Posted on 09/16/2012 6:51:44 PM PDT by billflax
Remember the old saw about speeding: anyone zipping along faster is nuts, but slower drivers are idiots. Ideologues believing in limited government are an obstinate breed, myself included. We find anyone who wants more government as fools, but those desiring even less are crazy. In theory, if everyone went 65 we'd never have a traffic jam. Sadly, state authority is necessary because of man's fallen nature.
Many libertarians approve same-sex marriage. Likewise, some perceive abortion as fundamental to freedom, even questioning Ron Paul for championing life.
Meanwhile, Americans have grown so inured to government intervention that letting people purchase contraceptives privately construes now into waging "War on Women." "Keep politics out of people's bedrooms," the Left insists, except, of course, taxpayers should get involved with their wallets.
If men were just or could all protect themselves, government would be redundant. Political authority became necessary because, to paraphrase James Madison, we aren't angels. Governments' legitimate purpose preserves culture and protects life, liberty and property. To which our Founders rightly incorporated propriety over conscience and the "pursuit of happiness."
No group needs more protection than babies regardless of which side of the womb they presently reside. By the time a mother can even confirm pregnancy, her baby has started sprouting a unique personality, brain waves have begun and her heartbeat resonates. Everyone matures through this essential phase. Unborn babies are undeniably human beings.
Libertarianism rests on the nonaggression principle, "live and let live" they say. But then why allow life to be snatched from helpless children? Lawful abortion mocks government's very legitimacy.
Same-sex marriage also betrays libertarian principles. Unless government intervenes, matrimony remains what it has been for millennia. Why have government alter an institution antecedent to America's very existence?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Do you have any evidence to support your contention? The 14th is pretty clear - everyone born in the US is considered an American, even if you were born in Louisiana Territory, or Texas. It used to be far broader than it is today, in awarding citizenship to those who were not born in the United States.
"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.[14]" John Jay, July 25th 1787 to George Washington.
Then there is the text of the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts.
Much later came the 14th.
So no... You're argument still doesn't hold water. Sorry.
“the Command in chief of the American army”
Ok, and you’re saying that people born in the United States would not be considered American citizens? They aren’t foreigners. What this is saying is that the President of the United States should be someone born in the United States, not born abroad.
I find it intriguing that a libertarian wants to strip citizenship away from Americans.
Further, various pieces of legislation and court decisions have repeatedly upheld the idea that no one should be able to keep the profits of their crimes.
This should include jumping the border and attempting to defraud the US tax payers as well.
Come here legally and the situation changes dramatically. It's that "non-initiation of force, FRAUD, or theft" thingie that defines a libertarian.
I find it intriguing that a libertarian wants to strip citizenship away from Americans.
How can you "strip" something that was never yours to begin with? If you cheat during a race and are later caught, do you get to keep the awards and trophy?
“If they are here illegally, they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US. They do not fall under the 14th.”
When did they cross the border? His parents crossed the border. But the child did not. The child is not responsible for what the parents chose to do. Citizenship looks at the child as an individual, not the child based on the parents.
“no one should be able to keep the profits of their crimes.”
And we don’t try children for what their parents did.
“This should include jumping the border and attempting to defraud the US tax payers as well.”
When did the child cross the border if they were born here.
“Come here legally and the situation changes dramatically. It’s that “non-initiation of force, FRAUD, or theft” thingie that defines a libertarian.”
The child born in America is here legally and is entitled to citizenship same as everyone else born in America.
“How can you “strip” something that was never yours to begin with?”
Legally, they do possess citizenship same as everyone else.
“If you cheat during a race and are later caught, do you get to keep the awards and trophy?”
Say you’re running a race. Player a cheats, and trips up player b. You go on to win the race. Should you be stripped of your medal since you profited from someone else cheating?
The child crosses the border in utero. They may not have had intent, but the law is still broken regardless.
Which kinda negates your last attempt at an analogy that doesn't fit.
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.