It's a failure of the system as a whole. If the rights are described as inalienable as a fact of the law then any president who tries to take those rights away should ideally be stopped by the courts.

Instead we have courts that say "hmmm it's pretty clear they can't do this so how can I make up some absolute nonsense to say it's totally ok for them to do it...."

Rights are a human construct. They don't exist in nature.

When we fight to construct them, we must fight to keep them. In a representative democracy, our representatives are the ones who are supposed to fight for us. But when they fail, that responsibility falls back to the average, everyday, common person.

The struggle to keep our rights moreso has to do with getting people off the couch to stand up for what they believe in. In an apathetic society glued to their toys and treats, their bread and circuses, it's that much easier for other humans with wishes to collect their own power to dismantle that of the majority.

normally you'd have a congress that flexed its power to stop the President from touching rights at all, but over time the Executive has become more and more powerful and Congress more and more impotent.

And that needs to start with electing representatives and a President that respects and will restore our Constitution.

This goes farther than Trump. Our Constitution was damaged and tattered well before that, which is part of what enabled Trump and his admin to rip it to shreds.

The President getting to decide what laws are enforced and which aren't is kind of insane. The pardon power was generally fine before this, but was clearly open to abuse.

Hillary broke the law with her private email server, but everyone else, including W and Trump and Hegseth broke that same law. It just wasn't enforced until they decided to hit Hillary with it specifically.

If there are laws we shouldn't enforce, we should just get those laws off the books. And clearly we need to rein in Presidental power. We left a whole lot of trust that the office would be run in good faith, and regardless of party that's generally been true, with exceptions. The is the first administration that hasn't given a single fuck about the American people.

I feel like every previous President was brought in and made to understand that it's a china shop, and they need to not act like a bull, and then were given very specific and explicit reasons why for each situation. There's a reason each predecessor did what they did, and those actions were generally done under the advisement of some very smart people with solid research, and if you're going to break with that previous decision, you better be really damn sure of what you're doing.

This is the first administration that's come in and told each of those advisors to fuck right off. The biggest plate to break so far is the idea of Due Process. When I Google the phrase "Due Process", the first thing that comes up should absolutely not be about immigrants. This isn't a law centered on immigrants or anything about immigration specifically. You know the reason that immigration comes up as the top result for "due process" in 2025.

Yup. This is the basic principle of anarchism.

Welcome to Anarchism :)

that's a lot of words to say what Carlin said much simpler

"Boy everyone in this country is running around yammering about their fucking rights. I have a right, you have no right, we have a right."

No, give me all the rights, I'm good, I swear.

Rights are not given, they're taken.

Yes. And this is why rights are lost as soon as you lower your guard.

Constitutions are just a "we promise we wont oppress you" pinky promise. Laws are nothing but the words of people. It wouldn't mean anything if nobody (especially those in power) respect those words anymore.

I think this is the one key question about any elected government. We would need to make sure that representatives are truly accountable, not just replaced. We have corporate manslaughter legislation after all.

There are only two systems in which rights cannot be taken away. A system with no rights in the first place, or a system with no living beings to have rights.

The point of inalienable rights, is they are the rights which must always be fought for and protected no matter the cost.

...we did build that system. We are currently in that system, which has been corrupted by a criminal and terrorist organization called the Republican party

If voting could change anything vital, it would be illegal.

Someone woke up? Good thing and welcome

Well if anyone is tired of posting about it and wants to do something about it message me

George Carlin put it pretty well, imo.

especially if the good president, is an old guard nominee, otherwise republican lite nothing will change. they keep the status quo of the oligarchs, and groups like AIPAC.

This makes sense, there are no abuses of human rights in the US it is just that some people do not meet the conditions to receive privilages like basic healthcare, food assistance or fair treatment by state employees.

A lot of our so-called "rights" simply express the fact that we have money.

Can we drive a car? Yes, because it costs money and we have that money. Can we go to school? Yes, again, because it costs money and we have that money. Can we go on holidays to a foreign country? Yes, again, because it costs money and we have money. Same for lots of other things.

The people have money because companies need to pay them if they want people to work at their companies. That's what gives people power. The fact that they are needed in the economy. No kind of law is causing this; simple necessity is.

It's the collapsing labor market that is causing a seeming decline in our rights. It's not Trump's fault (well, also trump's fault, since he made it much worse, but the issue started years earlier) that people are experiencing hardships, because of the collapsing labor market.

The solution would be to accept that the labor market is collapsing (because very few things can be done against that) and start accepting people for being people, independent of how much work they perform. In other words, stop glorifying "hard workers" and start seeing the value in people themselves.

Sorry, but there's always going to be a power structure.

Tribal people shunned those who didn't fit in and forced them out.

I agree!

The checks and balances were destroyed when the supreme court elevated the president over the law. And even before that money and corporate interest had influenced the laws against the people.

The supreme court is corrupt. We know that, yet nothing was done. The president is a criminal, yet nothing was done. The elections are influenced and the election law is outdated and unjust. Yet nothing was done.

It gets worse under Republicans and next to nothing changes under Democrats.

Lack of text or a link to (archived) source creates a usability issue: we can't quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR.

As I wrote in a deeper comment, the post mistakes the concept of & philosophy behind inalienable rights with legal rights.

The Enlightenment Era thinkers who developed these ideas were entirely familiar with governments legally oppressing their people. The most common governments at the time were absolute monarchies justified by divine right.

To challenge unjust governments, they worked on a more rational definition for legitimate authority. They settled on the idea that governments exist for the people & have legitimate authority only when they protect the inalienable liberties & rights of all people. When a government lacks legitimacy, the people have a right to alter it to or replace it with a legitimate one.

So, while a government can suppress inalienable rights, no government can legitimately (ie, should) do so: that would be immoral (and a violation of natural law they claimed). It's moral & political philosophy concerning legitimacy.

Contrary to the post, people do have inalienable/universal/inherent rights: those inform us whether a government is legitimate. It's still up to the people to obtain legitimate government.

We need amendments to restrict the power over civil rights. Essentially no civil rights law can be removed or superseded by additional laws. And that no laws can be passed to allow exception to this law.

Also we need clear penalties for failing to follow laws. Not just for presidents but any members of any level of political seats. Specific infraction and penalties.

A 3 strike policy. 3 such acts and removal of office followed by a new election in 6 months or a year.

Also laws against aipac and corporate money in politics. Banned. Permanently. No exceptions. No ability to change laws to change this either.

We keep learning that when we don't have strict laws and strict guidelines for insuring those laws are followed, bad actors will (always) take advantage. And the laws are useless unless they are enforced in an unbiased way.

Also Congress members for states cannot override voted on laws. The people supercede the elected officials whims.

We also need ways to remove people from office during their term.

"Do you agree?!?" Lol. Yes I actually do but this has some real bot energy which makes it feel a bit weird. Like this post isn't actually genuine and even though I agree with it, it only exists to try and get dissenters in so people will argue and become more divided. Feels icky like a reddit post