View Single Post
  #38  
Old 03-28-2018, 07:59 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 461
Thanks: 3
Thanks 48
Default

Can I cleanly extrapolate that into a closed border policy? Probably not . I will not that the Apostle Paul did not expect to have an open border in Israel. He took the work out to places far from Israel. I don't see much example of letting people in and finding Christianity through osmosis, but it became a belief where people took the message to people where they were. Missionaries.

The problem here is the problem of reciprocation. It posits a porousness of other nations that does not exist in the host nation and so undermines their sovereignty by means of hypocrisy, which maintained as policy logically endorses the fallacy that might makes right.


On to Section 2. Concordant with the protections enumerated in Section 1, Section 2 further provides that the individual's political voice cannot be abridged except by violation of the law. Were this protection and the protections of Section 1 removed then state governments would have the power to arbitrarily strip individuals of their citizenship without losing representative seats. Thereby creating a politically castrated underclass that yet counted towards the total population and thus to representation in the House. As there is precedence of this action most infamously in the 3/5ths compromise theres is also cause for the amendment.

How bout dem mother fuckin apples.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by bluewpc; 03-28-2018 at 08:10 PM..
Reply With Quote