Perhaps–but consider this.  As a citizen, at birth, you are given the right to vote, but it is conditionalin the sense that if you are convicted of a felony or treason the government may take away this right.I would argue that the "right" is dependent on your behavior and in that sense is conditional--do you not agree?  It is the same for life, liberty and happiness--all dependent upon what the state considersappropriate deportment.  The state can take all of these away under certain conditions so one couldmake the argument that these are not in fact inalienable, but conditional--do you not agree?

Perhaps--but consider this.  As a citizen, at birth, you are given the right to vote, but it is conditionalin the sense that if you are convicted of a felony or treason the government may take away this right.I would argue that the "right" is dependent on your behavior and in that sense is conditional--do you not agree?  It is the same for life, liberty and happiness--all dependent upon what the state considersappropriate deportment.  The state can take all of these away under certain conditions so one couldmake the argument that these are not in fact inalienable, but conditional--do you not agree?The state may block access to the voting booth, it might incarcerate a person, it might deny access to arms, but the power to deny does not mean the power to take rights or coerce someone to abdicate said rights.  The government can only take what I allow them to take with my consent if it is something I alone truly possess...which is my life, my liberty, and my inalienable rights.  The government can't take away any of these things legally without my consent.  The Constitution is the legal document from which I gave my consent to the government to act against me in the case where I fail to live up to my end of the social contract.  The government can do many things out of its excessive might, but might doesn't make right.  If I enter into a court of law, I consent to the verdict made by the courts.  The courts serve to mete justice, and if my actions harm others, then I have already given consent to the courts to act by my social contract under the Constitution and the powers of the court system found therein.  In other words, the government has no power that I and everyone else did not create for it.  If the government violates its part of the social contract, I have the right, the power, and the duty to dissolve it and recreate a more perfect government to replace it.inalienable is easily defined as something that cannot be taken from you or given by you by or to anything or anyone.  In a a de facto sense a convicted felon is debarred from the voting booth eventhough in a de jure sense you might claim he has the "inalienable" right to vote.  What nonsense is this.  The convict cannot vote, gave no consent to the government to prevent his voting and in fact, to make it really gnarly--let us assume for arguments sake that he is, in fact, innocent of the crimes for which he was imprisoned.  He did not enter the court of law; he was dragged in with fetters.  If hewas never a government office holder, in the military, a natural born citizen or an elected official of some sort, he never had to swear to abide by the laws of the Constitution.  He consented to noauthority over him and given the same set of circumstances either did you.  Neither of you signed or agreed to any Social Contract and few people would agree with you.  I understand exactly what you mean, but in practice the words ring loudly in an empty chamber. Nobody gave you a chit saying thatyou possessed inalienable rights and a number to call if you believed that someone or something wastrying to alienate them.If you believe that the courts primary purpose is to mete out justice, your education is not quite complete, but we can leave that for another time.Today we can try to agree that your precious "rights" are in fact balanced on a precarious precipiceand so long as you are a good sheep, a loyal sheep, a non-threatening and quiescent sheep, you mayeat, sleep, excrete, produce and replicate whilst basking in the comfortable glow that comes with knowing that you have "rights".Real or perceived illegal actions on your part or actions of the government can turn a halcyon day into a nightmare where your "rights" are, in a de facto sense, ephemeral at best.At this point I was going to list the top 10 cases where "inalienable" rights of US Citizens were abrogated, but you already know them so I shall save energy and electrons and sign off as it is time to dine.As always:A pleasure.

I knew that all those hours studying attic Greek would come in handy.  They will not come for youunless you are selling auto-sears to the local youths or have a few RPG's hidden under the floor.  Ifthey come they will come in force with weapons vastly superior to ours and with an endless numberof young men inculcated with the idea that following orders and eliminating enemies (sic) of thegovernment is a patriotic and honorable thing to do.Here is a plausible vision of the future--not here yet.

Quote from: willyD on Yesterday at 02:22:33 PMPerhaps--but consider this.  As a citizen, at birth, you are given the right to vote, but it is conditionalin the sense that if you are convicted of a felony or treason the government may take away this right.Voting isn't the right; the opportunity to vote is the right. The act itself is a civic responsibility (we are not compelled by law to vote)... the only condition is that we follow the laws (and have not abrogated our opportunity by breacking the law) and are insured the equality of our position to other legitimate voters (old enough, resident of district, correctly registered etc.)QuoteI would argue that the "right" is dependent on your behavior and in that sense is conditional--do you not agree?  It is the same for life, liberty and happiness--all dependent upon what the state considersappropriate deportment.Word games perhaps? Limiting the rights of certain individuals is one method of assuring the rights of the majority. Dead people in Chicago voting in a Presidential election compromises the weight of my one and eqaul vote. As far as life, liberty and happiness... it is l, l and the pursuit of happiness... but all within societal norms... no guaranteesQuoteThe state can take all of these away under certain conditions so one could make the argument that these are not in fact inalienable, but conditional--do you not agree?In a word, no. One of the duties of a citizen is to follow the laws; break the law and you abrogate the right.Earlier I had a rather involved comment on this extension of the thread and lost it... this will have to do, as my patience is wearing thin. At some point I will reconstruct the lesson that I used for this topic aI have checked and checked again and nowhere in the Constitution is the word "vote" used.  It does say that our leaders will be elected by the "People", but fails to define just who those people might be; that is left up to the states in the carefully crafted compromise that was forged. It also does not set any limitations on the franchise for those who break the law as that too is a concern for the states.  Amendments to the original document did address some of these questions, but I find nothing in the whole document that would suggest that voting is not the  right, but an opportunity to vote is.Now I know that you know more of this than I do so please excuse my swimming in a semantical sea,but I am confused and cannot help but feel that either you are wrong or I am more obtuse than mywife believes.Since the state sets the rules for voting it has always been a game to limit access to the voting boothas a means of excluding your opponents or to maintain the status quo if your party us in power.  Intheory a state could have given the right (note word given) to vote to women as far back as 1790.States could and did place restrictions on the franchise using property, taxes, residence and race andliteracy testsas methods of exclusion in various places at various times.  In Texas I am told that people on probation could not vote at one time!  In theory a state could  have exclude whole categories ofpeople--swarthy people, people who could not use the subjunctive mood correctly or confused the present with the past participle in everyday speech.Agreed--the Constitution does not guarantee you happiness, but it does set suggest that you have a right to your life and your liberty if you are a law abiding sheep.  So let me set you a problem.You are a law abiding citizen and the Dredd Scot decision has just been handed down.  You are nowobligated to assist slave catchers in pursuit of "property" that ran off to seek his "inalienable"liberty.  As I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, if you fail to assist or impede these doughty chasers, you can be charged with a crime and, if convicted, be jailed and perhaps lose your "right" to vote.  Am I correct here?  What would you do--be a good sheep?The point is a good citizen is bound to obey the laws--even Presidents or Marine Colonels are supposed to do so.  But what if the law is a bad law, wrong morally to the point that you cannot accept it.  So I will end this by setting you another problem.  Imagine that you are a Customs  officer stationed on the Canadian border at Niagara Falls, New York.  One evening a young man crosses the border from Canada and one of your subordinates finds a marijuana cigarette in his sock.  Let us make this hard--it is 1969 and President Nixon has declared an all out war on drugs.You question the young man and find that he has just finished law school in Michigan and is on his way home to Long Island where he is scheduled to take the bar exam. Now at that time in New Yorkthe rule was that Federal prosecution would be declined, but state prosecution would be initiated andthe young man would be charged with a felony--this is true--look it up.  If convicted, and it is probable that he would be as government officials at that time were still believed to be telling the truth, he would never be able to practice law and his career would be aborted.  You are the Supervisor and you have a choice.  Arrest him, turn him over to the locals and smash another druguser in the drug war--OR--write up the encounter stating that the evidence was destroyed in testingmeaning there can be no prosecution, no conviction and no record.  What would you do?  Obey the law or see that right was done?  Remember, if you choose the latter you become a law breaker!Thank you for your time--I am looking forward to your answer--happy Sunday.

Wally–thank you for your comments–I will forego being petty and end the thread here also.  Asfellow law breakers we must stand together.

Wally posted a response–he did not answer the moral question of whether we should blindly follow–sheep like–a law that we know to be unjust–he sidestepped–albeit adroitly.Nor did he refute the proposition that there is nothing "inalienable" about our right to vote.  If you are locked up in a prison, you may believe you have a right to vote, but do not--the right has been taken away--perhaps forever.  I see nothing in the Constitution which lists reasons to deny the vote as the word itself is not found in the original document.  It is up to the states to set the rules and a test forcivic knowledge seems reasonable to me.