generation, seems he suggested every 30 years. Thomas Paine said the
same thing. Besides even if it was a valid contract that continued
for over 200 years if the government ever violated that contract, the
contract is null and void, it is very likely the Federal government
has at least violated the contract 1 time in 200 years, thus even if
the contract was valid and the authority over borders was valid, it's
not now. The same goes for the state constitutions, if the state
government violated the contract at least once the contract is null
and void, the contract is no longer valid, the state government has
no legitamite authority anymore even if the constitution was a valid
contract and the dead could enforce it on the living.--- In
[email protected], "kiddleddee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> 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.
>
_____________________________________________________________________
>
> Actually, Paul, it does matter how long ago a contract was made.
> Since a contract is an agreement between 2 or more parties, the
> contract will expire with the death of the last of the signators.
> There can be no contract which imposes its terms on parties not
> signatory to it in the present (Boyd and I can make a contract in
> which we each agree to pay the other a fee when either of us starts
> his car engine; Boyd and I cannot make a contract which would
extend
> those terms to obligate Paul to pay us a fee each time he starts
his
> car engine!) Such a contract would expire (at the latest) when 1 of
> us dies - as there would be no one left to fulfill the reciprocity
> (reciprocity is a requirement of a valid contract - I give you
> something, you give me something in return) agreements in the
> contract.
>
> No more so can there be a contract which imposes its terms on
parties
> not signatory to it in the future. (If Boyd and I can't extend our
> contract to Paul in the present, how can it be possible to extend
it
> to someone yet unborn?)
> ___________________________________
>
> > 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.
>
_____________________________________________________________________
>
> What is the nature of my OBLIGATION to adhere to the constitution?
> The constitution itself requires no such obligation.
> There is not one clause in the constitution which obligates
> individuals to its provisions - indeed none of the provisions of
the
> constitution even applies to individuals - whether they live within
> the "borders" (the constitution says nothing about "borders") of
the
> United State or not. The constitution was a contract between its
> signators to establish a certain type of federal government - its
> provisions, even if valid, apply only to that government, not to
the
> individuals subject to that government (even assmuming the notion
> of "subject to the government").
>
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.
