[email protected], "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The Constitution applies to each and every person within the borders
> of the United States whether they like it or not, whether they agree
> or not, and whether they want it or not. It doesn't matter how long
> ago the contract was made, or how many people voted on it, or how
big
> the country was at that time.
>
> If you live within the borders of the United States, you're OBLIGED
to
> adhere to it. If you don't, any claims that your rights are being
> infringed upon when you try to smuggle goods in, are laughable.
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp"
> <thomaslknapp@> wrote:
> >
> > Quoth kiddleddee:
> >
> > -----
> > Let's carry your example a step (or maybe a couple of steps)
further
> > -----
> >
> > A good one, and we can carry it in all kinds of directions. It
still
> > all goes to the root question, though:
> >
> > How do a handful of people create a "contract" which not only
binds
> > the 99.99+% of the other people besides themselves in an area,
but all
> > subsequent generations, to adhere to it and to be considered to
have
> > delegated power to others under it?
> >
> > The Constitution was proposed by 55 men -- and those men hadn't
been
> > given any mandate by anybody to propose it. Their mandate (from
> > Congress) was to propose amendments to the Articles of
Confederation,
> > which explicitly disallowed their own replacement.
> >
> > Instead, the 55 proposed to illegally replace the Articles, then
> > Congress created an artificial ratification criterion -- approval
by
> > non-representative conventions in nine of 13 states -- for doing
so.
> >
> > Precisely how the proposals of 55 men, "ratified" by a few hundred
> > other men in a nation of three million people -- most of whom
were not
> > allowed any voice whatsoever in any of the processes which
culminated
> > in said "ratification" -- can be said to have bound not only
every one
> > of those three million, but all of their descendants and anyone
else
> > who might ever happen to cross imaginary (and changing) lines on
the
> > ground would seem to me to be a question not for logic, but for
> religion.
> >
> > Tom Knapp
> >
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
SPONSORED LINKS
| Libertarian | English language | Political parties |
| Online dictionary | American politics |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
