Quote:
Originally posted by Captain
I took your original statement as a statement that the unalienable rights referenced in the Declaration are not spelled out in the Constitution, obviously a different statement. All we know about the Declaration's unalienable rights in the Declaration is that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness. Aren't we talking about life and liberty here?
That having been said, what did you mean - that the RWM Unalienable Rights are a subset of Constitutional Rights, overlap partially with Constitutional Rights, or are wholy separate from Constitutional Rights?
|
I just meant I wasn't taking a position because I don't think the DoI really helps address the question. The fact that the FF thought (or pretended to for purposes of pissing of Georgie) that certain rights (life, liberty, pursuit of tail, etc.) were inalienable to (rich white male) humanity, and certain similar-looking rights were listed in the Constitution (due process, religion, property), isn't that useful in determining if they would have thought those provision applied to foreigners (or property) outside of the US.
FWIW, I think the founders probably believed that some constitutional protections were inalienable human rights (or were at least in furtherance thereof), but certainly not all, and that there were inalienable human rights that were not expressly enumerated (and didn't need to be because they were, well, inalienable human rights). The conclusion that the "inalienable rights of all men" are not the same as those enshrined in the US Constitution but exist outside of it seems inescapable to me, based on both the nature of the enumerated rights (most of which are, in their specific iterations, obviously contingent and/or alienable) and the very nature of the constitutional document (the fact that it is amendable, and therefore any rights enumerated therein may be rescinded, even more than the 9th A).
So I vote "partial overlap."
