[dctoedt]

That’s incorrect: Jury-trial waivers are routinely enforced. (California and Georgia won’t enforce advance jury waivers in state courts, as a matter of state law, not federal-constitutional law.) And there's also a thing called a "confession of judgment," which in effect is a waiver of any trial.

[samatman]

What I said is not in fact incorrect, you are confusing waiving a right with alienating it, here's an essay[0] which can sort you out on the distinction.

> Alienating a right is different from exercising it or waiving it in a particular case. A police officer comes to my door and asks to look around my apartment; if I give my permission, I have waived my right. But the next time he comes, he must ask again, and if he is refused he cannot rely on my previous permission.

[0]: https://www.bostonreview.net/forum_response/jeremy-waldron-i...

[dctoedt]

Waivers aren't necessarily one-time in nature; they can be ongoing.

Example: Many, many contracts explicitly say that any waiver of a contract right is only one-time, so as to rule out an argument by an opposing party that the waiver was continuing.

Example: If you enlist in the military, you waive — on an ongoing basis — your Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury, because the Uniform Code of Military Justice prescribes who can sit as a member of a court-martial [plural: courts-martial].

So in the context we're discussing, calling rights "inalienable" or "unalienable" is not a helpful concept.

[paulddraper]

There's an enormous difference between waiving rights for a specific (alleged) infraction and carte blanche signing away your rights for anything that might ever happen in the future.