>>?”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?
Interesting observation. Yes they do. That happens to be the way the U.S. Supreme Court has been incorporating some of them through the 14th amendment and making them applicable to the states.
The 14th amendment says: "... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. So, if some right in the Bill of Rights is found to be a component of life, liberty, or property, then the state must protect that right, also.
As an example of this, the first amendment incorporation decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Gitlow v. People of State of New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925):
"For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press -- which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress -- are among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States."
Now, by saying that freedom of the press, for example, is a fundamental right, this means that no government in the United States can abridge the press, even the foreign press (more on this below).
The U.S. Supreme Court may decide that the RKBA is indeed an individual right. But will they find that it's a fundamental right (meaning every person -- foreign visitor, illegal, children, the insane, felons, etc.)?
Yes, we can "reasonably regulate" fundamental rights (though some posters say that shouldn't be allowed -- "What part of 'infringed' don't ...), but the law would have to pass the "strict scrutiny" test, not simply "rational basis". Under that new standard, I think foreign visitors can make an excellent case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court why their fundamental RKBA should be protected!