Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 43 of 43

Thread: Libertarians emerging as Trump resistance

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    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/documen.../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-suprem...t/344/590.html
    Last edited by TheCount; 12-16-2016 at 08:10 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    Point out where it says they do.

    There is precedent that they don't.
    There's precedent that citizens don't either.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    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/documen.../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-suprem...t/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.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    There's precedent that citizens don't either.
    That's true as well.

  6. #34
    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?

  7. #35
    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/h...d-jarring.html
    “I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Oh, and slave-citizens again.
    What about foreigners? No laws should apply to them?

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    What about foreigners? No laws should apply to them?
    ... 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ... 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

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    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.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    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.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    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.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    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.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. Why are some Libertarians rejecting Trump?
    By Don Francis Frost in forum Guest Forum
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 05-22-2017, 10:03 AM
  2. Democrat Harold Ford Jr. emerging as potential Trump pick
    By CPUd in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-23-2016, 06:32 PM
  3. For Whites Sensing Decline, Donald Trump Unleashes Words of Resistance
    By CPUd in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-15-2016, 09:49 PM
  4. Trump versus Johnson, and libertarians who are voting...
    By ProIndividual in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-11-2016, 11:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •