Knapsack: 'Unalienable' is a peculiar word with some specific import
With a little over a year to the big celebration of our 250th anniversary of American independence (see America250-Ohio.org for more info!), I asked you to think with me about the specific wording and intentions of that founding document for our lives in the United States today.
Officially speaking, the final version of our Declaration of Independence says: '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.'
There's a funny, and even mildly controversial word in there: unalienable. It's not one we use much in everyday speech. You could say, 'Hey, that hot dog is unalienable from my plate!' but it might not stop someone from swiping it.
As for unalienable, the early drafts of the Declaration as Thomas Jefferson wrote it, called our rights 'inalienable.' If you visit the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, the letters on the wall inside say 'inalienable.' In fact, Carl Becker, a legal scholar and historian pointed out in 1922: 'The Rough Draft reads '[inherent &] inalienable.'
Knapsack: Preparing for the 2026 celebration of our nation's founding warrants reflection
Jefferson's draft earlier didn't say 'self-evident,' either: he said 'We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable,' and went on to assert 'that all men are created equal & independant.' In other words, the Continental Congress had a say in the final version.
We don't know when or how that Congress changed 'inalienable' to 'unalienable'; but it appears in the official Congressional Journal and in the parchment copy. That's how John Adams wrote it in his notes: 'unalienable.' It might well have been his idea.
Either way, so what? Most dictionaries make it clear it's a question of style; either word means the same thing. Something that's inalienable or unalienable is that which cannot be taken away.
Obviously, there's a tension here in that life or liberty, let alone pursuing happiness, can be taken away. It's been known to happen. Jefferson's argument, and the final form adopted by the Second Continental Congress, is that government cannot casually or justly take away life, restrict liberty or restrain the pursuit of happiness. These rights pre-exist the government, and do not derive from the state or civic order itself: they are always 'deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'
Knapsack: A few recurring thoughts about education
Which is where I find 'unalienable' interesting, and a source of our understanding of civil rights which comes to fuller flower in the Bill of Rights, some 15 years later.
Because when a 'Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.' That's the unalienable-ness of our rights as Americans. Sure, government can take or try to take certain rights: people do get pulled over in traffic, stopped for cause, arrested under warrant. Various forms of speech and communication can be limited under a variety of tests and with the strict scrutiny of a court's review.
But the rights come first, not the government, and if the government is abusive or neglectful of protecting our self-evident (even sacred and undeniable) rights, the consent of the governed comes into play. Ideally, through elections, and the electoral activity that takes place in between, up to and including recall, or even impeachment.
Meanwhile, our rights still exist, and are in an existential sense, unalienable.
Or inalienable, if you prefer.
Jeff Gill is a writer, storyteller and preacher in central Ohio; he likes to stop and ask questions about obvious things. That's his right, isn't it? Interrogate his questions at knapsack77@gmail.com, or follow @Knapsack77 on Threads or Bluesky.
This article originally appeared on Newark Advocate: Knapsack: Our rights are 'unalienable,' but what does that mean?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
22 minutes ago
- UPI
Israeli hostage remains recovered, Netanyahu confirms
People react as they gather to watch a live stream reporting on the release of Israeli-American soldier hostage Edan Alexander, in hostages square outside the Kirya military base in Tel Aviv, Israel, in May. File photo Abir Sultan/EPA-EFE June 22 (UPI) -- The bodies of three Israeli hostages have been recovered from the Gaza Strip, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said. Yonatan Samrano, Ofra Keidar and Staff Sgt. Shai Levinson's remains were retrieved Saturday as part of a military operation. Keidar, 71, was killed at a kibbutz and her remains were taken into Gaza. Levinson, who engaged in the Oct. 7th attack, was 19 at the time of this death, according to the IDF. Samerano's remains were discovered by the Israeli army. "I thank our commanders and fighters for a successful operation, for their determination and courage," Netanyahu said following the return of the remains. The Israel Defense Forces has recovered a total of eight bodies from Gaza this month as the latest battle between the two adversaries ignited on Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas launched a cross-border attack on Israel, killing more than 1,200 people and taking 251 others hostage. The return of the hostage remains comes amid a U.S. attack on three Iranian nuclear facilities Sunday, which bolsters Israel's efforts to cripple Iran's nuclear ambitions. Israel has recently started its own attacks on Iran. "The campaign to return the abductees continues continuously and is taking place in parallel with the campaign against Iran," Netanyahu continued. "We will not rest until we return all our abductees home -- both the living and the dead." The IDF did not say where the remains were recovered.
Newsweek
25 minutes ago
- Newsweek
War Powers Act Explained as Thomas Massie, Ro Khanna Push House Resolution
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A bipartisan group of House lawmakers, led by Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California introduced a War Powers Resolution Tuesday, just days before President Donald Trump authorized a military strike on three key nuclear facilities in Iran. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted to limit the president's ability to commit U.S. armed forces to hostilities abroad without Congressional consent. The current legislative push invokes the act's provisions and highlights persistent congressional frustration over what many see as executive overreach in the deployment of military force. Khanna called for Congress to return to Washington, D.C., to vote on the measure, which he said Sunday had up to 50 co-sponsors across both parties. Why It Matters The House resolution spotlights a critical debate over constitutional war powers at a moment when U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts risks escalation. Lawmakers are seeking to reinforce Congress's authority to declare war amid rising tensions between Iran and Israel and amid U.S. military actions that, according to critics, may exceed presidential powers. The House initiative mirrors concurrent moves in the Senate, where Democratic Virginia Senator Tim Kaine and others have advanced parallel resolutions to restrict executive military action in Iran without legislative consent. This legislative surge reflects mounting concerns about the scope and legality of recent U.S. military activity abroad. United States Capitol Building, Washington DC, October 27, 2024. United States Capitol Building, Washington DC, October 27, 2024. Getty What To Know Massie introduced the War Powers Resolution on Tuesday, emphasizing that the U.S. Constitution vests the power to declare war with Congress, not the President. Massie invited participation from lawmakers across the aisle, underscoring bipartisan concern about unauthorized military actions, Newsweek previously reported. Khanna quickly co-sponsored the measure and publicly called for Congress to reconvene and vote. "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution," Khanna said in a press release. "Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk," Khanna said. "Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation." "Americans want diplomacy, not more costly wars. We need to deescalate and pursue a path of peace," Rep. Khanna concluded. The resolution has garnered support from 50 House members, including Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Pramila Jayapal. The list remains heavily Democrat, though more Republicans may break with the party in the coming days as the aftermath of Trump's military strikes continue to play out. What People Are Saying Rep. Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, said in an official statement "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution. Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk. Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation. Americans want diplomacy, not more costly wars. We need to deescalate and pursue a path of peace." President Donald Trump wrote in a Truth Social post, in part: "Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky is not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is. Actually, MAGA doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him. He is a negative force who almost always Votes "NO," no matter how good something may be. He's a simple minded "grandstander" who thinks it's good politics for Iran to have the highest level Nuclear weapon, while at the same time yelling "DEATH TO AMERICA" at every chance they get." What Happens Next The House War Powers Resolution is scheduled for a mandatory floor vote within 15 days under the chamber's rules. Parallel debates are ongoing in the Senate. As U.S. lawmakers weigh the resolution, the outcome may set new precedents for executive military authority and the balance of war powers between Congress and the White House.
USA Today
27 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump says Iran's nuclear sites were 'obliterated.' Were they?
While that may be the case, an independent assessment of Iran's nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency has not occurred. WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump and his defense chief say American warplanes completely "obliterated" Iran's three major nuclear complexes at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan using bunker-busting bombs that have the ability to penetrate underground targets. While that may be the case, there has so far been no independent assessment of that assertion from nuclear watchdogs, international officials or others with direct information of the situation on the ground. And other U.S. officials have not used such definitive rhetoric. "Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction," Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine told reporters a day after the strikes on June 22. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the main agency that assesses the scale and evolution of Iran's nuclear program, said hostilities would need to cease for it to resume inspections. The organization, housed within the United Nations, said it would hold an emergency meeting June 23. Trump said Iran's nuclear sites were obliterated It was not entirely clear what evidence or intelligence Trump was relying on when he told the world that Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity had been destroyed. He also disputed twice disputed intelligence community findings before the strike that Iran was not close to producing a nuclear weapon. "Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success," Trump said in a late-night June 21 address. "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." Hegseth used similar rhetoric at a morning news conference, saying that thanks to Trump's leadership, "Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated." But a battle damage assessment is ongoing, Hegseth acknowledged during in the briefing. He noted it was the Pentagon's "initial assessment" its precision munitions had the desired effect. "Especially in Fordow, which was the primary target here. We believe we achieved destruction of capabilities there," Hegseth told reporters. Caine was more cautious. "It would be way too early for me to comment on what may or may not still be there," he said when asked about Iran's remaining nuclear capabilities during the same news conference. Live updates: US warns of 'heightened threat environment' after strikes on Iran nukes How much of a hit did Iran take? It was a "responsible" comment from Caine, said Simone Ledeen, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East in Trump's first administration. Whether the Iranian nuclear program was set back a decade or decades and whether there is no more nuclear program period "really needs to be determined by a systematic battle damage assessment," she said. Yet, given what the president and secretary of defense know of the bombs that were dropped and where, Leeden added, "I don't think it's far-fetched for them to say that these sites were destroyed." Democratic lawmakers on committees that oversee the military, intelligence community and foreign policy apparatus are pushing for classified briefings to help them reach their own conclusions. "There is a lot we still don't know and we need an accurate, factual damage assessment," Senate Armed Services ranking member Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, said in a statement. Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Jeanne Shaheen also said in a statement, "We are still waiting to understand the extent to which that action has deterred Iran's nuclear threat." "President Trump must now de-escalate tensions with Iran and immediately brief Congress," the New Hampshire Democrat said. Vice President JD Vance did not specify the extent of the damage to Iran's sites as he made a round of television interviews the morning after the strike. "But we know that we've set the Iranian nuclear program back substantially last night," Vance said on ABC News' "This Week" program. "Whether it's years or beyond that, we know it's going to be a very long time before Iran can even build a nuclear weapon if they want to." Iran claims its uranium stockpiles were evacuated Iran's IRIB state broadcaster claimed its stockpiles of enriched uranium were "evacuated" from all threes sites prior to the U.S. strikes, another assertion not independently verified. Russian Security Council deputy chairman of Dmitry Medvedev also said Iran's critical nuclear infrastructure appeared to be unaffected or to have sustained only minor damage. "The enrichment of nuclear material – and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons – will continue," Medvedev said in a social media thread. "A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads." Russia is an ally of Tehran's and Medvedev is a previous Russian president. Israeli forces could try to enter Iran's nuclear sites in a sensitive operation and make a determination for itself and the United States, said Leeden, the first-term Trump defense official. But an official assessment will have to be conducted by the IAEA, which says it can not go in until the conflict ends, for the international community to accept it. "I hope it is the end, so IAEA can get their inspectors in there sooner rather than later," Leeden said. "You also don't want loose material getting into the wrong hands." Contributing: Kim Hjelmgaard
