"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Dee:

HELLO!

You are quite correct (and unalienable is used.) I am guilty of
"clumping" all of these together, including the amendments also ... I am
guilty of being "pro-for-the-people" and quite lax about maintaining
confines when it comes to their rights.

Warmest regards,
JS

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. ..

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
"Slow Code" wrote in message
...

The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society
with
crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this
keeps
society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its'
citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type
of
crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape,
etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue
is
the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with
unalienable rights by
his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees
that any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones
rights to the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those
resources granted us by our creator.


That is in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.

Dee, N8UZE



Still it is an important distinction that it is in the Declaration of
Independence but not in the Constitution. And is it important to understand
the differences in their purposes.

The Declaration was designed to explain to the world why the colonies wished
to separate themselves from England. It was intended to elicit sympathy and
support from the enemies of England and to convince England's allies to stay
out of it. The majestic rhetoric of "unalienable rights" and "life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were geared towards those goals.

On the other hand, the Constitution was designed to define how we were
actually going to govern ourselves. The rhetoric of the Declaration is
inappropriate

Let us take liberty as a very simple example. If that were included in the
Constitution as an "unalienable" right, we wouldn't be able to lock up
serial killers.

Let's also take that "pursuit of happiness" in terms of radio spectrum
resources. If each of us could operate whenever, where ever, and however we
pleased because we had the right to pursue happiness, it would be utter
chaos and very few would actually be happy. In the early days of radio,
that very situation existed and it caused problems and thus was born the
predecessor to the FCC.

In every group or society, some type of structure is necessary to enable the
group or society to survive and thrive. This means that there are rules and
regulations in almost everything we do affecting our daily lives. That by
its very nature limits people's rights.

Dee, N8UZE