Pants-of-dog wrote:Okay.
Does the constitution create land rights for the Muscogee?
If so, they should get their land back.
If not, then you have to ask yourself why it creates land rights for white guys but not Indigenous people.
So, which one?
The answer is neither. With respect to your question, the SCOTUS is unequivocally clear about your specific question regarding
unalienable Rights. On many other questions about Rights, not so much. According to court holdings:
“
By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}
“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
You can pick which synonym suits the interpretation that you think is most consistent with what I try to articulate: absolute, inherent, natural, God given, irrevocable, or
unalienable. The SCOTUS interpreted it this way:
“
Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
Their rulings (those of the SCOTUS) do not fit YOUR world view and they do not fit my understanding of what the founders and framers intended. But, where I DO AGREE with them is that it is not within their purview to secure or grant
unalienable Rights. I can only work within the parameters set by the court decisions. AND, while the SCOTUS rules one way in one case, they rule the opposite in the other making The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man even more relevant in this discussion. For example, in 1875 the SCOTUS granted to Congress "
plenary powers" to Congress over immigration. Where in the Hell is that in the Constitution? On that basis Congress created a status of human beings called "
illegal immigrants." It is an oxymoron.
Immigration is defined in legal dictionaries as: "
The entrance into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence. The correlative term emigration denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country."
https://legal-dictionary.thefreediction ... mmigrationThis definition does not cover people who enter the United States to do business with people who
willingly engage in business with them and those foreigners have NO intention on being here permanently. The application of
unconstitutional laws suggest that you must undergo some "
legal process" to enter the United States and then become a citizen in order to acquire Rights. That view is wholly inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence which declares:
"
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."
Unalienable Rights don't have squat to do with citizenship. When Jefferson penned those words to the Declaration of Independence there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States. Where you will, predictably go, is to suggest that all rights (sic) and
unalienable Rights are the same thing. They aren't. While the Constitution was created only for themselves and the Posterity of the framers, NOTHING in it suggests that no non-citizens can be deprived of their Rights. It is an evolving area of the law that The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man seeks to stabilize and define more accurately.