Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Page Number: 82.0

Cite as:  576 U. S. ____ (2015) 

5 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

of  every  Englishman.”  1  Blackstone  123.  And  he  formu-
lated  those absolute  rights  as  “the  right  of  personal  secu-
rity,” which included the right to life; “the right of personal 
liberty”;  and  “the  right  of  private  property.”  Id.,  at  125. 
He defined “the right of personal liberty” as “the power of
loco-motion,  of  changing  situation,  or  removing  one’s
person  to  whatsoever  place  one’s  own  inclination  may 
direct;  without  imprisonment  or  restraint,  unless  by  due 
course of law.”  Id., at 125, 130.2 

The  Framers  drew  heavily  upon  Blackstone’s  formula-
tion, adopting provisions in early State Constitutions that
replicated  Magna  Carta’s  language,  but  were  modified  to
refer  specifically  to  “life,  liberty,  or  property.”3    State  
—————— 

2 The  seeds  of  this  articulation  can  also  be  found  in  Henry  Care’s
influential  treatise,  English  Liberties.    First  published  in  America  in
1721,  it  described  the  “three  things,  which  the  Law  of  England  . . . 
principally  regards  and  taketh  Care  of,”  as  “Life,  Liberty  and  Estate,” 
and described habeas corpus as the means by which one could procure
one’s “Liberty” from imprisonment.  The Habeas Corpus Act, comment., 
in  English  Liberties,  or  the  Free-born  Subject’s  Inheritance  185  (H. 
Care comp. 5th ed. 1721).  Though he used the word “Liberties” by itself 
more  broadly,  see,  e.g.,  id.,  at  7,  34,  56,  58,  60,  he  used  “Liberty”  in  a 
narrow  sense  when  placed  alongside  the  words  “Life”  or  “Estate,”  see, 
e.g., id., at 185, 200. 

3 Maryland,  North  Carolina,  and  South  Carolina  adopted  the  phrase
“life,  liberty,  or  property”  in  provisions  otherwise  tracking  Magna 
Carta: “That no freeman ought to be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized
of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any 
manner  destroyed,  or  deprived  of  his  life,  liberty,  or  property,  but  by
the  judgment  of  his  peers,  or  by  the  law  of  the  land.”    Md.  Const., 
Declaration of Rights, Art. XXI (1776), in 3 Federal and State Constitu-
tions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws 1688 (F. Thorpe ed. 
1909);  see  also  S. C.  Const.,  Art.  XLI  (1778),  in  6  id.,  at  3257;  N. C. 
Const., Declaration of Rights, Art. XII (1776), in 5 id., at 2788.  Massa-
chusetts  and  New  Hampshire  did  the  same,  albeit  with  some  altera-
tions  to  Magna  Carta’s  framework:  “[N]o  subject  shall  be  arrested, 
imprisoned,  despoiled,  or  deprived  of  his  property,  immunities,  or
privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled, or deprived of his 
life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the
land.”  Mass.  Const.,  pt.  I,  Art.  XII  (1780),  in  3  id.,  at  1891;  see  also