thanks for the clarification. No, I did not read the entire article. I'll get to it.

Pending a collapse of our country, I think that such an amendment will NOT be incorporated into the constitution. Too bad, because the lack of it has brought socialism and destruction of a great country

And history reveals why. In Jefferson's original Declaration of Independence, the phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" was actually "Life, Liberty and Property". Why was it changed? Simple: because slavery was still a major issue at the time. The Founders needed the slave States to ratify the Constitution or they knew that the division would lead to their ultimate defeat at the hands of the British. But at the same time, they didn't want to condone slavery. So the language of the Declaration was changed so that there would be no implicit approbation for ownership of people. Slaves were property. It is the same reason that they shied away from such in the Bill of Rights. Their only act of even tepid recognition of slavery was the 3/5 Compromise - again necessary to secure the support of the South which at the time included Virginia, which was rivaled in political power only by Massachusetts.

If the Founders could have been around following the termination of the Civil War, I'm confident that among the proposed Amendments added thereafter would have been the explicit recognition of property ownership as a fundamental and protected right.

What they did wasnt bad, but it didnt specifically protect private property, and didnt forbid any law designed to take from one person and give it to another. The lack of those things allowed cronyism to go rampant, and made the president and congressional members able to pay for play at our expense.

Our Founding Fathers certainly took to heart the failings of the various political methods tried up to that point. They even recognized the flaws in their own Articles of Confederation and revised it. I would love to have put them into cryogenic sleep for 200 years to come back now and help us revisit things again.

Now there is a fright fit for halloween last night.

we would need something to set the basic rules of human interaction, such as courts, etc. BUT, there would be no competition among governments, so in reality it would be a dictatorship with no way to modify it.

I see your point and completely agree with you.

What bothers me is that those on the Left want to grant ALL the same Rights and Privileges of a citizen to the Illegals.

That they cannot understand this most basic protection of a citizen boggles my mind.

Perhaps one of the biggest reasons for having countries and borders is to force competition among the countries in terms of government and to isolate each government's control over citizens.

There is really noplace to go for true Liberty, and that inincludes here at Home in Amerika.

I am a fast reader, but I can't keep up to my reading list. I am far behind in my Hillsdale "education" but there is not anything that I have gotten from them in which I didn't find at least one gem, and often many more.

YES!!! I just completed their free lecture series regarding the office of the President and it was fantastic, giving a historical rundown on the executive branch and how it has morphed from what it was to what it is now and which players were most influential. I had no idea that Nixon was an avid small-government person. I am seriously going to ask for their lecture guide as a Christmas present from my wife!

Everyone in the Gulch should get Hillsdale's Imprimis. Their lecture series once a month is informative and thought provoking. Some of you might object to Hillsdale's religious inclinations, but other than that, they are usually spot-on when it comes to most philosophical issues. Also, it is refreshing to observe a college that doesn't preach liberal ideology. And the biggest plus of all, it receives no money from the government so it cannot be intimidated by the Washington mud suckers.

Amen. It isn't diversity that made this land great - contrary to progressive propaganda - but the desire for freedom. If you like oppression, there are plenty of other nations to whom you can turn for your version of happiness.

Our government's number one priority is to protect its We The People.
Should a group of refugees pose a threat to We The People, me dino says to hell with them.
And women are to cover their heads and walk with a male? What's next? Denying our females a driver's license? Rape reports requiring four male witnesses?
This is the land of the free and the home of the brave. No place here for the slavery of Sharia law.
This half Swedish and a quarter Irish dino says, "Assimilate into our melting pot or stay the hell out!"
I am dino~
Hear me ROAR!

What I quoted was an excerpt. Did you read the entire article? The author doesn't start with the premise that rights accrue from government. In fact, he asserts the opposite. What he notes is that only within the structure of a Constitutional government are rights "preserved" - i.e. without someone to protect rights, it is unlikely that they will remain unabridged.

As our first philosophy teacher taught us, defining our terms and examining our first premises is vital. How can we have any kind of conversation which begins with the assumption that rights and privileges accrue to humans based on their citizenship? Privileges, maybe - they aren't listed. But rights? You're born with them, you don't get them because you do [or, perhaps, don't] live in a specific place.
more clarity achieved?

Can't argue with any of that.
I do wonder though, if we have no borders and no citizens, why do we need a government..? or laws for that matter.

I don't quite understand your objection. Can you please elaborate?

GLARING problem here...
"right and privileges that attach exclusively to citizenship"
WHAT?!? we're going to just skip right over that part and start talking about how to and where to and what to......

I'm too exhausted by dragging every scheme back to examining first principles, when that should have been done at the beginning, to even consider the scheme at all. It's doomed.

It's like attaching a ball and chain to some runners' ankles and then starting to debate the form of the race course. The race isn't going to happen, and everyone wonders why.

sigh.
edited for grammar

I agree that this would be ideal: each "nation" currently being identified as such joining the greater United States and adopting a true Constitutional stand. Many of our current states are geographically as large as many independent nation-states and several (New York/California) have the economic might alone to rival many.

I know Europe is too enamored with socialism to give it a go right now, but I think there are a few nations which might be amenable. Australia is the first that comes to mind. Vietnam, surprisingly, might be another candidate. The Phillippines would love to embrace the United States - they just don't like Obama. And if you want to throw a nuclear bomb in the mix, Taiwan.

Why could we not have world organization set up as the original United States of America with states which span the globe which are able to do what they may, but are unites by a federal government restricted in powers?

I think it could and would work, were it to be set up in the same fashion as the original US constitution. That is not the way it is set up today, but there is no reason why it could not be done. It is the only structure that would allow for the freedom of the individual, the rights and liberties to exist for each person but still provide a common framework for the core powers of the constitution for us all to work with one and other in a legal and rational system of law.