One key feature of inalienable rights is that they are individual: I don't lose mine because you abuse yours. The "God-given" concept stresses that these rights are built into individuals at birth, not granted later by the State based on its political concerns.
Tricking people into seeing inalienable rights as political objects or aspects of group membership is, therefore, an important first step in degrading the special status recognized by the Constitution.
This would be easily illustrated by proposing a law that bans Muslims from owning guns because of terrorism. Outrage from the same people currently demonizing innocent NRA members as accessories to murder would be deafening.
One of the core missions of constitutional government is protecting the exercise of our inalienable rights. It is, by definition, more important than anything else gov't does except defending the nation from hostile forces.
If the system in place cannot function without compromising our Constitutional rights, then the problem is the system, not the people.
Until recently, this would have been easily demonstrated by proposing absurdly draconian restrictions on speech in the name of "unity" or "social harmony," as authoritarian states like China do. Sadly, that probably wouldn't be a non-starter in the America of 2018.
We do have a mechanism for amending the Constitution to change which rights are considered inalienable. It's hard to do, as it should be. We should not tolerate political efforts to erode those rights, leaving them nominally on the books but ridiculously difficult to exercise.
Unfortunately, we've lost our taste as a society for demanding government that recognizes and actively DEFENDS all of the inalienable rights of all the people.
It's really not enough for the State to grudgingly recognize the Constitution as a vague boundary for political ambition. The government is supposed to actively protect the free exercise of rights, such as making it safe for you to speak when others would silence you by force.
But inalienable rights are unacceptable obstacles to social engineering and plans to impose "social justice" by force. The State can't use its power to change the people if it recognizes and defends the full sweep of their inalienable rights.
Inalienable rights are also a firm barrier against emotional stampedes and "Do Something!" frenzies. It's not easy to craft proposals that duly respect all the rights of all the people. It takes time, so it slows down the mad rush to action.
Those inalienable rights also convey crucial responsibilities upon citizens, each and every one of us. It is our personal duty to fulfill them. Unfortunately, talk of civic responsibility has become unfashionable as well. That's no coincidence.
The concepts of duty and responsibility had to be eroded in order to make top-down collectivist solutions that don't fully respect the rights of individuals palatable. We had to become children of the State, not its fathers and mothers.
We should not give the political class money or power to fulfill its ambitions while it has so comprehensively failed to protect the exercise of our inalienable rights. We're letting them gorge on sweets when they haven't eaten their vegetables.
And because we've been taught to see ourselves as divided groups fighting each other for what we "deserve," we stopped insisting upon full respect as individuals. We are too easily bullied into negotiating what should be non-negotiable. /end
