Sunday, June 23, 2013

How the Declaration of Independence got Hijacked

Susan Boskey
Activist Post

This July 4th Americans celebrate their 237th Independence Day. The Declaration of Independence, signed during the midst of the American Revolution in 1776, was not just a statement of grievances against the British monarchy but also a declaration of freedom from it, citing unalienable rights of self-governance. I said un-alienable, not in-alienable rights. Most believe there is no real difference between the two words. But not so fast. When unalienable was replaced with inalienable it diminished the original intention of personal rights; among which are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The Declaration of Independence begins with the reason for the colonists’ separation from the Monarchy; a separation stated to be entitled by “the Laws of Nature and nature’s God.” (Capitalization and lack of capitalization is original.) It continues:
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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed , that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…
In spite of the fact at the time of the Declaration unalienable rights were considered to be for white men only, the word, unalienable, refers to rights inherent to all humans, no matter gender or race. I find it interesting how the word unalienable is rarely used anymore and that modern versions of the Declaration now use the word inalienable. Even President Obama uses the word inalienable. What’s up with that?

Pay close attention to the difference between the definitions of unalienable and inalienable. They are subtle but very important.

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856) defines unalienable:
Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce, as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable in consequence of particular provisions of the law forbidding their sale or transfer; as, pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.

Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1910) defines unalienable:
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.
William Blackstone, 18th century Common Law English jurist, judge defined unalienable in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1:93.
Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.
("[T]he Due Process Clause protects the unalienable liberty recognized in the Declaration of Independence rather than the particular rights or privileges conferred by specific laws or regulations." SANDIN v. CONNER, _ U.S. _(1995))

Essentially, unalienable rights are inherent to being human and exist forever outside of the world of commerce; they cannot be bought, sold or transferred…ever.

Now here is, inalienable.

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856) defines inalienable:
A word denoting the condition of those things the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are inalienable. There are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty or of speech.
Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Edition (1910) defines inalienable:
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. (emphasis mine)
[Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97, 101, 1952] In this decision, the Missouri Court of Appeals defined inalienable rights as those rights incapable of being surrendered or transferred; at least without one's consent. (emphasis mine)

U.S. Legal.com 2013 defines inalienable:
Inalienable right refers to rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else, especially a natural right such as the right to own property. However, these rights can be transferred with the consent of the person possessing those rights. (emphasis mine)
According to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856), the meaning of inalienable starts out much the same as unalienable; but it morphs over time starting with the 1910 definition. Inalienable has evolved to mean rights that can be transferred with the consent of the person having them. If someone consents to transfer their rights, those rights can no longer be considered un-alienable, impossible to transfer, inherent human rights. They become rights “in commerce.”

Maybe you are scratching your head and still saying, so what? Here’s the deal. Inalienable rights (as currently defined) are transferable by one’s consent via contract, which includes the concept “social contract.”

Social contract theory originated with the political philosophy of Plato, was popularized by Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century, and then embedded deep into the concept of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Government in 1787.

What is it? A social contract is defined as a voluntary agreement people make with their government for mutual benefit. But actually, it is a tacit agreement mostly given unknowingly by the people; the belief being the state only exists to serve the will of the people and therefore the people must give up some rights to assure government can provide them safety and order.

In conclusion, the social contract Americans unwittingly made at the time of the U.S. Constitution has been breached by the undermining of unalienable rights with inalienable rights. Originally considered one’s private property, unalienable rights including all physical property, one’s labor and even privacy (part of liberty) have been unlawfully transferred in commerce to the government via laws, regulation and taxation.

The Declaration of Independence refers to this potential loss of un-alienable rights when it states:
…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…
The time has come for Declaration 2.0.

Susan Boskey, freelance researcher and writer, is author of the book, The Quality Life Plan®: 7 Steps to Uncommon Financial Security www.AlternativeFinancialNow.com and more recently helped bring to market the book, Beyond the National Myth: waking up in the land of the free www.nationalmyth.org


BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW


BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I often wonder what it would have been like to live my life around the time of Thomas Jefferson's presidency. To actually have freedom to live my life in pursuit of my happiness.

Anonymous said...

An excellent article that points to the subtle ways these damned liars are using for future use against us. .

Hide Behind said...

Hense the beginning of the welfare state by the masses acceptance of special interest benefits in exchange for their R
ights of (un) you now have (in) alienable......... priveleges.
The term "Joe Six Pack" is a roundabout slam put down upon a very large portion of american society; It emotes an uncultured and unsophisticated mindset in comparison to say a college educated who understands the higher forms of culture and knows the different nuances of describing fine wines and higher social graces, as if theu the cultured ones are the deciders of the masses liberty; ELITISM on the sly.
Contrary to popular belief life in Early US in major citys and especially so in smaller tows was damned oppressive.
The unlanded even if a highly paid and we'll educated Educator had no say in running or voting upon issues and the power of Religious organizations was responsible for driving hundreds of thousands out of those early states.
FREEDOM along the new worlds coastline, Especially within the Northern New England ( A name that befits every original State today) died when the Constitution came into effect.
Very restrictive laws in every state, including Jeffersons home, sprung into being to protect the landed gentry and chuch priveleges from the very masses they haf used yo gain their "Freedom" with.
The shopkeepers and merchants became minor Lords and paid for the best pews in the two major protestant vhurches who verbally battlef it out in state legislative bodies.
The many small villages even unto today are very often controllled mind and economy by small old entrenched family bigotry ideals of elites over the commons and yhe Joe Six pact they peddle their goods to or pay for their services.
Freedom was only possible gor Joe apple cider and corn liquor guzzlers because there was such a huge land that they could go into and at least for a while live in those freedoms.
THE DUMB as a rock rednecks that got left behind, hmmm bibical pun?, do not know that almost all those beyond the border settlements more likely resembled a Communal,need I say Socialist organized society than their damned store front banking and industry places they lived withinThere should be no proud boasting of English law as our founding for in truthour early villages resembled more the scotch Irish and Germanic Confederation than some damned english royal and financial blood priveledge groupings.
The history before of Irland (Eiru of today) Wales d Scotland was against the English assimilation of serfdom and they fled to the vastnessof new world.
WE HAVE NO PLACE LEFT TO FLEE
AND NOW IS THE TIME WE DECIDE TO FIGHT OR SURRENDER.
I recommend abject surrender so I can get a six pack or maybe a couple cases of Beer some good winaes and fine BbQ food with good friends at peace with each other.Damned tired of your souless whinig!

usurykills said...

Redefining our language and beliefs is what the NWO does.

Note how the Declaration is ignored in law...

Note the removal of the word usury from our lexicon. Usury is really any form of cheating.

tmoney777 said...

Wow, I am excited someone is ACTUALLY even writing about this stuff, this is the key to almost ALL problems, like the spying fiasco... just notice how much the word 'person' is used and who OWNS the person... and why the spying will be deemed legal... good job guys, keep posting on this!

http://bcfreedom.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/power-profit-privacy-part-2/

Anonymous said...

There is already a legal 'opt out'. It is the renunciation of US Citizenship and the repatriation of your State Nationality, which was usurped via the illegally ratified 14th Amendment. It is an arduous process, but those who have accomplished it legally pay no federal income tax, for example. Learn more at pacalliance.us.

Unknown said...

After July 4th 1776 the independence of the United States of America from Great Britain and its king was accomplished. After the exhausting fight was over and while structuring the new country was in process came a man name Alexander Hamilton, who served as the first secretary of the treasury and helped place the finances and credit of the new government on a sound footing. He became President Washington’s most influential adviser and engaged in a series of bitter quarrels with Thomas Jefferson over foreign policy, the scope of presidential power, and the direction of the American economy. Washington generally sided with Hamilton in these disputes, and Jefferson eventually left the Cabinet, convinced that Hamilton was a pernicious influence on the President.
Few people understand that Alexander Hamilton was an actual agent of The Rothschild family. Even fewer people know, or understand, that Hamilton married in to the Rothschild family, and therefore more than an agent he is actual family himself.
Today we have a more sophisticated version of yesterday’s central banking system, known as the Federal Reserve Bank. Thanks to the handiwork of subversion of Alexander Hamilton and the US Constitution, Americans are economic slaves to the Rothschild family. Happy July fools... oh I mean forth.

Anonymous said...

You are all so full of shit. You have never even read those 110 words that define our republic but have consistently let others read it for you. Lazy bastards all of you! White men only? Put your finger on the line that says that. Dam fool! Consent as used is a thing - not an action or verb but that seed of wisdom will not find fertile soil in your pathetic rotten minds.

Anonymous said...

So why do We need a government, if our rights are given us by God? And notice how the government We gave ourselves over to only has the power that We give (consent to) it. It says, Let me screw you and, if you don't like it, tell me to stop, and I promise I will. Hmmmm, where have I heard that line before?

Anonymous said...

All men created equal with unalienable rights? How can that mean ANY OTHER THING that a permanent duty or obligation falling on all that are created equal? Otherwise the self evident truths are false and we are not created equal. Use your head. Like the right that comes from the Creator so does the obligation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to your fellow man. That is what makes our country special. Not "We The People". Before the constitution was our Declaration that established free and independent states. Do not be misled. When a man says only whites he is also saying he was created above without duty to non-whites. It is so plain yet you are all blind. The right is permanent and so is the duty because we are created equal. The word "the" is a definite article in grammar and a person, place or thing must follow. "The consent" means you must hold the right first before you can consent the verb. No man holds the right to call a non-white sub human so such rule or law is simply without the consent. It is impossible for you to consent because you do not hold the right to do so. You violate your duty and thereby place your right in jeopardy. You are all brainwashed and have not pumped a clean and decent thought through your brain since 3rd grade multiplication tables.

Bruce said...

Thanks, Susan. Succinct and clear. One quibble - the "social contract" of The Constitution for the United States of America was essentially dead-at-birth. The "framers" never actually entered into the "contract" themselves; the 37 who put their signatures on the document only signed as WITNESSES (the words "In Witness" are actually written in huge letters to highlight this distinction. Then, the white, male property owners in the State legislatures created ratification conventions of small numbers of white, male property owners who, in some states, barely voted to ratify by simple majorities. Beyond that, everyone involved in creating and accepting this document (for whom?) has been dead 150 years. Some contract.

Anonymous said...

No thanks Susan and her Toadies. Too bad you agree that some men are indeed born with saddles on their backs and others born booted and spurred ready to ride people back into dust. Happy, happy is the maladroit who serves their booted masters and gleefully pipe in foggy explanations in sense agreeably only to the moth at the fires edge.

Post a Comment