One of the things
that always drove me crazy were those who quote the Declaration of Independence
saying ‘that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. For
years I would get all huffy over that. All through my early years I always heard ‘inalienable
rights’, not ‘unalienable’. This "change" to unalienable really irritated
me since I thought it was a modern affectation.
So what is it? Is it “inalienable”
or “unalienable as modernists have insisted on?
Well, I have found out – much to my own displeasure - that
this isn’t an act of modern revisionism.
This was an issue from the very beginning as Thomas Jefferson wrote ‘inalienable’
in early handwritten copies, and John Adams wanted ‘unalienable’. Is there a difference?
While most claim the words are interchangeable; one
writer claims that;
“There is a startling difference between
inalienable and unalienable. While Black's Law dictionary does not currently
suggest a difference between inalienable and unalienable, Black's 2nd edition
(and earlier) DID, in fact, mark a difference, way back in 1903.
Inalienable: Not subject to
alienation
Unalienable: Incapable of
being aliened
The difference has profound
implications: One "not subject" to losing their rights may eventually
be subject to a loss of rights if laws or their legal status change. But if one
is deemed INCAPABLE of losing one's rights, then there is no legal method
available for removing those rights, which any reasonable person would agree
was clearly the founders' intention.”
But the real issue
isn’t what the early handwritten copies say, or what the arguments for or
against are about; but what actually appeared in the final document signed by
those 56 immortals. It was ‘unalienable’
in the official signed document that was presented to the world. Adams
won! The final signed official document said - "unalienable". "Unalienable" is clearly visible here!
(Click to enlarge!)
No comments:
Post a Comment