To date the U.S. Judiciary has not upheld any demand by a citizen to protect their unalienable rights.  Such failure is a violation of the Constitution and a betrayal of citizens.  Unalienable rights are referred to but not enumerated in the Constitution (9th Amendment).  They were deliberately not enumerated because they encompassed a moral standard.  The moral standard implicates God’s word as given in the Bible therefore it is based on belief and faith.  To specify its elements would be akin to predicting any possible scenario that could arise to define unalianable rights.  Such endeavor eliminates the right which is not predicted.  Restraining human rights based on faith by enumerating them was admirably believed by the founding fathers not to be a human right. 

Natural rights generally become known when a moral person is subject to a violation.  How a person knows a violation has occurred is found in that person's moral conscience for it will cry out to make it clearly known.  Thusly natural rights come to light when a moral person is compelled to cry out 'injustice' in response to a foul immoral deed.  The founding fathers believed it was proper to define the parameters of authority instead of rights and created a judicial system charged with preserving and protecting rights.  However, to preserve that which is not defined on paper requires the rights to be known in one’s conscience.  Thus if those charged with the administration of government, and the running of the Judiciary, are immoral unalienable rights will not be recognized let alone upheld.  Since these rights are presently not being upheld it can be said we have an immoral government acting in open conflict with the Constitution in defiance of the majority belief and will.

Unalienable rights are the most important because they are based on 'natural law' which means they are based on morality and our collective morality is based on 'God given rights'.  Natural Law is in fact what the Constitution was founded on.  Natural law is intertwined with morality and in the United States the majority of people align with Christian morality.  As long as the majority is aligned with Christian morality the Constitution is the rule of the land and therefore must be obeyed and upheld by all citizens.

An example of an unalienable right is the right to be free from discrimination.  However, to date only minorities are protected from discrimination in the judicial system and that is by legislation NOT by protection found in the Constitution.  Ordinary citizens have absolutely no protection against discrimination in the judicial system because the Federal Judiciary systematically refuses to recognize and uphold unalienable rights.  The Judiciary therefore violates the Constitution by not protecting ordinary citizens from discrimination.  Such violation is a threat to the safety and welfare of all citizens.

Of great interest is the fact the Legislature (the House and Senate) has acted to seize unalienable rights from the people.  Examples of unalienable rights taken away are seat belt and helmet laws as well as forced purchase of health care.  It is our natural (unalienable) right to decide for ourselves if we want to protect our body, whether it means wearing a helmet or not, or purchasing health insurance or not, or eating a thick juicy steak or not.  An example of an immoral judicial ruling is legalized abortion.  Some want us to believe it is an unalienable right to destroy an evolving human life i.e., the infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade judicial abetting of abortion.  The twist of the matter is that abortion was upheld by the Judiciary as a 'privacy' right even though no right to privacy is in the Constitution or its Amendments.  Interestingly to justify their ruling the Judiciary construed privacy to be a fundamental 'human right' only inferring it as an unalienable right.  Thus they avoided defining and protecting a right under the 9th Amendment by making Judicial Law that is law established by precedence.  Their ruling made the statement it is moral to destroy human life at a certain stage by ruling it is a fundamental right to do so.  Such ruling presumes to speak for the moral majority but in fact it did not.  Therefore it created a moral fight amongst citizens with untold violence and deaths in its wake.

To destroy human life at any stage from its beginning is a violation of an unalienable right, a moral right, not an exercise of it or any kind of issue of privacy.

Another example of judicial incompetence and immorality was the 1857 Dred Scott decision which was never overturned.  This case concerned the status of a slave brought into a state where slavery was illegal.  The Supreme Court ruled by an overwhelming majority that slaves had no right to citizenship and thus had no rights in the courts.  It would be unfair to the owner of a slave to be deprived of his property simply by stepping foot into a state that did not recognize slavery! 

Interestingly, instead of protecting unalienable rights the Judiciary has done just the opposite by abetting the legislative branch in taking away many of these rights. This is done by government creating new authority for itself.  Congress is legislating, the President is making executive orders and the Judiciary is failing to check encroachment of unalienable rights.  To make matters worse citizens seem to be unaware of the gravity of what is taking place concerning their rights.  It is difficult to understand the complete extent of constitutional rights, the constitutionality of their seizures.  Thus citizens allow their rights to be seized without taking action by accepting to wear a helmet or purchasing health insurance.  Here is how the government gets its way.  When it becomes apparent that citizens fail to protest in any significant way, government claims such inaction is TACIT CONSENT (a legal way of saying 'if you don't complain you have given consent to give your rights up').  This best demonstrates how the government uses distortion to seize unalienable rights.  And, since the Judiciary refuses to uphold unalienable rights, citizens really have no legal recourse to secure said rights! 

For citizens to peacefully secure their rights and reclaim those that have been illegally taken, they must voice their protest with loud united voices.  They need to vote to boot out of office those that have betrayed them.  Should citizens do nothing we will be doomed to despotism in the long run.  History has proven this to be an inevitable course under such conditions.  The end result is well documented in history books.  The very thought of it should cause a shiver to run down the spine of any moral person.