Monday, December 5, 2011

Inherent and Inalienable

 I have read a few court transcripts and even watched a few live arguments on TV. The most infamous being of course, The O.J. Trial, but coming in at a close second, was the oral arguments of the Supreme Court of California concerning Proposition 8.

 The O.J. Trial was, at best, boring and terribly mundane, but the Prop 8 case, that was interesting. Not because I voted for the measure, but because for the first time I started hearing "big words" that I had only heard of in reference to the Constitution and its amendments. Words like "inherent" and "inalienable" were two mentioned most frequently. The argument I understand, was if the right to alter the states constitution through  a vote of the people by ballot measure was something that could be barred, and allowed only through the legislature or if, in fact, it was something that could not be taken away. See, I told you, interesting.

 It should be noted at this point, that I had just entered the realm of politics after being led there by my brother Jon. I had just barely begun to understand the importance of a single vote, ballot measures, taxes, budget cuts and talks as well as the political office candidates themselves. Prior to this I had not voted with any regularity that I can remember.

 I was leaning towards a vote for Obama, because like some I am sure, I liked his message of  "Hope and Change", his pledge for transparency and his stance on GITMO and the war. By that I mean he pledged to end both. I admit, rather embarrassingly now, that I had only watched a few broadcasts and listened to a few speeches of his, thus failing completely to do any digging. I had even changed my party from Republican to  Democrat so I could vote for him.

 My views were to about to drastically change on the political front, but I will cover that in another segment.

 Right around the time I had discovered Ron Paul, I started digging into things a bit more deeply, with more of a tendency towards, what-is-the-role-of-the-people/government, and less so with a sense of the typical conspiracy theory outlook.

 I have always felt that something was "off" in terms of our laws and society, but I could never put my finger on it. I could never stomach the thought of unquestionably submitting to authority, accepting the fact that I had to obey all laws, ordinances, regulations, codes and such or that this was just the way life is supposed to be.

 So naturally, as with most humans, when something didn't sound right, I went searching for the answers...or at least more information. What I have learned over these last three or so years has been-mind blowing-at times. I was finally starting to realize that yes, there was more to it than I have been led to believe and no, this was not the way life was supposed to be.

 I am a layman, with no formal education higher than 12th grade. I have never taken any college courses for journalism, writing, research, law or even English, and I am sure that it will show through. I drive a forklift, manage inventory and people in a bio-pharmaceutical manufacturing environment, so it really doesn't bother me. I just want you to know, that I completely okay if my readability score is an 8, or lower, on the Fleischer-Kincaid scale.  Let's get on with it.

 Your religious beliefs matter not in the context of the Constitutions protection of individual liberties. For the sake of writing ease in this OP we will use the mainstream ideology of Intelligent Design.

 When God created you, me and everyone else, he granted us the most precious gift-Life. In that, there are certain responsibilities and certain privileges that cannot be taken away by any government body, or any person representing a government body. While the reality is in fact true, it is in no way a justification or moral exemption to do so. Thieves, murderers, rapists and tyrants will seek to deprive you of these rights, however, the Founders, having experienced these atrocities first hand had identified these rights and saw fit to see them protected in our country's supreme law-The Constitution.

 The argument over what exactly the framers meant by this phrase or that phrase is completely irrelevant. The continual living interpretation of the law is a fallacy and should be regarded as such. The framers knew exactly what they meant, and they said it, in no plainer language that they knew. They saw fit to minimize the wording whenever possible so as to leave the slightest possible room for contortion and re-interpretation by men. Hence the statements, "We are a nation of laws, not of men" and "It is the letter of the law, not the spirit in which it was intended".

 "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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

 Never a more powerful statement was made.

 These were all men of great and unquestionable moral character that knew, not only in their hearts, but also in their minds that men are not created to be ruled, but to be the ruler of their own character and that they alone should decide what direction they would seek to align their moral compass. They understood that it was not the place of governments or of other men to prescribe the manner in which lives should be directed or what freedoms men and women are entitled to.

 Providence, The Supreme Architect, was their guide and their light and they needed no man, king, nor any government body to assert that to them. Having all justification come through each breath and with every thought, they knew what the right to life truly was. They were staunch in their affirmation of these "certain inalienable rights" and they sought fit to preserve them for the sake of the experiment.

 Before I list them I want to go over the definitions of the two most important words concerning these rights. Inalienable and Inherent. These words, and their meanings are not synonymous, yet they are far from mutually exclusive. An understanding of these words is exceptionally important and crucial if, you are ever going to learn what your rights truly are. The meaning of these words will, I hope, help you to contemplate and understand the stark difference between a "right" and a "privilege".

Impossible to take away:
"not able to be transferred or taken away, e.g. because of being protected by law"

Not able to be forfeited

 "part of the very nature of something, and therefore permanently characteristic of it or necessarily involved in it"

 To say some thing is "inalienable" means that there can be no question to it or of it.
The color red is integral in the color purple, therefore it is an inalienable fact that you cannot make purple without red.

 To say some thing is "inherent" means that it is a part of something larger or more complex and cannot be separated without changing the larger or more complex thing.
The color red is inherent to the color purple, therefore it is an indisputable fact that you cannot make purple without red.

 I would say something that is inherent is, in fact, inalienable.

"...among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 Meaning, you have the right to your life. You have the right to do as you please with it, as long as you cause no harm to anothers life or property. Let's just take a minute to think about what that really means. This is truly the most precious and powerful right.


 Does it mean that you have the right to sit on the couch and watch TV 27/7/365 from the day your are born til the day you die? Yes, yes it does, but I would strongly advise against that. It means that you have a definitive and indisputable right to your life; Including, but not limited to, any and all decisions, obligations, moral dilemma's actions, consequences, fruits, directions, destruction, repair, thoughts and protections necessary to effect such a lifestyle as you may see fit so long as you, in the course of your actions, do not whether overt or covertly, deprive another of their basic rights. This right is also inclusive of any persons you may be either morally or legally bound to care for.

  1.  You have the right to speak you mind and express yourself through speech, art, craft, music, letter, or recreation. The very First Amendment.
  2.  You have the right to protect that life, at all costs, if necessary, up to and including the use of deadly force. The Second Amendment.
  3.  You have the right to be secure in your person against unreasonable searches, seizures, arrests or detainment. The Fourth Amendment.
  4.  You have the right to not have your own words used against you in a court of law. The Fifth Amendment.
  5.  You have the right to a fair and speedy trial and to confront those that would accuse or otherwise seek to tarnish your good name and moral character. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
  6.  You have the right to be tried in a familiar place, being judged by those people who would presumably have encountered certain equivalent life experiences, without fear of excessive bail so as to effect the otherwise unattainable release, nor to fear of, or suffer any punishment considered cruel and unusual. The Seventh and Eighth Amendments.

 The right to truly be free to do as you would choose and please so long as you do not deprive another of their rights. The right to make any and all decisions that you may see fit, at anytime and any place in the course of your life so long as you do not deprive another or their rights. The freedom to live your life and exercise your rights without fear of persecution or repercussion from any person or form of government so long as you do not deprive another of their rights. I think not only as Americans, but as humans, this is the most under stated, forgotten and abused right of them all. I can, and probably will write a whole other OP on this. Simply because it both saddens and sickens me to know that people think and/or are conditioned to believe that this is freedom.

 The Pursuit of Happiness:
Set parameters for conscious thought....
  1. Do Not Murder.
  2. Do Not Deprive Any Person of Their Rights or Property.
What does, can or will make you happy?
 You have been granted the very precious gift of life conjoined with all the freedom you could ever possibly need to attain those things or ideas that would make you happy. You are the master of your domain and you own the ground beneath your feet. Let nothing, save these few, stand before you and succeed in denying you these things or ideas. The dream that calls to you can be both real and yours, you have but only to open your heart, mind and eyes to embrace it.

 I can't think for you and I cannot tell you what every natural, inherent and inalienable right would be, because mine may be different from yours depending on the paths we choose. I can only do for you as Ron Paul has done for me-Plant The Seed of Liberty in Your Mind.

 In Liberty,
 Richard R. Camacho

No comments:

Post a Comment

Let's keep it fairly clean and civil. Calling someone a liberal-moron or a right-wing-nut does little to get your point across.