Fact check: What are inalienable rights really?

1. Summary of the results

Inalienable rights are fundamental human rights that cannot be transferred, surrendered, or taken away by any government or authority. According to the foundational American understanding, these rights are endowed by the Creator and are self-evident, forming the basis of the American Creed ^[1]. The core inalienable rights consistently identified across sources are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

These rights are considered inherent in all persons and roughly equivalent to what we mean today when we say human rights ^{[2] [3]}. The American Founders believed that people have inalienable rights regardless of whether they can exercise them, and that these rights are part of what it means to be human ^[4]. Importantly, governments are legitimate to the extent that they protect these rights ^[4].

The concept extends beyond American borders, as international human-rights law recognizes these rights, and the US has signed treaties that protect the rights of noncitizens ^[5]. Religious liberty is specifically highlighted as an inalienable right, with the ability to believe and practice one's religious faith, or to practice none at all, being free from governmental interference ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several important nuances often missing from basic discussions of inalienable rights:

• The absoluteness of these rights is contested in practice. The Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the right to life is not absolute and can be forfeited in certain circumstances, such as when a defendant is convicted of capital murder ^[7]. This demonstrates that even "inalienable" rights face legal limitations.
• Political manipulation of the concept exists. The US Secretary of State's Commission on Unalienable Rights has been criticized as an attempt to undermine the universality of human rights and to promote a selective approach to rights, which could be used to justify restrictions on reproductive freedom and the rights of LGBT people ^[8]. This shows how the concept can be weaponized by political actors.
• Universal application versus selective enforcement creates tension. While noncitizens in the United States are guaranteed almost all the same rights as citizens ^[5], the practical implementation often falls short of the theoretical ideal.
• International versus domestic interpretations may differ, as these rights form the basis for a moral foreign policy abroad and are considered essential for U.S. relations with individual countries ^[2].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question "What are inalienable rights really?" appears neutral and seeks clarification rather than making specific claims. However, the framing with "really" suggests there may be hidden complexities or contested interpretations that the questioner suspects exist.

The analyses confirm this suspicion is warranted, as they reveal that powerful political actors benefit from promoting selective interpretations of inalienable rights. Specifically, those who support the Commission on Unalienable Rights approach could use this framework to justify restrictions on reproductive freedom and LGBT rights ^[8], while presenting their position as defending fundamental American values.

The question itself doesn't contain misinformation, but it opens the door to potential bias depending on how the answer is framed - whether emphasizing the universal, Creator-endowed nature ^[1] or the practical limitations and political manipulations ^{[7] [8]} of these rights in contemporary application.