Many people do not realize that America is not a Democracy that America is in fact a Republic. So what is the difference you may be thinking to yourself? There is a huge difference. A Democracy although elected by the people, is ruled by the majority. Not unlike the government we see today in England. For example, when Tony Blair was Prime Minister; Labor was the majority, and their voice was the loudest. Another way to explain it, which may be clearer, is that a Republic is a representative form of government ruled by law, in our case the Constitution and a democracy is direct government ruled by the majority or mob rule. A Republic recognizes our individual unalienable Rights, while democracies are only concerned with group wants and/or needs (the public good). Sound familiar? A democracy is more concerned with “social justice,” the needs and desires of the many and less concerned with the needs or unalienable rights of the individual. So what do I mean by unalienable rights? What is an unalienable right?
Black’s 2nd (A.D. 1910) defines “inalienable” as:
“Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another such as rivers and public highways and certain personal rights; e.g., liberty.”
Black’s 2nd (A.D. 1910) defines “unalienable” as:
“Incapable of being aligned, that is, sold or transferred.”
Now, at first glance it appears that the two are synonymous, having the same meaning. However while the word “inalienable” is not subject to alienation, the word “unalienable” is “incapable” of being aligned! So what does that mean? It means that “unalienable, is not capable of being aliened by anyone, including the man and/or woman who hold something “unalienable.” Therefore it is impossible for any individual to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of an unalienable Right! This is the Rights our founding fathers assured us within the Declaration of Independence, when they stated quite clearly:
“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.”
As such it is impossible for you to take away one of my unalienable rights and likewise impossible for me to even voluntarily surrender, sell or transfer one of my unalienable rights. It is a right from God, and once endowed with this unalienable right, it is impossible for me or any individual to get rid of it. It would be easier for me to chop off a limb, then to give up that which is unalienable! Now, that which is “inalienable,” on the other hand, is merely “not subject to alienation.” Black’s 2nd does not declare that it is absolutely impossible for that which is “inalienable” to be sold, transferred or assigned. Instead, as I understand it, “inalienable” means that “inalienable rights” are not subject to “alienation” by others. Meaning that no one can compel me to sell, abandon, or transfer any of my “inalienable” rights. I am not subject to compelled alienation by others.
Here’s the question; am I entitled to voluntarily, sell, transfer, abandon, and/or otherwise surrender that which is “inalienable.” The answer, while it is impossible for me to abandon, or for the government to take my “unalienable rights,” it is impossible for me to voluntarily waive my “inalienable” rights. So has our present government presumed that our rights are at best “inalienable,” and since we have not expressly claimed them, we must have waived them? http://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/unalienable-vs-inalienable/
I know it may seem monotonous for me to go off on these tangents, but given the revised history being taught to our youth about our government, our founding fathers principles and vision, I want to be very clear as to the meaning of words, and as to the power they wield! One small little change, like that found on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C.; where an excerpt from the “Declaration of Independence” attributed to Jefferson that referred to our “inalienable Rights,” rather than to our “Unalienable Rights, as the “Declaration of Independence clearly states. That one seemingly minor word misquoted in 12’ high letters carved in stone, can change everything, and is cause for great concern indeed! It appears that virtue has been lacking in the country for some time now, as a virtuous individual would have brought this huge mistake to the attention of the government so that the necessary changes and correction could be made to the memorial. http://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/unalienable-vs-inalienable/
It was Benjamin Franklin, who signed the Declaration of Independence, and said of virtue; “[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” In another quote, he states, “Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness… it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for encouragement thereof.” Continental Congress 1778 http://www.free2pray.info/5founderquotes.html
By: Andrea K. Robson