Well, firstly the Constitution references unalienable rights, not inalienable. Secondly there are only three rights which are considered unalienable according to the Constitution; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The idea of unalienable rights is such that they’re not given to us by law–they’re given to us by God and cannot be taken away. Therefore any person, be they US Citizen or not, if they’re in this country they’re also protected by these rights. So detaining someone specifically because they don’t have the right paperwork can be interpreted as denying someone their unalienable right to liberty. There are dozens of examples you can come up with, and not everyone will agree with them and that’s pretty much the point.
The founding fathers specifically chose verbiage which was as broad as possible to limit the power of the Government and ensure that as long as you could make a convicting argument for it, then you could claim that just about anything is an infringement against your rights, which starts a discourse, and leads to new laws to either protect or curtail certain things.
The unalienable rights you are talking about are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Declaration isn’t technically considered law either.
Well, firstly the Constitution references unalienable rights, not inalienable. Secondly there are only three rights which are considered unalienable according to the Constitution; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The idea of unalienable rights is such that they’re not given to us by law–they’re given to us by God and cannot be taken away. Therefore any person, be they US Citizen or not, if they’re in this country they’re also protected by these rights. So detaining someone specifically because they don’t have the right paperwork can be interpreted as denying someone their unalienable right to liberty. There are dozens of examples you can come up with, and not everyone will agree with them and that’s pretty much the point.
The founding fathers specifically chose verbiage which was as broad as possible to limit the power of the Government and ensure that as long as you could make a convicting argument for it, then you could claim that just about anything is an infringement against your rights, which starts a discourse, and leads to new laws to either protect or curtail certain things.
The unalienable rights you are talking about are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Declaration isn’t technically considered law either.