# US Constitution and Unalienable Rights



## PeachMonkey (Aug 6, 2004)

In an earlier thread, I managed to lead things off topic with a discussion of whether the US Constitution outlines the set of unalienable rights held by Americans:



			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> Our rights outlined in the costitution are BASIC RIGHTS - unalienable, in fact.





			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> The Declaration of Independence claimed that there are certain "unalienable" (cannot be given away, transferred, etc) rights, including Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> The US Constitution claims nothing of the sort.


 Technopunk responded:



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> It was always my opinion that the constitution was created to support the ideas set forth in the declaration of independance... Any thoughts on that?


 In general, I would agree that the founding fathers intended the Constitution to reflect the ideas set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

 However, the Constitution was a joint document built by a Continental Congress of the individual proto-states that would make up the Union, and as such, represents their negotiated will rather than a specific, point-by-point plan to embody the concepts of the Declaration.

 More specifically, as I discuss below, individual "unalienable rights" were not discussed in the original Constitution.



			
				JAGMD said:
			
		

> Actually, Peach Monkey the Constitution has a little thing called the Bill of Rights which does set forth the rights to which all U.S. citizens are entitled


 This statement embodies yet another common misconception.

 The Bill of Rights was not contained in the original US Constitution.  The First Congress of the United States responded to fears of governmental tyranny by proposing a set of twelve amendments spelling out a series of rights that could not be usurped by the government.  The first two amendements, regarding Congressional constituencies and compensation, were not ratified, but the remaining ten were, and became the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791.

 The Bill of Rights does *not* outline *all* rights to which US Citizens are entitled; the Tenth Amendment specifically states:

 "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 Thus, simply because a "right" is not listed in the Constitution does not mean it does not exist.  This amendment is the most specific discussion of the concept of "unalienable rights" in the US Constitution; until the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the concept was not found.


----------



## CB2379 (Aug 6, 2004)

Actually, you are correct and incorrect in what you stated in your statement about the development of the Bill of Rights. 

First, the Bill of Rights was not added on after the Constitution was ratified. They were already written by the Constitutional Convention of 1787. In fact, it was part of a compromise in which the Federalists and Anti-federalists came together on. The Anti-Federalists (who later became the Democratic-Republicans, or Jeffersonians) would not ratify the Constitution unless the Bill of Rights was added. 

If you look at the Constitution itself, it allows itself to be amended (Article 5), so the framers already knew that inorder for the Constitution to withstand the test of time, it would HAVE to be changed. That in-and-of itself is a perfect example of how the Constitution protects the rights of the people....it allows itself to be changed.

As we grew as a nation from 1789 - 1861, little was changed in terms of the Constitution and its amendments. The Bill of Rights was in place, which, might I add, does infact protect the rights listed in the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). But I digress, the Constitution, allowing itself to change gave further protection of individual rights as our country changed.

Case in point: April, 1865: the Civil War is over and slavery is effective ended as an official institution in this country. So, we have millions of freed slaves with no rights... When the Constitution was created in 1789, slaves were neither citizens, or considered human if you think about it, and no rights were given to them. Then during Reconstruction, in comes the 13-14-15th Amendments. The 13th ended slavery, the 14th, which is the most important, IMO, of all the amendments, gave full citizenship and equal protection to all people born in this country and the 15th gave African American men over 21 the right to vote. The 15th Amendment is not the only time in which voting rights were extended to other groups.

In 1919, women received the right to vote and in 1971, 18 yrs olds were granted voting rights. 

Most of the other Amendments 12-27 deal with government organization and term limits and so on. There are other important Amendments that have come along as well.

But your point was that the original Constitution did not protect the rights in the Declaration of Independence. I say yes, because it allowed itself to be changed, to do just what it said it would do, protect the citizens rights. Also, remember that no other democratic government has lasted as long as ours. The government allowing itself to change and mold around the changing times is the truest form of freedom. 

boy I feel like I taught a lesson for my 8th graders...and now for homework....just kidding

Chuck


----------



## PeachMonkey (Aug 6, 2004)

CB2379 said:
			
		

> Actually, you are correct and incorrect in what you stated in your statement about the development of the Bill of Rights.


 Thanks for the details you add in this post, but I am actually not disputing most of the things you point out here.



			
				CB2379 said:
			
		

> First, the Bill of Rights was not added on after the Constitution was ratified.


 Constitution ratified: 6/21/1788.
 Constitution goes into effect: 3/4/1789.
 Bill of Rights passed by Congress: 9/25/1789.
 Bill of Rights ratified: 12/15/1791.



			
				CB2379 said:
			
		

> But your point was that the original Constitution did not protect the rights in the Declaration of Independence.


 Thanks for putting words in my mouth; however, they're not the right ones.

 The only point I was making was that the Constitution did *not* originally spell out a list of unalienable rights, and that it *never* listed *all* unalienable rights that states and individuals hold.


----------



## CB2379 (Aug 6, 2004)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CB2379*
> _First, the Bill of Rights was not added on after the Constitution was ratified._
> 
> ...


I know that the Bill of Rights went into effect in 1791 and the Constitution was already the law for over 2 years, however, what you are forgetting is that the Bill of Rights were already written when the convention ended. The ratification process delayed the Bill of Rights. Again, I ask you to consider the compromise that was reached by the delegates in order to ratify the Constitution in 1788. There would simply be no Constitution if the Federalists and Anti-federalists did not reach a compromise on a bill of rights, which turned out to be the Bill of Rights. So I guess we are both right in a sense.



> The only point I was making was that the Constitution did *not* originally spell out a list of unalienable rights, and that it *never* listed *all* unalienable rights that states and individuals hold.


Preamble of the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice (*liberty*), insure domestic tranquility(*life*), provide for common defence, promote the general welfare (*happiness*) and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Also, more directed to your point, the Constitution did list the unalienable rights as written in the Declaration of Independence. There were only 3 listed in the Dec. of Ind. and they are right there. 

The genius of the Constitution is that it describes some ways to ensure these rights and allows the government to alter it to better fit the current society. If the Constitution listed certain rights then how can we now, interpret what else the framers wanted to give. By leaving it vague, it also leaves it open to interpretation, which is why the Constitution is such an amazing document. If there was a list of rights in the Constitution how can we interpret it?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 6, 2004)

No government grants natural _rights_.  A government's functionaries may choose to protect rights or they may choose to infringe on them, but your rights are yours regardless of this.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 6, 2004)

The documents actually say, "inalienable," rights, and they are described that way because, the theory goes, certain rights cannot be either given nor taken--they come, "naturally," with birth.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 6, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The documents actually say, "inalienable," rights, and they are described that way because, the theory goes, certain rights cannot be either given nor taken--they come, "naturally," with birth.


You know, Robert, that is the way I remembered the text as well. However, each of the sites I searched on the web list the text as 'unalienable' ... I was surprised.

Oddly, if these rights come 'naturally' from birth, as suggested by both Robert and Phil, the drafters of the Declaration of Independence clearly state that "governments are instituted among men" to "secure these rights", why must they be secured?

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 7, 2004)

I'd argue that it is because the Constitution--like many other basic documents--distinguishes between what is ideal and what is true here on the planet. 

Simillarly, I'd say that an often-misunderstood term is, "Creator," in these documents--I take it as a statement about the Deist god, simply an acknowledgement that you have to start someplace, rather than some assertion of this nonsense about the fundamentalist Jehovah that we so often have to sit through these days.

The problem, to me, is that folks are unwilling to think through the ideas. Similarly--in kenpo--they'd rather simultaneously express adoration for Ed Parker than really learn what he taught, and express simple rejection of his ideas and system rather than learn them.

Oh well. As has often been noted, it's a guy thing--always killing the father, again and again and again and again.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 8, 2004)

CB2379 said:
			
		

> Actually, you are correct and incorrect in what you stated in your statement about the development of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> First, the Bill of Rights was not added on after the Constitution was ratified. They were already written by the Constitutional Convention of 1787. In fact, it was part of a compromise in which the Federalists and Anti-federalists came together on. The Anti-Federalists (who later became the Democratic-Republicans, or Jeffersonians) would not ratify the Constitution unless the Bill of Rights was added.
> 
> ...


Ah Chuckster.  I just love it when you talk 'historically'!  KTster


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 8, 2004)

Robert said: The documents actually say, "inalienable," rights, and they are described that way because, the theory goes, certain rights cannot be either given nor taken--they come, "naturally," with birth.

Mr. Mike said he saw it referred to as "unalienable" in a few places on the Internet.

Thank you both.  I learned it as inalienable - and that certain rights 'come with'.  

Now, since we were granted the right to vote at age 18 (on my 18th birthday, incidentally - and Massachusetts brought the drinking age down to 18 on my 21st birthday, so who's trying to tell me something?), how come there's such a problem these days in getting out the MTV generation to vote?! KT


----------



## GAB (Aug 8, 2004)

To Kenpo Tiger:

If you are interested in finding information about the "Constitution",  the "Declaration of Independence" etc. On the web there is a very good information source at www.Wikipedia.com it will come up to the main page.

When the main page opens and finishes you will see on the left hand side of the page about 1/3 down. Search. 
You can type in what you want to search for, it will come up with other places you can go (blue highlight). 
Good spot to browse, watch out you might get addicted to it, and spend an Afternoon there before you know it.
You might want to start with the Magna Charta. Hope you enjoy it.   
Regards, Gary


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 8, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Robert said: The documents actually say, "inalienable," rights, and they are described that way because, the theory goes, certain rights cannot be either given nor taken--they come, "naturally," with birth.
> 
> Mr. Mike said he saw it referred to as "unalienable" in a few places on the Internet.



Just to clarify, you meant Michael Edwards correct? 

I don't think I've had the pleasure to be in this thread yet....'till now


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 8, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Just to clarify, you meant Michael Edwards correct?
> 
> I don't think I've had the pleasure to be in this thread yet....'till now


Hard to believe someone could confuse you and I, eh?


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 8, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Now, since we were granted the right to vote at age 18 (on my 18th birthday, incidentally - and Massachusetts brought the drinking age down to 18 on my 21st birthday, so who's trying to tell me something?), how come there's such a problem these days in getting out the MTV generation to vote?! KT


For the same reason that 50% of the electorate doesn't participate .. apathy. They feel there is no benefit to investing that 3 mintues behind the voting booth curtin.

One of the reasons the privlege of voting was extended downward to those 18, 19 & 20 is because those were the young men being drafted to go fight in Southeast Asia. As Sgt. Hulka said, "Ain't no draft no more." Maybe its time we kick that voting age back up to 21. That would be a sure way to increase the MTV Crowd, don'tcha think?

M


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 8, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Just to clarify, you meant Michael Edwards correct?
> 
> I don't think I've had the pleasure to be in this thread yet....'till now


Oops.  Mr. Mike is also a kenpo brother of mine.  You're in good company! KT


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 8, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> For the same reason that 50% of the electorate doesn't participate .. apathy. They feel there is no benefit to investing that 3 mintues behind the voting booth curtin.
> 
> One of the reasons the privlege of voting was extended downward to those 18, 19 & 20 is because those were the young men being drafted to go fight in Southeast Asia. As Sgt. Hulka said, "Ain't no draft no more." Maybe its time we kick that voting age back up to 21. That would be a sure way to increase the MTV Crowd, don'tcha think?
> 
> M


I don't know.  There's something 'fishy' about you...  just a momentary lapse.  Please see my reply to Mr. Mike, _supra_.

I don't know about your theory re:  moving voting age back up to 21.  Aren't there still young men (18, 19 and 20) going to fight still -- just not in SE Asia?  I've noticed an uptick in the number of ads on MTV, FUSE, and some of the other music channels (mother of punk bass player here) encouraging kids to 'rock the vote'.  It'll be interesting to see if that works as a carrot for them.  Maybe get them to hand out voter registration forms at the gate for Warped Tour - if they don't already do that.

Seems to me that, if my right to fight and die for my country is there for me to choose, I should have some say in who's telling me where to go and fight. Just a thought guys.  KT


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 9, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> I don't know. There's something 'fishy' about you... just a momentary lapse. Please see my reply to Mr. Mike, _supra_.
> 
> I don't know about your theory re: moving voting age back up to 21. Aren't there still young men (18, 19 and 20) going to fight still -- just not in SE Asia? I've noticed an uptick in the number of ads on MTV, FUSE, and some of the other music channels (mother of punk bass player here) encouraging kids to 'rock the vote'. It'll be interesting to see if that works as a carrot for them. Maybe get them to hand out voter registration forms at the gate for Warped Tour - if they don't already do that.
> 
> Seems to me that, if my right to fight and die for my country is there for me to choose, I should have some say in who's telling me where to go and fight. Just a thought guys. KT


Sorry, for the confusion. I was being sarcastic. 
Anything to encourage more people to vote is good (even if they vote for GW - Ouch that hurts). However, the difference between now, and 1971, is the 18, 19, & 20 year olds going to fight is that they volunteered. In 1973, the conscription of citizens into military service ended in the United States. I believe there is a difference between volunteering for the armed services is quite a different thing from being drafted, especially if there are ongoing hostilities.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 9, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Sorry, for the confusion. I was being sarcastic.
> Anything to encourage more people to vote is good (even if they vote for GW - Ouch that hurts). However, the difference between now, and 1971, is the 18, 19, & 20 year olds going to fight is that they volunteered. In 1973, the conscription of citizens into military service ended in the United States. I believe there is a difference between volunteering for the armed services is quite a different thing from being drafted, especially if there are ongoing hostilities.


Of course there's a difference.  However, with the military presenting an attractive incentive for serving (i.e., paying for your education) in an economy which might otherwise prevent someone from getting a higher education, I think that young people need to have a say in who they are serving -- even if they are paying the bills.  A friend's son is an Army Reserve Captain and was sent to Iraq about six months ago.  He's mid-way through law school, on the Army's dime (does anyone say that anymore?), and had to go - obviously - but he went proudly because he is serving his country.  Two days in he was wounded in a mortar attack and is in hospital right now because he can't walk.  He insisted on staying where he is, with his men.  Oh - he's all of 24.  One hell of a way to fulfill an obligation.  KT


----------

