Replies

"All of our rights are inalienable in the sense that they exist"

No, inalienable means something. It's not just a catch-phrase.

Inalienable means "incapable of being surrendered (or transferred) to another".

Inalienable means "incapable of being surrendered (or transferred) to another".

And yet just a few short posts ago you claimed that the State has the power to restrict those Rights to a point that they become meaningless.

Which is it?

All of our rights are inalienable in the sense that they exist, - regardless of how they are violated by irrational 'regulations'.

As to 'regulating' rights, Justice Harlan said it best:
"[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, .
. . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."
______________________________________
But of course, speaking to 'states rightist' FReakers of rational continuums is an exercise in futility.
258

"All of our rights are inalienable in the sense that they exist, - regardless of how they are violated by irrational 'regulations'."

robertpaulsen wrote: No, inalienable means something. It's not just a catch-phrase.
Inalienable means "incapable of being surrendered (or transferred) to another".

As I said, it's futile to expect a rational response from you clowns. Belaboring the obvious definition of inalienable is a pitiful retort. Get lost.