I feel like this is the case regardless of the system? You can't just install a "Good" leader once and expect them to provide everyone with equal rights forever. You can't even build a "Good" system once and expect it to provide you with rights by itself. It would still require well-meaning, educated, active, and organized constituents to continuously stand up for what is right, prevent corruption and abuses of power, etc.
There are no physically inalienable rights. They are ultimately just ideas and not laws of nature, and thus require enforcement by some human persons, and any such person is subject to corruption by power.
There are no infallible systems. Social systems are but humanly devised constraints, and humans can and will overstep those constraints. It takes other humans to reinforce the system and maintain the constraints.
That said, the system of capitalism is obviously a shitty one for everyone but the top 0.1% (and this percentage decreases with time), we as a species should do better. Socialism isn't perfect either, but at least it empowers much more people to be active participants rather than slaves.
To reiterate, it is simply not possible to "build a system in which no one has the power to take <rights> away to begin with". Socialism would still be subject to corruption (as evidenced by countries that instituted it) and require constant "upkeep" by the citizens. However, socialism tends to produce citizens more well-equipped to protect their rights.
Honest question, what inalienable rights are being taken away?
inalienable rights
Well, firstly the Constitution references unalienable rights, not inalienable. Secondly there are only three rights which are considered unalienable according to the Constitution; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The idea of unalienable rights is such that they're not given to us by law--they're given to us by God and cannot be taken away. Therefore any person, be they US Citizen or not, if they're in this country they're also protected by these rights. So detaining someone specifically because they don't have the right paperwork can be interpreted as denying someone their unalienable right to liberty. There are dozens of examples you can come up with, and not everyone will agree with them and that's pretty much the point.
The founding fathers specifically chose verbiage which was as broad as possible to limit the power of the Government and ensure that as long as you could make a convicting argument for it, then you could claim that just about anything is an infringement against your rights, which starts a discourse, and leads to new laws to either protect or curtail certain things.
The unalienable rights you are talking about are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Declaration isn't technically considered law either.
Sure, but if the OP is talking about "bad president" taking away rights, and the only right being infringed you've mentioned is immigrants getting deported, doesn't every president have an immigration policy? Therefore isn't every president infringing on said rights?
I just want people to be specific. Right wingers are so slimy and nebulous in their prose, avoiding all specifics to ensure they can't get fact checked. If you're gonna make fun of em, I just ask one to be specific.
Carter was a war criminal?
Islamic terror groups today can be traced back to when the US under Carter sent aid to mujahideen rebels to counter Soviet influence in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden, in fact, started out as a financier and militant for Afghan Arabs (Arab Muslims that migrated to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets). The imperial boomerang always comes home.
Also supported mass murders in Indonesia.
Damn.
