Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: Rurudyne
While we have been arguing that the SCOTUS acted beyond its authority and unconstitutionally, 50 million innocents have been slaughtered with no end in sight. We argue. They ignore. They kill many more than a million per year by surgical abortions alone.

The 14th Amendment makes a distinction between a smaller group "citizens" and a larger group "persons." "Persons" has been held to include corporations. "Persons" also includes those natural persons who are NOT citizens but are present within our borders. The constitution says what it says and not what the border types wish it said. For example, any court would make short work of dismissing a governmental claim that police officers are able to wantonly beat non-citizens but not to so beat citizens. Equal protection extends to non-citizens who are persons.

If the non-citizens render the service of forcing a return to the recognition of the right to life, I'll take it. The rule of law died a very long time ago in the USA. Some of us prefer to deny that but it is true nonetheless. 50 million innocent dead is far MORE than enough.

159 posted on 12/29/2006 7:22:23 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies ]

To: BlackElk
Actually, the phrase is "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

An unborn baby (especially one concieved here) is under both the jurisdiction of our civil and our criminal laws, so abortion violates this principal in spades. This is why the effort is to define "persons" in such a way as to exclude the unborn (a lawlessly legal trick used to sidestep their humanity).

However, Illegal Aliens––not having entered legally––are not properly under the jurisdiction of our civil laws because the "terms" of their entry short circuit the process by which they might enter into our social contract.

Or to paraphrase something said earlier: the rule of law is dead for them because they have killed it.

This is also why people who entered legally but overstayed their visas are in a somewhat different situation from anyone who just imposed themselves in the first place.

That doesn't mean they are not under the jurisdiction of our criminal laws; but, aside from the commission of some specific crime these don't come into play.

This is why Illegal Aliens are not called Criminal Aliens––their presence is a violation of the civil social contract more than anything else. These do not properly have any right to expect equal protection of our civil laws as the only nominal legal recourse is to summarily deport them.

Also, I would question that their presence would even have a positive effect on abortion issue as you seem to think it may. One thing about Mexico that I've observed is that its political culture, the social theories that are deeply interwoven into her people's mindsets, are very different from those of Americans.

In Mexico some years ago there was a push by the government to promote an ownership mentality and private enterprise; however, the socialist mindset is so deeply ingrained in the people that they had to do so in language more at home in discussions about social theory rather than private ownership. Really, Monty Python's erudite peasants going on and on about social theory to a divine right king is not far from the mark even if it would be over the top if applied literally.

In contrast, the purveyors of socialism in America have historically found that unless they present their poison pill wrapped in some sweet meat––such as a language of personal entitlement, rhetorically blurring the distinctions between the "American Dream" and the welfare state––they will not be widely accepted.

I would challenge you that a demographic group––Illegal Aliens as a group––who have already proven an ability to compartmentalize their ethical standards (they came here knowing it was illegal to do so the way they did) would feel right at home in the socialist Democratic Party––which is a master at managing compartmentalized ethics.

So yes, they may well be "Pro-Life" leaning right now ... but the thing about political big tents is that most people end up in the darkened bleachers passively watching the clowns and showmen in the three rings under the lights.

As long as their section hears the rhetoric they like they can ignore or tolerate what is being preached to the folks in the other bleachers (please note that the DNC keeps folks divided up this way to help keep them manageable).

Then there is your contention about the rule of law, if it has died then are we right to pat more dirt on the grave or would it not be better to do what we can to revitalize it?

Is "social justice" rendered to artificial entities and groups so very lovely a thing that we must completely abandon Justice rendered to Persons forevermore?

By such lights if a person feels they should not have to obey our laws they are excused from doing so. It really doesn't matter if they are stealing their residency, stealing something off the shelf (shoplifting) or even stealing back their wombs.

You are actually siding with the mindset that has done so much harm to the rule of law and made abortion legal in the first place: my reasons justify my actions no matter how morally, ethically, or legally problematic these are.
160 posted on 12/29/2006 10:10:43 AM PST by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson