Unalienable rights

U.S. citizens are born with certain unalienable rights, i.e. rights that aren't subject to review or termination by a judge or bureaucrat. A trend in academia and politics is to deny the existence of these rights, because out of necessity they must arise from source beyond the purview of men (the "Creator"). I'd like to see what some of the posters here think about the concept of unalienable rights. If they are legitimate rights, what is their source? If they are not legitimate, what then limits the power of the government over the lives of citizens?

We are all sentient, lucid, individuals with an interest in freedom of activity balanced with the benefits of limiting our activities to fit within society. Ultimately, no right is inalienable or unalienable. If you don't have the willpower to maintain your rights, then they can be taken by others who do have the willpower and the wherewithal. You have to be willing to fight for your rights and retain them through victory or retain them by making it so expensive for someone to deprive you of your rights that they don't try.

I'm reminded of Soto-Mayor when asked if individuals had a right to defend themselves. She tried to think of a legal statute's existence, or a legal precedent. She was either "caught in the headlights" and had a brain freeze or doesn't believe that we have "unalienable rights", or rights under "natural law"-only those granted by statute. This is upside down thinking and a danger to liberty. I believe that the right to defend oneself, family and possessions comes under the heading of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." As to what limits the power of gov't over the lives of its citizens; the power of the vote. The checks and balances in the Constitution, which is supposed to define the limits of gov't. The source of "unalienable rights"-I believe in a Creator who wrote into us the will to live, the ability to love and to reason, plan and build and wonder in amazement at the Creation.