PDA

View Full Version : Libertarians emerging as Trump resistance




CPUd
12-15-2016, 06:09 PM
Libertarians emerging as Trump resistance

As some Never Trumpers go dark, libertarians have taken up the cause.

There were the warnings against flag-burning, the threats of tariffs, and the intervention in Carrier manufacturing negotiations. And now, there’s the possible appointment of ultra-hawkish John Bolton to a top role at the State Department.

Donald Trump’s transition is raising flag after red flag for libertarians, a Republican-leaning group that in turn has emerged as a vocal, frequent thorn in the side of the incoming administration even as some previous “Never Trumpers” have gone dark.

And with Sen. Rand Paul’s power to bog down Trump’s nominees, the libertarian movement sees tangible opportunities to make its influence felt.

“Somebody’s got to be out there reminding Republicans where we stand on all of these issues,” said Brendan Steinhauser, a conservative operative based in Texas with deep ties to the liberty movement.

He pointed to the tariff and Carrier issues in particular as Trump actions giving libertarians heartburn, even as he said activists were also ready to “cheer” on Trump when he made more conservative calls and Cabinet nominations, and there have been several.

“Yes, our president — of our party, our country — may have some ideas that are very different,” he said. “It’s incumbent on us to remind him, our party, our country, what good, pro-liberty policies are. That’s a very practical thing. It’s happening right now.”

Some of the loudest and potentially most consequential libertarian dissent has come in response to Trump’s flirtation with Bolton for a plum job at the State Department, possibly as the No. 2 to ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, whom Trump named as his secretary of state pick on Tuesday.

Bolton, the conservative former United Nations ambassador who strongly supported the Iraq War, has particularly stoked the ire of Paul in the Senate.

“I am a no on John Bolton for ANY position in the State [Department] and will work to defeat his nomination to any post,”the Kentucky Republican tweeted on Sunday.

Paul sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has the power to stop the committee from recommending Bolton, if Democrats unanimously join in to block him. Other prominent libertarian outlets, including leaders with Young Americans for Liberty, have been quick to back him up.

In a recent interview, Paul — who endorsed Trump during the campaign as he dealt with his own reelection — told POLITICO that he remains supportive of Trump and his campaign promises, and he has gone out of his way to praise other nominations.

But he argued that nominating Bolton for a top slot at State would contradict a number of positions Trump took as a candidate, including opposition to the Iraq War, something Trump initially supported but made a point during the race to paint as a bad idea. Bolton — who himself is a longtime critic of Paul’s more hands-off approach to foreign policy — has also called for bombing Iran and has since been unapologetic about his support for the war in Iraq. That’s been a key sticking point with Paul.

“My efforts to insert myself into the public debate are not to oppose Donald Trump, they’re to support what Donald Trump said in the campaign,” Paul said, speaking at a time when Bolton was under more serious consideration to lead the State Department (though Paul has reiterated his opposition to Bolton in any role since then). “Regime change made us less safe, and the Iraq War allowed for chaos. … I agree on those things Trump said. I would just hate for, at the very beginning, that those things he professed on the campaign trail to be diminished or besmirched by having someone in charge of the State Department who doesn’t agree with Donald Trump.”

A Bolton representative had no comment.

Trump’s consideration of Bolton is just one alarming sign for libertarian leaders who weren’t the face of the Never Trump movement during the campaign, but who have since emerged as among the right’s most willing figures to draw contrasts with Trump.

The “liberty movement,” a sprawling network of groups and public figures whose priorities range from auditing the Federal Reserve to returning to the gold standard to reducing military intervention abroad, was never fully united behind the Never Trump movement. Those who were opposed to Trump during the campaign were often overshadowed by more prominent dissenters, like Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush.

But since the campaign, it’s the voices aligned with the liberty movement that are often among the loudest ones pushing back on various Trump proposals, especially as other more establishment Republicans have made efforts to give the incoming administration breathing room.

Certainly, there are other conservatives who have long been wary of Trump and continue to express misgivings, and several Republican senators have outlined major concerns about Tillerson and are bracing for a potential fight, including Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who also has already moved on immigration-related legislation designed to stymie potential hard-line deportation moves from a Trump administration.

But so far it is only Paul who has gone so far as to threaten to attempt to block a possible nominee from his own party’s president.

In the House, perhaps the most pointed Republican Trump critic also comes from the liberty wing of the party. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) has said he is “deeply concerned” about Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Trump’s choice for attorney general. He jabbed back at Trump after the president-elected tweeted that anyone who burns the flag should face consequences (“No president is allowed to burn the First Amendment,” Amash retorted on Twitter).

And he swiped at Trump’s 35 percent tariff proposal on goods from companies that move overseas: “Maybe the slogan should be #MakeAmericaVenezuela.”

...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-libertarians-232659

TheCount
12-15-2016, 06:54 PM
Those damn purists.

The Gold Standard
12-15-2016, 07:05 PM
Too bad they're a year too late.

Superfluous Man
12-16-2016, 08:45 AM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-libertarians-232659

There were the warnings against flag-burning, the threats of tariffs, and the intervention in Carrier manufacturing negotiations. And now, there’s the possible appointment of ultra-hawkish John Bolton to a top role at the State Department.

Donald Trump’s transition is raising flag after red flag for libertarians, a Republican-leaning group that in turn has emerged as a vocal, frequent thorn in the side of the incoming administration even as some previous “Never Trumpers” have gone dark.

And with Sen. Rand Paul’s power to bog down Trump’s nominees, the libertarian movement sees tangible opportunities to make its influence felt.

“Somebody’s got to be out there reminding Republicans where we stand on all of these issues,” said Brendan Steinhauser, a conservative operative based in Texas with deep ties to the liberty movement.

He pointed to the tariff and Carrier issues in particular as Trump actions giving libertarians heartburn, even as he said activists were also ready to “cheer” on Trump when he made more conservative calls and Cabinet nominations, and there have been several.

“Yes, our president — of our party, our country — may have some ideas that are very different,” he said. “It’s incumbent on us to remind him, our party, our country, what good, pro-liberty policies are. That’s a very practical thing. It’s happening right now.”

....

The rest talks about Rand and Amash.

LibertyEagle
12-16-2016, 09:16 AM
Donald, just let the entirety of Central America, Syria and wherever, flood into the U.S. en masse and make the libertarians all happy inside. That national sovereignty thing really pisses them off.

Superfluous Man
12-16-2016, 09:23 AM
Donald, just let the entirety of Central America, Syria and wherever, flood into the U.S. en masse and make the libertarians all happy inside. That national sovereignty thing really pisses them off.

You can have national sovereignty without preventing people from crossing borders.

Just like the USA was sovereign for the first 100+ years of its existence, and all the 50 states are (or are supposed to be) sovereign, all without any restrictions of crossing borders.

LibertyEagle
12-16-2016, 09:29 AM
You can have national sovereignty without preventing people from crossing borders.

Just like the USA was sovereign for the first 100+ years of its existence, and all the 50 states are (or are supposed to be) sovereign, all without any restrictions of crossing borders.

In case you didn't realize it, our nation no longer requires explorers and settlers. :p

Regarding the 50 states; they are part of the nation called the United States of America. They are not foreign nations.

You're welcome.

Superfluous Man
12-16-2016, 09:34 AM
In case you didn't realize it, our nation no longer requires explorers and settlers.

Source?


Regarding the 50 states; they are part of the nation called the United States of America. They are not foreign nations.


So you don't think they're sovereign?

Does the US Constitution ever call the United States of America a nation?

fisharmor
12-16-2016, 09:39 AM
Does the US Constitution ever call the United States of America a nation?

It also expressly forbids the federal government from controlling ingress to the United States, but LE wants to keep them out so she redefines the word "invasion" to get what she wants.

LE publicly wipes her ass with the constitution just as much as Obama does. It's the reason why I am not pro-constitution: because that would put me in the same category as people like her.

69360
12-16-2016, 12:00 PM
Donald, just let the entirety of Central America, Syria and wherever, flood into the U.S. en masse and make the libertarians all happy inside. That national sovereignty thing really pisses them off.

That's not true at all.

Let them come if they want. Document them. Find out who they are, why they are coming and what they will do before entry. Then give them a green card so they can work and pay taxes. Give them no entitlements until they are a citizen. It's not hard at all to do.

undergroundrr
12-16-2016, 01:11 PM
Interesting to see major media use "liberty movement" as a unified label. I don't remember seeing that in the past. Pretty good article.

LE is doing the same thing here that Sola Fide was doing in the religion forums. It got him banned. It might be a good idea to flag her posts to Bryan.

PierzStyx
12-16-2016, 01:25 PM
Donald, just let the entirety of Central America, Syria and wherever, flood into the U.S. en masse and make the libertarians all happy inside. That national sovereignty thing really pisses them off.

It pisses off anyone who loves liberty.

There is no such thing as "national sovereignty." The only sovereign over your life is you. The nation is not a person with rights, it is a tool to be used and discarded. Nothing more. People are sovereign. Individuals are sovereign. Governments are more akin to screwdrivers and hammers. And the idea of "national sovereignty" is as ludicrous as insisting on "screwdriver sovereignty" of "pizza cutter sovereignty" or "bicycle chain sovereignty."

And, as you so aptly demonstrate, the call for "national sovereignty" is really just an excuse for nationalists and authoritarians to hunt, beat, kill, and oppress those they do not like. "National sovereignty" is the tool of the jackboot, the justification of the tyrant.

PierzStyx
12-16-2016, 01:31 PM
That's not true at all.

Let them come if they want. Document them.

So you want the government to be able to track and control people?

Find out who they are, why they are coming and what they will do before entry.

That is as much none of your business as what I do.

Then give them a green card so they can work and pay taxes.

You don't need a green card to work or pay taxes. Just stop making their labor and lives illegal. It is terrible Progressive economic protectionism anyway.

And undocumented immigrants do pay taxes. Lots in fact.

"Collectively, America's undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.64 billion in state and local taxes every year with at least 50 percent of undocumented immigrant households filing tax returns using Individual Tax Identification Numbers.

Many who do not file tax returns still have taxes deducted from their pay checks. Out of that $11.64 billion total, undocumented immigrants pay $6.9 billion in sales and excise taxes, $3.6 billion in property taxes and about $1.1 billion in personal income taxes." http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/10/06/how-much-tax-do-americas-undocumented-immigrants-actually-pay-infographic/#1f0bd22a640e


But why are you calling for them to pay more taxes anyway? Instead of making people pay more taxes we should be calling for everyone to pay no taxes. Taxation is theft.

Give them no entitlements until they are a citizen.

How about never? How about no one gets entitlements?

It's not hard at all to do.

No, it isn't, because liberty is the answer. As always.

Responses in bold my own.

dannno
12-16-2016, 01:32 PM
lol.. Did anybody read the article?

The whole article was about how libertarians have been excited about many of Trump's nominations so far, how much they support Trump and how they are a little worried that someone they might not like could possibly be nominated for an under-secretary position...

The title of the article should be along the lines of "Libertarians Help Support Trump, Hold his Feet to the Fire About Possible Nominees"

What this has to do with #NeverTrump, I have no idea.. because I'm pretty sure they are all really happy Trump is President and not Hillary.

timosman
12-16-2016, 01:36 PM
The nation is not a person with rights, it is a tool to be used and discarded. Nothing more.

Thank you for putting this so eloquently. :rolleyes:

fisharmor
12-16-2016, 01:40 PM
Thank you for putting this so eloquently. :rolleyes:

And correctly.

timosman
12-16-2016, 01:43 PM
And correctly.

Certainly. :cool:

Brian4Liberty
12-16-2016, 02:59 PM
lol.. Did anybody read the article?

The whole article was about how libertarians have been excited about many of Trump's nominations so far, how much they support Trump and how they are a little worried that someone they might not like could possibly be nominated for an under-secretary position...

The title of the article should be along the lines of "Libertarians Help Support Trump, Hold his Feet to the Fire About Possible Nominees"

What this has to do with #NeverTrump, I have no idea.. because I'm pretty sure they are all really happy Trump is President and not Hillary.

The article is a waste of words. The entire article could be written in one sentence: "Rand Paul will not support John Bolton, and Justin Amash has been skeptical of some of Trump's actions, such as what favors may have been given to Carrier."

The rest is just sowing division, and attempting to create gross generalizations based on the sparse evidence above.

pcosmar
12-16-2016, 04:02 PM
Libertarians are not generally fond of any authoritarians.
and I am not anti-Trump nor a #nevertrumper. And certainly not a Trump humper.
I really don't like the blantant Nationalism..

and I am watching and waiting to see,

69360
12-16-2016, 04:36 PM
No, it isn't, because liberty is the answer. As always.

Responses in bold my own.

Yes, I want the US government to track non-citizens who enter the country. In this day and age it just makes sense. Non-citizens don't have constitutional rights and tracking them is legal and prudent.

Baby steps, you can't just cut off all entitlements tomorrow. Not giving them to non-citizens is a good start.

Anti Federalist
12-16-2016, 05:02 PM
It pisses off anyone who loves liberty.

There is no such thing as "national sovereignty." The only sovereign over your life is you. The nation is not a person with rights, it is a tool to be used and discarded. Nothing more. People are sovereign. Individuals are sovereign. Governments are more akin to screwdrivers and hammers. And the idea of "national sovereignty" is as ludicrous as insisting on "screwdriver sovereignty" of "pizza cutter sovereignty" or "bicycle chain sovereignty."

And, as you so aptly demonstrate, the call for "national sovereignty" is really just an excuse for nationalists and authoritarians to hunt, beat, kill, and oppress those they do not like. "National sovereignty" is the tool of the jackboot, the justification of the tyrant.

Not if the goal of the government in question is to exist only to secure individual rights.


Uh huh, and in 1880 there were not 7.5 billion people on the planet. Nor was there a federal government the size and shape and power it is today.

The sad fact of the matter is that, in spite of lofty ideals of western enlightenment, the vast majority of the people on the face of the earth are either uncaring and apathetic towards the ideals we both hold to be true, or they are openly hostile to them.

Every nation to the south of our current border has been mired in leftist, rightist or tribal authoritarianism of the most brutal sort, or corruption, for over a thousand years.

They do not give a tin shit about Jeffersonian ideals.

And that is most of the "huddled masses" and "wretched refuse" of the world.

I'm not sure I have any good solutions that fall into a perfect peg of individualist freedom, but I do know this:

If nothing is done about this, those lofty goals of individual freedom and constitutional republicanism and western enlightenment will be as dead as Julius Ceasar within another 100 years, and the world will enter another "dark age" from which it may never recover.

The wave of immigration in the late 19th and early 20th century gave us the "Progressive Era" that we still are suffering from.

PierzStyx
12-16-2016, 05:46 PM
Not if the goal of the government in question is to exist only to secure individual rights.

The wave of immigration in the late 19th and early 20th century gave us the "Progressive Era" that we still are suffering from.

Despite the steady propaganda we are fed from cradle to grave the reality is that there has never, ever been a formal government that has existed to secure individual rights. Even in America. From the very beginning you did not have freedom here. During the Washington Presidency, Washington literally waged war against civilians asserting their rights to refuse to consent to a government they felt violated their rights and to establish a central bank that would manipulate the money supply, the value of the dollar, interest rates, and engage in deficit spending. And it only has gotten worse, to say nothing of the 5 million people held in absolute slavery and reduced to the legal status of animals. Governments exist to take your freedom, not protect it.

And the idea that Progressives used immigrants to somehow bring about the Progressive Era by giving government hand out to poor immigrants is another myth we are sold on by modern Progressives who want to ignore their basis in racism and eugenics and sell us the lie that they used government to bring peace and equality. In reality the whole point of the Progressive Era was to use government to prevent the "inferior races", immigrants, and women from having a part of society and gaining equality. Progressive laws were about purposefully holding down immigrants from free market competition and being successful while giving government aid to poor but "genetically superior" whites as a way to promote their position in society.


" In a 2005 article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, “Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era,” the economist Thomas C. Leonard offered a completely new historical account of the sources of Progressive-Era labor legislation and the intentions of its supporters. Leonard’s work, including an important 2009 article coauthored with legal scholar David E. Bernstein for Law and Contemporary Problems, “Excluding Unfit Workers: Social Control Versus Social Justice in the Age of Economic Reform,” indicates that lurking behind what many people see as humanitarian reforms was something much uglier.

Leonard and Bernstein argue that some of the most prominent of the Progressive reformers were “partisans of human inequality.” They supported interventions as ways to forward their eugenic goal of a purer (that is, whiter) human race by eliminating the opportunities for the “unfit” to get meaningful work. The “unfit” here included not just nonwhites (especially African-Americans) but also the “insane,” immigrants (especially from central and eastern Europe), and in a somewhat different way, women.

...

Leonard’s work shows that some advocates of the minimum wage, including many giants of the early days of the economics profession, such as John R. Commons and Richard T. Ely, understood exactly what minimum wage laws would do and liked it. In addition, various Progressives and socialists who were not economists, such as Eugene Debs and Beatrice and Sidney Webb, also supported minimum wage laws and other interventions into the labor market precisely because they would weed out those who were deemed too stupid or lazy to compete in a market economy—in particular, women, immigrants, and blacks.

...

A. B. Wolfe, who would one day be a president of the American Economic Association, wrote in the American Economic Review in 1917 (quoted in part by Leonard and Bernstein): “If the inefficient entrepreneurs would be eliminated so would the ineffective workers. I am not disposed to waste much sympathy upon either class. The elimination of the inefficient is in line with our traditional emphasis on free competition, and also with the spirit and trend of modern social economics. [B]There is no panacea that can ‘save’ the incompetents except at the expense of the normal people. They are a burden on society and on the producers wherever they are.”

In the context of the early twentieth century this group largely included nonwhites, immigrants, and women, as well as white males with physical or mental disabilities—the very same groups the Progressive eugenicists thought were diluting the quality of the human gene pool. Unlike their modern successors, these supporters of minimum wage laws were under no illusion about the effects of their proposed policies; they understood and intended the negative consequences that economists now go to great lengths to argue will be the outcomes of the policies favored by contemporary Progressives. A great irony of the Progressive movement for a minimum wage is that while it aimed at eliminating the “unemployable,” it in fact created a group of “unemployables.”

https://fee.org/articles/eugenics-progressivisms-ultimate-social-engineering/


Don't be taken in my the current Progressive myth that says they were the champion of the immigrant. The reality is the exact opposite. They wanted to use the power and violence of the state to limit and eliminate the immigrants form society. This by the way is how you can tell the modern day Progressives who claim to be supporters of liberty. Like the Progressives of a hundred years ago, our modern "libertarian" Progressives have no issue violating the human rights of others because they see the immigrants as being dumb, lazy, corrupt people whose politics threaten whatever American society is imagined to be. But don't be taken in, these Progressives are not libertarians nor are they liberty minded. If they valued liberty they would not support state violence against the person and rights of others for any cause. Instead they really are just Progressives seeking to force their way of living on everyone else and to hunt, beat, and kill those who are different. And the same prejudicial and racist thought that outlined early Progressives guide the modern ones too.

PierzStyx
12-16-2016, 05:55 PM
Yes, I want the US government to track non-citizens who enter the country. In this day and age it just makes sense. Non-citizens don't have constitutional rights and tracking them is legal and prudent.

Baby steps, you can't just cut off all entitlements tomorrow. Not giving them to non-citizens is a good start.

I'm sorry, but what are "constitutional rights"? I've never heard of such a thing? To you mean rights to Life, Liberty, Property, Association, Speech, Movement, and so on? Because those are not "constitutional rights" - those are human rights, which all people have universally.

You seem to labor under the error that the Constitution grants any rights. It does not. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is ALL PEOPLE, irregardless of nation, ethnicity, culture, religion, sex, etc. all have the same universal rights and that here in America it didn't matter what your political standing was- the government protected those rights for you. That is the point of the Bill of Rights and being a citizen was completely and absolutely irrelevant. This idea of "constitutional rights" is a leftist idea meant to create a justification for abusing and taking from others their basic human rights. But, and say this with me, "Rights do not come from government. They exist naturally and equally among all people."

So no, tracking them is neither just nor legal. Whatever the laws of the State are, violating the person, property, and privacy of another person breaks Natural Law and violates the inalienable human rights of that person. It makes you a traitor to the cause of liberty and a tyrant. If you support this then your are not a friend of liberty- as your very purpose is to violate another's liberty- and you are not a libertarian- as you are calling for the initiation of violence against someone who has done no harm to you. It is neither just nor prudent- as Edward Snowden's leaks have shown us.

eleganz
12-16-2016, 06:21 PM
^^^^^ and its not just a human right, it is a right plain and simple.

69360
12-16-2016, 06:26 PM
I'm sorry, but what are "constitutional rights"? I've never heard of such a thing? To you mean rights to Life, Liberty, Property, Association, Speech, Movement, and so on? Because those are not "constitutional rights" - those are human rights, which all people have universally.

You seem to labor under the error that the Constitution grants any rights. It does not. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is not ALL PEOPLE, irregardless of nation, ethnicity, culture, religion, sex, etc. all have the same universal rights and that here in America it didn't matter what your political standing was- the government protected those rights for you. That is the point of the Bill of Rights and being a citizen was completely and absolutely irrelevant. This idea of "constitutional rights" is a leftist idea meant to create a justification for abusing and taking from others their basic human rights. But, and say this with me, "Rights do not come from government. They exist naturally and equally among all people."

So no, tracking them is neither just nor legal. Whatever the laws of the State are, violating the person, property, and privacy of another person breaks Natural Law and violates the inalienable human rights of that person. It makes you a traitor to the cause of liberty and a tyrant. If you support this then your are not a friend of liberty- as your very purpose is to violate another's liberty- and you are not a libertarian- as you are calling for the initiation of violence against someone who has done no harm to you. It is neither just nor prudent- as Edward Snowden's leaks have shown us.

I think you are living in la-la land.

Nobody is proposing tracking citizens. It's prudent to keep track of people who come to our country and I would go as far as to say very important to find out who they are and why they want to come before they are let in.

A citizen should have rights in the US that a non-citizen doesn't. That was always the intent. Things have been pretty well fucked up in the world and there are people who intend to come here and either do us harm or leech off us. You could argue our government caused that and I would agree. But it doesn't change the fact we need to be careful about who is here and why. If that means we violate the "natural rights" of non-citzens then it is a necessary evil.

Krugminator2
12-16-2016, 06:43 PM
^^^^^ and its not just a human right, it is a right plain and simple.

Who says? The only purpose of immigration policy should be if makes the people currently living here better off. I support working immigrants coming to the United States because a working immigrant increases productivity. Immigration is a pragmatic issue.

A significant amount of effort went to forming a country that is the most successful experiment in human history. A Somali refugee is not the same as an engineering PHD from Singapore. They should be treated differently I don't think there should be a number cap on immigrants but it is completely legitimate to screen people using a number of different factors. Anyone who thinks Sharia Law should be the law of the land should not be allowed to live here. Sharia Law is incapable with civilization. I am looking at Pew Poll right now. 91% of Iraqi Muslims think Sharia Law should be the law of the land. Zero percent of those people should be allowed in the United States.

Contumacious
12-16-2016, 07:00 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-libertarians-232659

B U L L S H I T

DJT supports the right to bear arms

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Joseph Story
A "deplorable" Supreme Court Justice

.

Working Poor
12-16-2016, 07:07 PM
I hear a lot of talk about equal rights and level playing field. I don't think the government should be able to discriminated against it's citizens nor should it be allowed to imprison any of it's citizens because of a substance that they feel they want or need. I don't think I need the government to heard me like cattle.

I don't want or expect a level playing field. I like climbing high mountains and swimming deep oceans. I don't think anyone is better than me or worse than me. I don't compete with anybody but myself I swing thru the trees with the greatest of ease.

TheCount
12-16-2016, 07:37 PM
Non-citizens don't have constitutional rights and tracking them is legal and prudent.Could you point out to us the place in the Constitution where it says that?

69360
12-16-2016, 07:37 PM
Could you point out to us the place in the Constitution where it says that?

Point out where it says they do.

There is precedent that they don't.

TheCount
12-16-2016, 08:08 PM
Point out where it says they do.

There is precedent that they don't.Well, there's this little tidbit:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And:

nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


As for the Federal government, most of the bill of rights says similar things. I'm going to guess that you're planning on narrowly interpreting the use of the words 'the people,' 'person' and such in the Constitution. Doesn't really make any sense if you read the whole thing that way, though. Also, it's been a topic of conversation for quite a while:


Again it is said, that aliens not being parties to the constitution, the rights and privileges which it secures, cannot be at all claimed by them.To this reasoning also, it might be answered, that although aliens are not parties to the constitution, it does not follow that the constitution has vested in Congress an absolute power over them. The parties to the constitution may have granted, or retained, or modified the power over aliens, without regard to that particular consideration.
But a more direct reply is, that it does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the constitution; yet it will not be disputed, that as they owe on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled in return, to their protection and advantage.
If aliens had no rights under the constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one half may be also aliens.


http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-17-02-0202


For precedent, there's plenty that disagrees with you. This is the first one that comes to mind:


But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders. Such rights include those protected by the First and the Fifth Amendments and by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. None of these provisions acknowledges and distinction between citizens and resident aliens. They extend their inalienable privileges to all `persons' and guard against any encroachment on those rights by federal or state authority.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/344/590.html

The Gold Standard
12-16-2016, 08:29 PM
Point out where it says they do.

There is precedent that they don't.

There's precedent that citizens don't either.

69360
12-16-2016, 11:45 PM
Well, there's this little tidbit:

And:



As for the Federal government, most of the bill of rights says similar things. I'm going to guess that you're planning on narrowly interpreting the use of the words 'the people,' 'person' and such in the Constitution. Doesn't really make any sense if you read the whole thing that way, though. Also, it's been a topic of conversation for quite a while:



http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-17-02-0202


For precedent, there's plenty that disagrees with you. This is the first one that comes to mind:



http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/344/590.html

Any person was clearly intended to mean any citizen. It's not a narrow definition, when they wrote it they didn't intend it to apply to citizens of other countries. While non-citzens are afforded the same due process under our laws while in our country, they do not have the same protections under our constitution.


There's precedent that citizens don't either.

That's true as well.

enhanced_deficit
12-17-2016, 12:10 AM
Seems like misleading headline, opposing a pick like Bolton ( whose chances are as much as those of Rudy, Mitt, Palin etc) is not opposing Trump.


Libertarians emerging as Trump resistance

As some Never Trumpers go dark, libertarians have taken up the cause.

There were the warnings against flag-burning, the threats of tariffs, and the intervention in Carrier manufacturing negotiations. And now, there’s the possible appointment of ultra-hawkish John Bolton to a top role at the State Department.

Donald Trump’s transition is raising flag after red flag for libertarians, a Republican-leaning group that in turn has emerged as a vocal, frequent thorn in the side of the incoming administration even as some previous “Never Trumpers” have gone dark.

And with Sen. Rand Paul’s power to bog down Trump’s nominees, the libertarian movement sees tangible opportunities to make its influence felt.

Rand Paul Will Endorse Donald Trump
reason.com/blog/2016/05/06/rand-paul-will-endorse-donald-trump-the
May 6, 2016



Far more Libertarians see Trump as better choice than SWCs Hillary-DGP alliance than vice versa.

Libertarian Poll: If Presidential contest is between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, who would you prefer? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?493269-If-Presidential-contest-is-between-Hillary-Clinton-and-Donald-Trump-who-would-you-prefer&)

CPUd
12-17-2016, 12:29 AM
Libertarians eye Trump presidency warily


When it comes to Donald Trump, let’s just say libertarians have a complex relationship. In the past, he’s voiced support for legalizing drugs. More recently, he’s expressed an interest in waterboarding and worse. Last month, Trump included in his spate of transition-team meetings John Allison, the former head of the Cato Institute, the marquee libertarian think tank. But he’s also flouting free markets by celebrating his own deal with Carrier to keep 1,000 jobs in the United States. Trump’s pro-Wall Street one minute, and anti-Federal Reserve the next. He’s softer on gay marriage than on abortion. And while he’s got longtime libertarian visionary Peter Thiel in his corner, he’s also got customary press freedom in his crosshairs. Will a Trump presidency tip into authoritarianism, or will it forge some strange but half-recognizable consensus around social liberalism and economic growth?

Libertarians — and not just libertarians — are asking themselves. And though it’s harder than many would hope to settle on some answers, it’s clear what kinds of opportunities Trump could take advantage of or reject. And given the huge questions Obama has left behind about how to restore America’s footing in our technological age, it’s equally clear that political freedom as we have known it could hang in the balance.

Consider the military. Trump’s choice for secretary of Defense is Marine Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis, known for his colorful and no-nonsense approach to, well, everything. For libertarians concerned that Trump could fill his Cabinet with people who care a lot more about the war on terror than on civil liberties (ahem, Rudy Giuliani), the move instantly raised some eyebrows. On the other hand, the main thing we know about the influence of Mattis on Trump is that the gruff warrior talked him out of waterboarding in about five minutes.

Trump told the New York Times Mattis said he “never found it to be useful,” claming he could “do better” with “a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers” than with torture. In typical style, Trump didn’t say he’d changed his feelings about waterboarding, but allowed that he was impressed. Libertarians on edge should probably take solace in the fact that the authority of career professionals like Mattis will likely matter a lot more than Trump’s opinions over the haul of defense policymaking. But how much a fight Trump might put up if he’s annoyed by that fact is up to Trump himself — and, perhaps, his inner circle.

Even inside Trump Tower, however, a certain ambiguity about the upshot of political freedom haunts the proceedings. To manage the transition between Obama and Trump at the Defense Department, Trump has tapped Trae Stephens, an alum of Thiel’s defense-heavy data crunching company Palantir. Thiel’s Silicon Valley relationships also extend past the Pentagon, in the direction of the U.S. intelligence community. Beyond related work at Palantir, his Founders Fund helped supply investment capital to Elon Musk’s SpaceX — which not long ago took the lead in launching orbital satellites away from the Russians. The issue of cybersecurity, one of the Obama administration’s weakest areas, has complicated what was once a very direct libertarian story about privacy and secrecy. (Dramatizing today’s messy new reality, the rogue Anonymous hacking organization has come out in favor of libertarian presidential hopeful John McAfee for Trump security adviser.) If the big tech companies’ complicity in wide-net surveillance was one of the rudest awakenings for libertarians of the past several years, the next few could prove decisive in determining how the balance between protective measures and more oppressive ones is struck, even with a critical mass of libertarians and sympathizers “in the room” with Trump.

The same goes for the coming reckoning over finance, which has been as scrambled and troubled by revolutionary technological advances as security. At a moment when libertarians could split on issues ranging from the phaseout of paper currency to the breakup of the big banks, Trump will be coming into office with a possibly unique and unprecedented opportunity to pick winners and losers in the broad conflict between the country’s established financiers and its virtuoso outsiders. (Thiel’s original goal with PayPal, recall, was to create a method of payment that would replace government currency.) It’s true that Allison, the Ayn Rand fan who suggested to Trump that he scrap Dodd-Frank on grounds of ineffectiveness, lost out in the Treasury Secretary race to Steve Mnuchin, a Goldman Sachs alum seen as a champion of the East Coast power elite. Then again, who better than the likes of Mnuchin to guide Trump away from a destructive approach to the country’s well-established free trade agreements libertarians love? Much as with security, on finance, while presidential authoritarianism might hold out the promise of convenience to Trump, who probably has little patience for parsing the nettlesome challenges posed to policymaking by the tech revolution, a more sophisticated approach to breaking with Obama’s legacy would bear more fruit.

That’s why it’s even worth thinking so hard about which choices would harrow libertarians and which would hearten them. The fact is that libertarians are at the center of the most significant debates about rebuilding the American institutional order on firmer, more durable, and more broadly empowering ground. That means libertarians are best positioned today for more influence — and more variation and nuance in their specific prescriptions around policy. And that, in turn, means they’re perhaps the most important bellwether today in helping Americans get a feel for whether Trump is headed down a path that will lead to peace and prosperity — or to something else.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/hear-737331-booed-jarring.html

TheCount
12-17-2016, 01:46 AM
Any person was clearly intended to mean any citizen.Oh, really? Explain these then:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Slaves were citizens?


The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Only citizens can be impeached? Or maybe there's a different, unstated, standard for impeachment of non-citizens?


No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Non-citizens get exceptions from these sections, I guess. Because reasons.


No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

Redundancy, I guess. Oh, and let's use two different words which we intend to have the same meaning in the same sentence.



The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Here we have citizen in the first line but then person used in the very next line. Why would they do that, if the two words were to mean the same thing? Oh, and slave-citizens again.

timosman
12-17-2016, 03:33 AM
Oh, and slave-citizens again.

What about foreigners? No laws should apply to them? :confused:

TheCount
12-17-2016, 01:09 PM
What about foreigners? No laws should apply to them? :confused:... that's the point that I'm trying to make. If you interpret the constitution as 69360 suggests, it ends up not making any sense.

nikcers
12-17-2016, 01:29 PM
... that's the point that I'm trying to make. If you interpret the constitution as 69360 suggests, it ends up not making any sense.

Well yeah it doesn't make sense in some ways we could easily become a dictatorship.

“Gödelian” design defect:The amendment procedures set forth in Article V self-apply to the constitutional statements in article V themselves, including the entrenchment clauses in article V. Furthermore, not only may Article V itself be amended, but it may also be amended in a downward direction

PierzStyx
01-03-2017, 01:10 PM
I think you are living in la-la land.

Nobody is proposing tracking citizens. It's prudent to keep track of people who come to our country and I would go as far as to say very important to find out who they are and why they want to come before they are let in.

A citizen should have rights in the US that a non-citizen doesn't. That was always the intent. Things have been pretty well $#@!ed up in the world and there are people who intend to come here and either do us harm or leech off us. You could argue our government caused that and I would agree. But it doesn't change the fact we need to be careful about who is here and why. If that means we violate the "natural rights" of non-citzens then it is a necessary evil.

Being a citizen is irrelevant. you're talking about tracking people. And the government tracking any people is a violation of their basic inalienable rights.

Again, the intent of the Bill of Rights was and is to protect everyone's rights from the US Federal Government. Not only citizens.


If that means we violate the "natural rights" of non-citzens then it is a necessary evil.

And thank you for revealing yourself as a leftist progressive. You've just made the very argument every anti-liberty, anti-individual, anti-rights, big government Leftist has ever made. It is "for the common good" and therefore it is okay to unleash the violence of the state against people, to force them to live, think, and act as you deem appropriate. What you are talking about is not liberty. What you are proposing slavery.

PierzStyx
01-03-2017, 01:14 PM
Point out where it says they do.

There is precedent that they don't.

Sure, the precedent of the State making you its slave.

If the government doesn't have a power granted to it explicitly in the Constitution then it doesn't have that power, as per Medicament 10. Therefore unless you can show somewhere in the Constitution that the Federal Government can violate the rights of non-citizens, your argument is invalid.

You clearly are actually completely ignorant of the Constitution like every Leftist who wants to twist it to fit their crusade of the week.

PierzStyx
01-03-2017, 01:18 PM
Any person was clearly intended to mean any citizen. It's not a narrow definition, when they wrote it they didn't intend it to apply to citizens of other countries. While non-citzens are afforded the same due process under our laws while in our country, they do not have the same protections under our constitution.


Malarkey. If it meant citizen it would have said citizen. Instead it says person. That is no accident. That is because every person, completely divorced from immigration status, is afforded these legal protections for their inherent human rights. That you try and wrest the meaning of the word person, to warp it to try and make it mean whatever you can to justify your leftist agenda, means nothing other than you're okay with lying and deception to promote your cause.

Superfluous Man
01-05-2017, 11:07 AM
I think you are living in la-la land.

Nobody is proposing tracking citizens.

While I agree with the others who have pointed out that your distinction between citizens and noncitizens is invalid, you're also simply wrong in this assertion.

It's impossible to track immigrants without tracking everyone.

If citizens don't have to have papers that prove they're citizens, then any illegal immigrant, lacking papers, can just claim to be a citizen, and they will thereby avoid tracking on the basis of their lack of papers.