Posted on 05/04/2006 9:35:00 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Such may be a belief, but it must not be law for a limited government. The Constitution is a social contract among we the people of the United States. To allow the Federal government the power to honor claims of non-citizens is to extend its powers to interests adverse to its citizens, such as we have seen.
Foreigners are not party to that social contract. They have interests adverse to the citizenry. For the Federal government to respect their interests violates the requirement that it represent the interests of citizens. It thus violates its representative essence.
The principal reason we have government is to settle competing claims simply because all rights eventually overlap in specific instances. One person's free assembly and free speech can violate another person's right to be secure in their home. One person's free expression of homosexuality can violate another's religious free exercise. That's why we have fifty states, where the people can congregate with their common beliefs.
It is therefore one thing for the people to believe that all humans have rights. It is another to give government the power to enforce an alien's claims against American citizens. That puts government in the position of conferring rights, which is a very dangerous thing to do. Extending the rights of aliens also waters down the distinction of being an American citizen, something to which we require specific knowledge of their responsibilities and an oath of allegiance before participation. In that vein, unless a person agrees to abide by our mutual contract, it is unwise of us to allow them the freedoms it offers, simply because that latitude and protection of the law extends the opportunity for mischief in a person who has not demonstrated the intent to abide by our laws.
I don't see how the judge can bar them from enforcing their own ordinance without changing the ordinance first?
In any event, as long as they are allowed to continue standing around looking for work we know they are illegals. What's to prevent us from arresting them for being here in the first place? Or is it illegal to enforce that law too?
The problem is that 'citizenship' doesn't mean what it used to. When the Founders said 'a citizen of the United States', they meat a citizen of ONE of the several states. There was no such thing as a 'US citizen' until after the Civil War.
U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873)
"The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."
______________________________________________________________________
U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794:
"The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"
______________________________________________________________________
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)
"There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state".
------------
Having been taught since childhood we are supposed to be US citizens, it is difficult to convince people otherwise.(A Google search for "14th Amendment citizen".)
The reason illegals have more rights than citizens is because, by law, they are still natural 'persons' with all rights guaranteed by the Constitution while citizens are artificial 'persons'.... or nothing more than extensions of the federal government.
Thus we must bow to the criminal invaders while they enjoy OUR rights.
I'm well aware, as you know, about 14th Amendment citizenship, but how were American citizens treated abroad before then, as citizens of States? Somehow, I don't think so.
The same way as they are now, since another countries only concern is the COUNTRY of origin, not the internal legal workings of that country.
The meaning of citizenship has undergone an internal change, not an external one.
Somehow, I don't think so.
Obviously, you do not.
And the documents were issued by whom? What form did they take?
The meaning of citizenship has undergone an internal change, not an external one.
I already premised that I wasn't talking about 14th Amendment citizenship; I was asking a historical question. My guess is that such external workings have also undergone a number of changes pursuant to changes in international law. I can hardly imagine that the globalists would have missed such an opportunity.
Considering our prior conversation on this topic, I am rather taken aback at such a combative tone.
True, they probably have.
Considering our prior conversation on this topic, I am rather taken aback at such a combative tone.
Sorry, Hon. Wasn't intentional. Just back from taking a break from FR, and it took me a bit to connect the screen name to the discussions.
Again, my profound apologies!
for later
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.