"they did consider rights to be inalienable to all men."
Actually, the Founders and Framers.... didn't, because even they didn't consider rights to be absolute in all circumstances.
The inalienable rights of life, libery, and the pursuit of happiness... let's take a look at those for a moment in the framework of the Founders/Framers...
First off, the Declaration of Independence is not a document of governance in the United States. It never was intended to be, nor has it ever been.
Yet, in the Constitution, those words are conspicuously absent, and in fact under the Constitution and subsequent US Code, the Founders/Framers set about any number of ways that those "inalienable rights" can be either curtailed or eliminated.
Under law, the government has the right to limit your liberty or your life if you act in a manner abhorent to society as a whole.
Rob a store, and you have forfeited your right to liberty.
Kill someone and you very well may forfeit your right to life.
The pursuit of happiness is a phrase that is overencompassing and inexact. What if your pursuit of happiness includes robbing stores and killing people? Oh well, you're SOL.
But what if you concept of a pursuit of happiness is running a tannery in your residential neighborhood? Same concept -- rights are no absolute when activities derived from those rights are abhorent to society as a whole.
To claim that all rights are inalienable and to try to say that the Founders/Framers supported that position is to bastardize their beliefs and the legacy that they left for us.
And, you know, this one is so damned far afield that once again, it's excruciating to read.
Closed.
