The fact is that only naturalized citizens and members of the military can truly be said to have "entered voluntarily" into the contract.
Read Article VI. All officials are also sworn. -- And all citizens are obligated to support the Constitution, as our oath of citizenship makes clear. You want to pretend it doesn't apply to you? Feel free to scoff.
At no point in my life have I sworn an oath or signed a contract. I am certainly not a signatory.
Would you refuse? Ever served on a jury? Voted? If so, you've exercised some of the duties of citizenship.
Your answer is, "then leave".
Yep, you don't like our Constitutional social contract? Feel free to leave and start a company where you can ban guns [maybe mexico?]
You are saying that I accept the terms and conditions by remaining inside the country's borders.
Exactly. Everyone in the USA is subject to our Constitutional contracts rule of law.
The reality is that no such contract exists.
Beg that fact.
I already answered the case that it inheres upon birth, by pointing out that birth was not a choice.
So what? You are a US citizen by birth, but you are free to renounce your citizenship when you are no longer a child. Until then "yo momma" tells you what to do.
You introduced a new definition: namely, that citizenship is a contract of adhesion that one enters upon turning 18.
Nope, -- citizenship is a contract that one can `renounce` upon turning 18. [or maybe earlier]
That's false too, but I haven't addressed it before. There are three arguments against this theory: First, if such a contract of adhesion existed, there must exist an adhesing party. You (or someone in this thread) denied that the government is the "other party" to the "social contract," which leaves no adhesing party at all.
Sigh. -- ALL the people of the USA are the parties to our Constitutional contract.
Second, the adhesing party must assert his/her/its rights per the contract. So if we say, for the sake of argument, that the government is a party, just to ensure that the contract actually has two parties, then we observe the government has not ever asserted its rights per the contract:
The government is a not party. -- It is our legislative, executive & judicial servant. It can deport.
namely, it has never deported anyone for breach of the social contract. The government has never attempted to enforce the terms, "abide by the contract, or else leave the country."
Bull. People are deported every day, for a multitude of reasons. - Among them are anti-social criminals.
Third, constitutional rights are applied to minors as well as adults. Therefore, the privileges of alleged the "social contract" accrue to minors; but this is only possible if the obligations of the contract also accrue to minors. Therefore, it is not possible that the contract comes into force at age 18.
Arguing the obvious. Yes -- constitutional rights are applied to minors as well as adults.
You admit social contracts exist in mammals. -- Thank you.
Very much the opposite, unless you're making the absurd claim that mongooses can make contracts.
That's an absurd sophomoric argument izzy. -- I'm arguing the humans are mammals that make social contracts.
Mongooses have a complex social order, based on a mating pair, their offspring, and various old adults and batchelor hangers-on. You're claiming these mongooses have a "social contract," which utterly beggars the meaning of the word "contract."
Amusing, but rave on
Which is exactly my point. If you actually read Hobbes, he claims that man in his natural state is involved in perpetual conflict, and that certain smarter-than-average individuals discovered "civilization" when they made a contract, and then began enforcing it on the people around them. I prove him wrong by pointing out that long before man had language, or even sentience, he had a social structure.
Yep, man has had social contracts for a long time. You shot your own foot again izzy.
Centuries passed, and a human named "Hobbes" invented a completely ahistorical explanation for the development of that social structure. Among other things, the complete ahistoricity of Hobbes's theory utterly beggars the meaning of the term "natural state".
I fail to see how your 'thing' about Hobbes disproves the fact of a Constitutional social contract izzy.
Natural-born citizens, like me, never take that oath. When you say I'm "obligated," you're back to talking about a contract I never signed.
Would you refuse? Ever served on a jury? Voted? If so, you've exercised some of the duties of citizenship.
It happens that, as part of my church's beliefs, I have never done either of those things. I'm also a conscientious objector. And before you get all righteous about it, please recall, as I said earlier, that colonial America was perfectly lousy with Quakers. Tommy Jefferson was OK with it, so you should be too.
Yep, you don't like our Constitutional social contract?
Never said I didn't like it; in fact I'm quite fond of it, and have already demonstrated that, despite my disagreements, I'm much closer to the original intent than you are. However, as for the "social contract" part, I remark that the Constitution isn't one of those, seeing as I've proven there's no such thing.
So what? You are a US citizen by birth, but you are free to renounce your citizenship when you are no longer a child.
Which, if you actually learn something about contracts of adhesion, is not a valid contractual arrangement. It's difficult discussing the subject with you, if you won't inform yourself on any relevant aspect of the subject. Contracts of adhesion are limited in certain critical ways, and here I'm talking about actual US law. Most importantly, in US law any presumption or doubt is resolved against the adhesing party. One great-big gonzo doubt is that "I could not have entered such a contract, on the grounds that I wasn't even legally a person at the time."
But the part that you're missing is extremely fundamental. Namely, if a "social contract" is indeed a contract, then I come under it by means of some sort of agreement between myself and another party. I can't possibly make that agreement as a newborn, and more than a mongoose can ever make such an agreement. Yet I'm deemed to be subject to that "contract" from the moment I'm born. Thus, a "social contract," even if it exists, is not a contract. QED
People are deported every day, for a multitude of reasons. - Among them are anti-social criminals.
Your proof? Hint: don't wear yourself out! Afroyim v Rusk found that no citizen may ever be involuntarily stripped of his citizenship. This applies equally to natural and naturalized citizens. The deportation of non-citizens, of course, has nothing to do with any "social contract" binding citizens.
I'm arguing the humans are mammals that make social contracts.
And I'm countering with the observation that mongooses have similar social arrangements, and yet clearly do not make social contracts. The apes from which we sprang had social groups, but did not make social contracts. The conclusion follows that human social groupings are a product of evolution, pre-dating the development of sentience, and therefore cannot possibly be the result of a social contract. Get it?
Yep, man has had social contracts for a long time. You shot your own foot again izzy.
You're failing to notice how long! Man has had "social contracts" ever since he was a gerbil-like rodent hiding from the dinosaurs. This proves that no "contract" was involved, unless gerbil-like rodents can now make contracts.