Inalienable vs Unalienable
There is a clear distinction and the word "unalienable" is frequently misused, often deliberately, and substituted with 'inalienable'.
Our founders clearly used "unalienable" when they adopted the Declaration of Independence. This was no accident...
The following is C&P for a bit-o-context.
"...the meanings of the words "inalienable" and "unalienable" are vastly different and I wish to make absolutely clear whenever I use the latter instead of the former.
According to Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edition; A.D. 2004), the definition of "inalienable" is:
"Not transferable or assignable. . . . Also termed unalienable".
Black`s 8th does not even define "unalienable" and would thus have us believe that the words "inalienable" and "unalienable" are synonymous.
But if we go back to Black`s 2nd (A.D. 1910) we'll see that "inalienable" was defined as:
"Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another such as rivers and public highways and certain personal rights; e.g., liberty."
Black's 2nd defines "unalienable" as:
"Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred."
At first glance the two terms seem pretty much synonymous. However, while the word "inalienable" is "not subject to alienation," the word "unalienable" is "incapable of being aliened". I believe the distinction between these two terms is this:
"Unalienable" is "incapable" of being aliened by anyone, including the man who holds something "unalienable". Thus, it is impossible for any individual to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of an "unalienable Right". it is impossible for you to take one of my "unalienable rights". It is likewise impossible for me to even voluntarily surrender, sell or transfer one of my "unalienable rights". Once I have something "unalienable," it's impossible for me to get rid of it. It would be easier to give up the color of my eyes or my heart than to give up that which is "unalienable".
That which is "inalienable," on the other hand, is merely "not subject to alienation".
...if we look at Bouvier's Law Dictionary (A.D. 1856) we'll see:
"INALIENABLE. A word denoting the condition of those things the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are inalienable. There are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty or of speech."
"UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce, as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable in consequence of particular provisions of the law forbidding their sale or transfer; as, pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable."
Clearly, the words are not synonymous. While "inalienable" rights can't be "lawfully" transferred "to another," they might nevertheless be waived by the holder or perhaps "unlawfully" (privately??) "transferred" to someone else. However, those rights which are "unalienable" are absolutely incapable of being transferred lawfully, unlawfully, administratively, privately or by implication or operation of law. that which you have, which is "unalienable," is your wrists in an absolute sense that cannot possibly be discarded, transferred, sold, or otherwise abandoned.
Also, note that the word "unalienable" describes things which are "not in commerce". However, it appears that those things which are "inalienable" could be "in commerce". as you know, much of the trouble we have with the modern government is based on government's claim of power to regulate all that is involved in interstate commerce. In so far as you may be able to prove that any item or right you seek to use or exercise is "unalienable," that item or write would be beyond the power of our government to regulate under interstate commerce. You can see the power potential in "unalienable".
Most importantly, as declared in the "Declaration of Independence," all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Our unalienable rights flow from God and are not subject to man's meddling. Bouvier's agrees by defining "unalienable" as including our "natural" rights (which flow from "nature's God")."
Our founders clearly used "unalienable" when they adopted the Declaration of Independence. This was no accident...
The following is C&P for a bit-o-context.
"...the meanings of the words "inalienable" and "unalienable" are vastly different and I wish to make absolutely clear whenever I use the latter instead of the former.
According to Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edition; A.D. 2004), the definition of "inalienable" is:
"Not transferable or assignable. . . . Also termed unalienable".
Black`s 8th does not even define "unalienable" and would thus have us believe that the words "inalienable" and "unalienable" are synonymous.
But if we go back to Black`s 2nd (A.D. 1910) we'll see that "inalienable" was defined as:
"Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another such as rivers and public highways and certain personal rights; e.g., liberty."
Black's 2nd defines "unalienable" as:
"Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred."
At first glance the two terms seem pretty much synonymous. However, while the word "inalienable" is "not subject to alienation," the word "unalienable" is "incapable of being aliened". I believe the distinction between these two terms is this:
"Unalienable" is "incapable" of being aliened by anyone, including the man who holds something "unalienable". Thus, it is impossible for any individual to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of an "unalienable Right". it is impossible for you to take one of my "unalienable rights". It is likewise impossible for me to even voluntarily surrender, sell or transfer one of my "unalienable rights". Once I have something "unalienable," it's impossible for me to get rid of it. It would be easier to give up the color of my eyes or my heart than to give up that which is "unalienable".
That which is "inalienable," on the other hand, is merely "not subject to alienation".
...if we look at Bouvier's Law Dictionary (A.D. 1856) we'll see:
"INALIENABLE. A word denoting the condition of those things the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are inalienable. There are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty or of speech."
"UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce, as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable in consequence of particular provisions of the law forbidding their sale or transfer; as, pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable."
Clearly, the words are not synonymous. While "inalienable" rights can't be "lawfully" transferred "to another," they might nevertheless be waived by the holder or perhaps "unlawfully" (privately??) "transferred" to someone else. However, those rights which are "unalienable" are absolutely incapable of being transferred lawfully, unlawfully, administratively, privately or by implication or operation of law. that which you have, which is "unalienable," is your wrists in an absolute sense that cannot possibly be discarded, transferred, sold, or otherwise abandoned.
Also, note that the word "unalienable" describes things which are "not in commerce". However, it appears that those things which are "inalienable" could be "in commerce". as you know, much of the trouble we have with the modern government is based on government's claim of power to regulate all that is involved in interstate commerce. In so far as you may be able to prove that any item or right you seek to use or exercise is "unalienable," that item or write would be beyond the power of our government to regulate under interstate commerce. You can see the power potential in "unalienable".
Most importantly, as declared in the "Declaration of Independence," all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Our unalienable rights flow from God and are not subject to man's meddling. Bouvier's agrees by defining "unalienable" as including our "natural" rights (which flow from "nature's God")."
0
-
Interesting. Thanks for clearing that up. 0 -
quote:And which is the RTKBA ?
You and your jack-booted buddies come try and and take them, Barzillia.
Perhaps you will find the definition you seek THEN...
Raw, brute force is all some of you people understand...kindness and compassion being wasted on you.0 -
Threats ?
Note the "Come and take them"...That CLEARLY indicates that cowards, Quislings and their running buddies have NOTHING to fear from me...till they actually make the mistake of thinking that they can pass a 'law' and I will obey it concerning weapons confiscation.
Your long winded, tiresome litanies of just how clever and cunning you are may well win over some of the effeminate crowds of 'men' we have in America today...americans.
A man able to understand simple English will merely laugh at you.0 -
From the thread in politics, it seems that SCOTUS has defined 'Unalienable' as that which can never be lawfully transferred or denied, and 'Inalienable' as that which can be lawfully transferred or denied with the consent of those concerned.
If, then, the RTKBA is an unalienable right, the Constitution cannot lawfully be amended to eliminate the 2nd.
If the RTKBA is an inalienable right, however, the Constitution could lawfully be amended, eliminating the 2nd Amendment.
By extension, however, the Declaration of Independence points out that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to the securing of unalienable rights, specifically Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, among others, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. Almost by definition, the Right to alter or abolish Government is unalienable, which then suggests that the Right of the People to retain the means to alter or abolish said government must also be unalienable.
That said, does it currently matter whether the 2nd secures an unalienable or inalienable right?
No, it does not matter so long as the 2nd is on the books. The 2nd Amendment clearly secures a right of the people. The nature of that right only becomes germane if in the future there is an attempt to eliminate or perhaps even modify the Amendment. It is then and only then we need concern ourselves with whether we can or cannot lawfully abrogate the 2nd.
Until that time, the 2nd Amendment remains a part of our founding document, and all lawful government entities are mandated to cease enforcing the numerous infringements that are currently foisted upon the people.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:And which is the RTKBA ?
You and your jack-booted buddies come try and and take them, Barzillia.
Perhaps you will find the definition you seek THEN...
Raw, brute force is all some of you people understand...kindness and compassion being wasted on you.
Since this statement can not even be misconstrued as a threat, it certainly can not be construed as a threat.
Straight from the liberal playbook (be accusatory), but improperly used, even by their standards.
Off your meds Barzillai?
Excellent summation Don, as usual. Should put the whole thing to rest, but the "mental masturbaitors" among us will not let it....0 -
Keep stroking. I knew you could not leave Don's post alone. Stroke stroke.
For the most part, as with all self annointed intellectuals with degrees to back them up, you are a twit.
I do however agree with you on the 40 million murdered citizens.
And nobody knew more than Lincoln about denying liberty. Too bad he wasn't shot before the war, might have eliminated the whole thing.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
6 comments