On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:43 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
It what?
At 10:28 AM 11/8/2011, you wrote:
Show me where the Constitution or the Declaration or the Federalist Papers or the Articles of Confederation or any founding document has mentioned that it applies to anyone other than a citizen of the 13 separate colonies (it did not even apply to Slaves or Indians that were here legally until "LAW" changed that). Show me anywhere that says that the laws, mandates and ideals of the USA apply to anyone outside their borders without the consent of the "governed" and the "government" of that other nation with "borders".
I will wait right here for both REAL LIFE examples. (real life is something that does not wax philosophical and is enforceable)
The Constitution created the Federal Government. It provides specific functions to each of its branches. It provides limitations on what it can do and how it must treat Individuals.
Look at Amendment V, for instance:Where does it claim 'citizen'? Voter? 'Governed'? It states PERSON.
- No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
When the US Federal Government is seeking to 'hold' *anyone* to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime within its jurisdiction ... it MUST (per the Constitution) act accordingly.
But the premise HERE was NOT the gang created by the Constitution -- put into force without unanimity (and thus a violation of the premise of 'consent' by definition) ... voted upon by no living Individual in this country nor others (again no 'consent' of the governed).
The issue HERE was (natural) rights -- which migration is.
Regard$,
--MJ
"A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sin and suffering" -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:47 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- yes migration is one of those (natural) rights that the "governed" and the "government" have in this nation.
Actually, migration is one of the (natural) rights that is VIOLATED by the government in this nation.
Please, in very simple terms, explain to me exactly how a foreign national without permission to cross our border (or Mexicos border for that matter as the laws there require THEIR "governed" have permission to exit the country) is considered to be one of OUR "governed".
As to understanding "natural rights"... I understand the "concept" perfectly. I also understand that they exist nation by nation as granted to its citizens by constitutional decree. The question is: Do you?
You prove the point as you continue to describe permissions -- not (natural) rights.
It is noted that you dropped the 'consent' portion.
Regard$,
--MJ
"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:22 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- Yelling does little for your delusion.
- Migration, of course, is one of those (natural) rights.
- Maybe THAT is the problem. You simply do not understand/grasp (natural) rights.
- I certainly did not 'consent' ... the same applies for MOST within this Country.
- You might seek out some Spooner, as well.
- Regard$,
- --MJ
- "By what right do men exercise power over each other?" -- Auberon Herbert
At 09:18 PM 11/7/2011, you wrote: SHOW ME THE MAP OF THE WORLD THAT DOES NOT HAVE THOSE LINES... YOUR ARGUMENT IS BASED IN FANTASY... MINE IN REALITY... "CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED" MEANS EXACTLY THAT.... "NO GOVERNMENT.....NO GOVERNED" , "NO GOVERNED....NO GOVERNMENT"
THIS REQUIRES CITIZENSHIP OR CONSENT (2 WAY...NOT 1 WAY STREET) TO BE GOVERNED... A FOREIGN NATIONAL WITHOUT THAT 2 WAY CONSENT IS ILLEGAL
PLEASE TAKE A READING COMPREHENSION CLASS!!!!!!!!!!!!
JUST NOTICED THE CAPS....SORRY.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:35 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- You remain confused.
- To Secure (natural) rights ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
- Governments are created to secure (natural) rights.
- You want Government to VIOLATE (natural) rights ... and then insert some nonsense about voting and map lines.
- INSTEAD of securing (natural) rights, you want Government to extend and withhold permission -- which has NOTHING to do with the Declaration et al.
- Regard$,
- --MJ
- A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone's permission. If you exist only because society permits you to exist, you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time. If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society -- you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right. -- Alyssa Rosenbaum
At 04:47 PM 11/7/2011, you wrote:
Hey MJ'..... It's right HERE:
That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men,,,,,,,,,,,,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Foreign nationals are not "Governed" nor can they "Vote". Please read and heed the Documents you try to quote.
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:57 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- At 12:26 PM 11/4/2011, you wrote:
- MJ says: They argue that we can't have people circumventing the
- system because it undermines the rule of law. But laws are legitimate
- only when they protect the natural rights of others.
- Laws are designed to protect the natural rights of that countries
- citizens... Definitely NOT "natural rights of others."
Where was THAT portion of the Declaration?
Regard$,
--MJ
It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. ... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments coequal and cosovereign within themselves. -- Thomas Jefferson to Jarvis, 1820
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Mark M. Kahle H.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Mark M. Kahle H.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Mark M. Kahle H.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Mark M. Kahle H.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Mark M. Kahle H.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment