An inalienable right is endowed to man by our creator and those rights may not be violated without individual due process.
Fundamental rights, on the other hand, may or may not be protected in a constitution by government (society), depending on the will of the majority of the people. The Founders were creating a federated republic -- they wanted each state to be free to set up their own constitution and their own Bills of Rights.
For those things not delegated to the FedGov. Things like the BoR that put them off limits from both. Consider the BoR in the FedCon as a "starter" set of Rights. The States are free to add things to it their own Constitutions, but they cannot "over-ride" this minimal set of protections.
>>?”If these are fundamental rights, endowed to man by our creator why would the states be allowed to violate them?”
Fundamental rights, on the other hand, may or may not be protected in a constitution by government (society), depending on the will of the majority of the people. The Founders were creating a federated republic — they wanted each state to be free to set up their own constitution and their own Bills of Rights.<<
Very interesting distinction. . I always enjoy talking to you whether we agree or not - you make me think.
Now, thinking about this... inalienable rights include life liberty and pursuit of happiness but are not limited to those, yes. And in English law and in some of John Locke’s writings some property rights are not alienable ( which I guess mean inalienable)...
Doesn’t the bill of rights restate some these inalienable rights in more detail?