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.
--
Mark M. Kahle H.
-- On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:35 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
You remain confused.Governments are created to secure (natural) rights.
- To Secure (natural) rights ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment