I. “UNALIENABLE” vs. “INALIENABLE” RIGHTS

 

1. “Unalienable Rights”

Meaning: rights inherent to the human person, impossible to surrender even voluntarily.

Key case law supporting unalienable rights

• West Virginia v. Barnette (1943)
  The Court held that compelled speech violates an individual’s inalienable freedom of mind, famously stating that
  “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official... can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.”
  → Confirms unalienable right of conscience.

• Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) & Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
  Protects parents’ rights to raise children, grounded in natural liberty.

• Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
  Recognizes procreation as a “basic civil right” rooted in natural law.

These cases affirm that essential liberties exist before and above state authority.

2. “Inalienable Rights”

Originally meant rights the state should not infringe but that could theoretically be surrendered by contract.

Case Law:

• Lynch v. Household Finance (1972)
  Acknowledges that certain rights (e.g., property contracts) may be alienated voluntarily, but others cannot.

Why the Founders chose “unalienable”

Jefferson wanted to emphasize:

• Rights come from the Creator

• They cannot be revoked by legislatures, kings, or majorities

Case law echoes this through recognition of “fundamental rights” that the government must respect regardless of public opinion.

II. NATURAL RIGHTS vs. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

1. Natural Rights

These pre-exist government.

Case Law:

• Calder v. Bull (1798) — Justice Chase states:
  There are certain vital principles in our free republican governments... which will determine and overrule any apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power.
  → A direct acknowledgment of natural law as superior to statutory law.

• Lochner v. New York (1905)
  Though controversial, it relies on the concept of liberty of contract as rooted in natural rights.

• Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
  Recognizes “zones of privacy” derived from natural and pre-political rights.

2. Constitutional Rights

Rights created or codified by the Constitution.

Case Law:

• Marbury v. Madison (1803)
  Establishes that the Constitution is a binding legal shield protecting rights.

• Gitlow v. New York (1925)
  Incorporates natural rights (speech) through the 14th Amendment.

The key difference

Natural rights belong to human beings.
Constitutional rights belong to legal persons within U.S. jurisdiction.

The Constitution secures natural rights; it does not create them.

III. FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT (with Case Law from Common Law to Modern U.S.)

1. English Common Law Roots

Sir William Blackstone wrote that every Englishman had the natural liberty to move freely within the kingdom.
The Framers adopted this concept.

2. Domestic Travel

A fundamental constitutional right.

Case Law:

• Crandall v. Nevada (1868)
  Recognizes citizens’ inherent right to move freely between states.

• Shapiro v. Thompson (1969)
  The Court invalidated state residency restrictions, calling interstate movement a “fundamental right”.

• Saenz v. Roe (1999)
  Reaffirmed the right to enter, leave, and be treated equally in any state.

These cases explicitly root travel in natural liberty.

3. International Travel

Still a protected liberty, though subject to limited government regulation.

Case Law:

• Kent v. Dulles (1958)
  Held that the right to international travel is “part of the liberty” of citizens under the 5th Amendment.

• Aptheker v. Secretary of State (1964)
  Government cannot broadly restrict travel without compelling cause.

• Haig v. Agee (1981)
  Travel may be restricted only for national security reasons.

IV. WHY SOME BELIEVE CITIZENSHIP OBLIGATIONS INFRINGE NATURAL RIGHTS

Concerns often involve:

• taxation

• Selective Service

• compliance with federal law

• passport regulations

But courts maintain:

Government obligations are constitutional if they protect public order without destroying fundamental liberty.

Case Law:

• Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905)
  Government may impose obligations only when “reasonable” and not arbitrary.

• United States v. Reynolds (1878)
  Distinguishes belief (absolute natural right) from conduct (regulable).

• Murphy v. Ramsey (1885)
  Government may regulate actions even when rooted in belief.

The balance is always between:

• individual natural liberty

• the rights of the community

V. NATURALIZATION OATH vs. NATURAL RIGHTS (Case Law)

1. Renouncing foreign allegiance

The Court recognizes the Oath as a political renunciation, not a personal or religious one.

Case Law:

• Schneiderman v. United States (1943)
  Citizenship cannot be revoked unless the government proves fraud with clear evidence.

• Afroyim v. Rusk (1967)
  The government cannot strip citizenship without consent.
  Citizenship is a fundamental right.

• Mandoli v. Acheson (1952)
  Dual citizens maintain natural rights; political allegiance alone does not erase them.

2. Support the Constitution

This aligns with natural rights, not against them.

Case Law:

• Trop v. Dulles (1958)
  Citizenship is “not a license that expires upon misbehavior.”
  The Constitution protects dignity as a natural right.

3. Bearing arms / service obligations

Rights of conscience remain protected.

Case Law:

• United States v. Seeger (1965)
  Conscientious objection allowed based on sincere belief, even non-theistic.

• Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
  Religious liberty can outweigh state interests in many circumstances.

Thus, even civic duties cannot override conscience, an unalienable right.

VI. PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS (Case Law)

1. Locke → Founders → Modern Law

Property is seen as:

• one’s labor

• one’s body

• one’s fruits of labor

Case Law:

• Madison’s 1792 essay “Property” (often treated as constitutional philosophy)
  “A man has property in his opinions and free use of his faculties.”

2. Supreme Court protection of property as a natural right

• Munn v. Illinois (1877)
  Recognizes property but allows regulation for public good.

• Lochner v. New York (1905)
  Emphasizes liberty of contract as a fundamental natural right.

• Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
  Controversial expansion of eminent domain; dissent argues natural property rights were violated.

3. "Pursuit of happiness" as a meta-right Protects:

• family autonomy

• educational choice

• religious liberty

• free enterprise

• labor

• lifestyle

• self-direction

Case Law:

• Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
  Liberty includes “acquiring useful knowledge” and engaging in common occupations.

• Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
  Parents, not the state, direct children’s education—part of pursuing happiness.

• Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
  Adult intimate liberty is part of the right to define one’s own pursuit of happiness.

VII. SYNTHESIS: HUMAN RIGHTS + CITIZEN RIGHTS + OBLIGATIONS (Case Law Integrated)

You are both:

1. A human person with unalienable rights
   protected by cases like Barnette, Meyer, Pierce, Griswold, Lawrence.

2. A citizen with political rights
   protected by Afroyim, Trop, Shapiro, Saenz.

3. A member of a constitutional republic with duties
   regulated by Jacobson and Reynolds.

The architecture:

• Natural rights = source

• Constitution = protection

• Citizenship = participation

• Laws = regulation of conduct

No case has ever held that citizenship extinguishes natural rights, although many policy enforcers, courts and other statutory actors may try to do away with the natural rights when US Citizenship is obvious.
Courts repeatedly affirm that natural rights survive regardless of political structure.