by queens, by circumstance, by law, by deception, by flattery and by favor.

For the most part all these means were designed to bring the authority to accord rights back to one or more persons, families, groups or nations. Not much has changed.

Finally the framers of the Constitution asked the real question: Where do rights come from? From the king? From the strongest? From the church? From the government? From special people?

They got the revelation that rights come from God alone and because of that are inalienable.

They did not take the church out of the state. They took the rights exclusive to a creator God out of the church and put those rights within Constitutional government. No more did king, queen, church, state or station stand between any man and his God given rights.

This principal has been rejected in America; in its streets, its courts its institutions. We are paying in cinicism, economic degredation, and the elevation of base men and women to positions of power in all phases of life.

Can rights be taken? No*.
Can rights be lost? Yes.
When you reject the source you hand them over by default.
Ignorant of this many claim conspiracy! Much like a whore claiming a conspiracy to steel her virginity.

America is in such darkness that most no longer distinguish between priviledge, human rights and God given or divine rights.
*Human rights or codified privildge can be taken away.




















.

Answer 2

i will stand with Jefferson in this one: that all of us is "endowed by their author with inherent and inalienable rights; that between those are existence, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [That quote differes fairly from the excellent form of the assertion because of the fact that's taken from Jefferson's draft version, which he later revealed.] For some reason, you're ignoring those enumerated rights and conversing approximately financial reward of a properly-prepared and wealthy society, that are for sure a distinctive element and, I agree, far extra arguable as "rights." [are not getting me incorrect; i'm a neo-liberal and regard the attainment of a wealthy society wherein some great reward of that prosperity are fairly allotted as a valid purpose of social business enterprise. I in basic terms disagree with the assumption of calling by-product and circumstantial reward "rights."] yet your argument that "inalienable rights" do no longer exist because of the fact somebody would desire to stay away from their exercising misses the factor: existence, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights, despite if taken away. Taking them away is oppression, and the oppressor is misguided, no longer ideal--for this reason we use the interest "rights" to consult with them. that's what it ability. Later: In case the previous continues to be no longer sparkling, permit me restate it. whilst Jefferson coined the word "inalienable rights," he became explicitly addressing a case wherein persons have been disadvantaged of the possibility to exercising those rights. that did no longer make those rights any much less inalienable; it made the King of england a tyrant. To argue that they do no longer look to be rights despite if it rather is bodily conceivable to stay away from human beings from exercising them is to argue, in basic terms, that could makes ideal. Such a controversy additionally reflects appalling lack of understanding of the source of the word.

Answer 3

sure they can be taken away - inalienable rights are rights that shouldn't even be questioned, but of course they can be taken away - you can kill someone and take away their inalienable right to life