-Terry Liberty Parker
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TerryLiberty
--- In [email protected], Jon Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Any solution needs to comply with the Constitution, which does
authorize criminal
> penalties for the illegal immigrants and those who actually bring
them in, but
> does not authorize things like penalties for employers. The
authority for the
> former is the "Laws of Nations" clause, which is explained at
> http://www.constitution.org/cmt/laws_of_nations.htm , and basically
covers war,
> peace, piracy, diplomacy, border security, and related matters.
That clause
> provides the authority for criminal punishment of making war
without proper
> authority, harming diplomats, crossing a border without permission,
or preying on
> shipwrecks, and provides the authority for arresting someone on a
charge in a
> foreign country, and extraditing him to that country, if we have an
extradition
> treaty. (The treaty alone could not provide that authority without
the Laws of
> Nations clause, because a treaty can't require the government to
exercise
> undelegated powers.)
>
> In the Tenth Congress (1808) there was a debate over making things
other than
> treason crimes, such as conspiracy, and it was concluded, based on
original
> understanding, that the power to treat something as a crime did not
authorize
> making a conspiracy to do it a crime. See
> http://www.constitution.org/ac/017/s10-1/treason.htm . So even if
people conspired
> to bring illegal aliens in, or aided them after they got here, they
would not be
> constitutionally prosecutable. It is less clear that "aiding and
abetting" the
> direct violations of the border, either before or after, could be
prosecuted, but
> it is not unreasonable to include that if it is very directly and
proximately
> related to particular violations. It would certainly be improper to
penalize
> providing humanitarian aid to illegals. I plan to participate in
the Minuteman
> Project, but if I encountered illegals who needed medical help I
would certainly
> help if I could. We don't want to hurt these people, most of whom
are honest,
> harmless people who just want a job. The problem is that too many
of them are not
> harmless, and some may be a threat to the lives of millions of
Americans. We
> should focus on that threat, because it overwhelms all other
considerations. I am
> sorry if that means a lot of nice people are excluded, but if we
can't find a way
> to effectively separate them from another, we will have to exclude
them all rather
> than risk suitcase nukes going off in our cities.
>
> There is also no constitutional authority to require citizens to
have and show an
> ID card. This is because there is no such authority to require
anyone to even have
> a name, and one can't logically be required to present something
one is not
> required to have. (Some of my libertarian lawyer friends think this
position is a
> bit extreme, but logic is logic.) The only way we could get around
that would be
> to call up everyone as militia (and militia can be required to
carry and present
> ID) and keep everyone in a permanent called-up status, which was
not contemplated
> by the Founders.
> The Founders didn't think of everything, but they did ratify the
Constitution they
> did, and we need to enforce the Constitution they actually adopted
until it can be
> properly amended.
>
> It helps to know the historical context of the 1808 provision. It
was linked to
> legal changes occurring in England and other European countries.
This from
> http://www.daintycrew.com/slavetrade.htm
>
> It wasn't until 1772 that Lord Mansfield came to a decision and
proclaimed it
> illegal to remove any person forcibly from England. The slave trade
still
> continued due to the fact that so many of the major political
players in Liverpool
> and such were heavily involved with slavery. One prime example was
Richard Pennant
> who was Liverpool's MP. He owned 8,000 acres of sugar plantations
and over 600
> slaves in Jamaica. He was in office between 1777 and 1780 then re-
elected in 1784
> to 1790. Three out of 41 councillors in Liverpool were slave ship
owners or major
> investors in the slave trade and during the years of 1787 and 1807,
all 20 mayors
> who held office in Liverpool financed or owned slave ships.
>
> In 1808, over 100 years since the British Empire became involved in
slave trading,
> the Trans-Atlantic slave trade was abolished within the Empire and
also in the
> United States. It wasn't until 1827 however that Britain declares
the slave trade
> as piracy making it punishable by death. In 1833 slavery was
abolished throughout
> Europe and the Emancipation Act went through British parliament. It
still took
> another 11 years until 1838 before slavery was fully abolished
within the British
> Empire.
>
> -- Jon
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757
> 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> -- Jon
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757
> 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Our efforts depend on donations from people like you. Directions
> for donors are at http://www.constitution.org/whatucando.htm
> Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757
> 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Get your free digital certificate from http://www.thawte.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
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.
