Reid Hendrichs on

[Rooster Ron Wayne]

I thought some might like to see this .

God Bless America !

 

https://www.full30.com/video/d5a685814e7ed1bbe2a5f7648cf16e03

[Eyesa Horg]

Well stated

[Colonel Dan, SASS #24025]

Good video. Only one little correction...he uses the word "inalienable" when its is "unalienable" and there is a difference. In his drafts, Jefferson did use the word "inalienable" but in the final draft it was changed to "unalienable"

 

 

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You cannot surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights under any circumstances. They are a gift from the Creator to ALL individuals.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights by consent—consent legally coming via the vote of elected representatives no doubt. Inalienable rights are not inherent and can therefore be controlled by government.

Today, the two terms have unfortunately morphed into synonyms but they were not in their original use. The distinction now makes it clearer why our Founders changed the final wording doesn't it? I would be interested in knowing how they actually came to the final wording. I know they labored endlessly on choosing the exact right words and phrases so it doesn't surprise me that "inalienable" was finally changed to the more accurate "unalienable."

[Rooster Ron Wayne]

I dont know the Correct wording .

Reid is History teacher , So maybe he played on the words .

I found this today .

And thought it was worthy of posting .

[Subdeacon Joe]

He is close, but not quite right. The Bill of Rights IS part of the Constitution, the amendments are things added to it.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

 

 

The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States

December 15, 1791

Preamble

Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Then we have, in 1943, the US Supreme Court restating the purpose:

 

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

: Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

It takes our basic civil rights off of the political bargaining table.

[Colonel Dan, SASS #24025]

I dont know the Correct wording .

Reid is History teacher , So maybe he played on the words .

I found this today .

And thought it was worthy of posting .

RRW, Thank you for posting this---it was a good and valued offering.

[Mud Marine,SASS#54686 Life]

The etimology of words is important and is frequently misused by progressive liberals,. An example is the misuse of the word

"regulated" which in the 1700s meant "well equipped" and trained.

[Colonel Dan, SASS #24025]

The etimology of words is important and is frequently misused by progressive liberals,. An example is the misuse of the word

"regulated" which in the 1700s meant "well equipped" and trained.

Exactly. In the article I wrote on "Unalienable" and "Inalienable" I concluded that politicians deliberately began using "inalienable" so they could eventually take advantage of the legal definition and distinction. Paranoia on my part? I don't think so.

Just the view from my foxhole...

[Rooster Ron Wayne]

I think President Trump is on a good start .

I Pray he keeps going , And restores many many many more rights STOLEN away

From Law Abiding Citizens in America !