50 online
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 12 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
OpEdNews Op Eds   

Whats In A Word? Does it Matter?

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)   No comments
INalienable or UNalienable?

Does it matter?

I suggest that understanding the difference makes all the difference.

The context of language at any point in history is of primary importance when trying to understand the ramification of a word.

There was a debate about the two words, as originally written by Jefferson, who at first used the word inalienable to describe the rights that naturally flow from a humans' mere existence. His choice was based on his personal beliefs, which while not atheistic, precluded a belief in a personal creator from whom natural rights flowed. Today he'd be called agnostic. Some would argue that Jefferson original word should be used, but that is sophistry, and a moot point, the truth is the word unalienable was a definite choice that was ratified unanimously at the time and not subject to revision without a Constitutional amendment.

The fact is that, Jefferson and John Adams both understood that there is a distinct difference between what Jefferson was saying and the intent of the Declaration of Independence. INalienable rights come from the government and pertain to civil rights. UNalienable rights come from a higher source of life that cannot be given or taken away. To be clear Adams viewpoint won the day and UNalienable was used and unanimously adopted by the Framers.

Why is that important? It establishes intent. It tells us that the framers looked at every word that went into the Declaration and the meaning of every word held significant ramifications (consequences) and carried great weight.

They did not say anything they did not intend and they were precise to a fault. That is why its important--they were writing this document for us, their progeny.

As understood by the framers at that time.

INalienable is a right that can be given or taken away it can be bought or sold, in those times, it literally meant, property that could be placed in (a) lien (offered as security). It was transitory. It was the argument used by pro slavery advocates, to buy and sell African-Americans, who were considered property, sub-human, a class apart from the protection, set forth in the Declaration and therefore not subject to the Human Rights.

UNalienable is a right that cannot be taken away. It was a right that was and is un (a) lien able (it was fixed and unassailable). It was irrevocable, never to be taken away.

Given the fact that this Declaration was a condemnation of the monarchy's right to grant or not grant rights to his subjects the framers wanted to make sure that it was crystal clear that they rejected that presumption outright and choose UNalienable to ensure that distinction.

Today we act as though the two words are synonymous but within the context of history these two words had significant and different ramifications. To be sure there is a deliberate attempt by the far right to obscure the difference, which makes it even more important to preserve the Declaration as it was written.

UNalienable rights refers to individual human rights that cannot be abridged.

Human rights are universal rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction or other localizing factors, such as ethnicity, nationality, and sex--that by their nature cannot be taken away, violated, or transferred from one person to another. They are considered more fundamental than INalienable rights, such as rights in a specific piece of property.

The debate over Prop 8 is about that very distinction.

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings

Michael Weber Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

I am a child of the WWII era. I have always considered myself a patriot, even when I have passionately disagreed with the policies of the government. My view is that disagreeing with the current caretakers, during any administration, is not only our (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Mitch McConnell: Mouth from the South

Is America A Terrorist Nation?

Fascism on the Rise in America - Democracy Dying?

Time For Bloody Revolution: What Jefferson Didn't Say.

The Chilling Effect Of Torture On The Constitution

The Rise and Fall of the American Republic

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend