Broken Social Contracts versus the Rule of Law
‘This Will Make Voter Fraud Easier’: Why does Mrs. Clinton want driver’s licenses for illegal aliens? is raising some very serious questions as to the very legitimacy of the governments of New York, Iowa, Maryland, and other states. The opinion piece’s content, in fact, raises a serious issue: at what point should citizens consider themselves free to ignore–and, more importantly, juries refuse to enforce–laws that are passed by their states’ legislatures?
What we are about to discuss is not really a proposal or a call to action. We are merely serving as the bringer of what Eliot Spitzer will doubtlessly call bad news: the natural consequences of violating the basic and fundamental laws of human behavior. As stated by Henry Ford,
So, while the people are indeed supreme over the written Constitution, the spiritual constitution is supreme over them. The French Revolutionists wrote constitutions too- every drunken writer among them tossed off a constitution. Where are they? All vanished. Why? Because they were not in harmony with the constitution of the universe. The power of the Constitution is not dependent on any Government, but on its inherent rightness and practicability.
This is the underlying concept behind the social contract, in which the people agree to obey their government while the government agrees to defend the natural rights of the people. It is well known that, when one party to a contract breaks his agreement, the other party’s duty to honor the agreement ends. A strong argument can be made that, after New York City police refused to respond to 911 calls from Crown Heights’ Jewish residents while Al Sharpton’s mob was rampaging through the neighborhood and killing a Jew, New York City no longer has any gun laws, handgun control or otherwise, that anyone has any moral obligation to respect or, as a juror, any legal duty to enforce. The same applies to California’s gun control laws after Los Angeles’ police told homeowners and store owners, “You’re on your own” during the riots. New York and California broke their part of the social contract, which relieves their citizens of any moral duty to obey their governments with regards to what they are allowed to own for the purpose of defending their natural human rights (including the right to not be beaten to a pulp by a rioter, as a truck driver was in Los Angeles).
The same argument can be made in any state whose laws say that the police are under no obligation to protect any individual citizen, or at least to make the best possible effort to do so. Any such law or court ruling is an immediate breach of the social contract through which the government in question derives its authority. If this sounds like contempt or disrespect for authority, it must be remembered that authority figures that display lack of responsibility bring this contempt and disrespect on themselves. We are only the messenger who is delivering the bad news, not the agency of the negative consequences themselves. The agency consists of the natural laws of human behavior in combination with the authority figure’s own behavioral choices.
Now let us consider the problem of allowing illegal aliens to vote. Americans are under no obligation to obey the laws of Mexico unless they are in Mexico. Legislators who are elected by Mexicans have no authority to make laws that any American has any duty to obey outside of Mexico. New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, with the apparent support of Hillary Clinton, is implementing measures that will facilitate voter registration by people who have no right to vote in our country. As reported by the Wall Street Journal article:
Under pressure from liberal groups, some states have even abandoned the requirement that people check a citizenship box to be put on the voter rolls. Iowa has told local registrars they should register people even if they leave the citizenship box blank. Maryland officials wave illegal immigrants through the registration process, prompting a Justice Department letter warning they may be helping people violate federal law.
Gov. Spitzer is treading perilously close to that. Despite a tactical retreat this week–he says he will only give illegal immigrants a license that isn’t valid for airplane travel and entering federal buildings–Mr. Spitzer has taken active steps to obliterate any distinctions between licenses given to citizens and non-citizens.
…But he has not retreated from another new bizarre policy. It used to be that county clerks who process driver’s licenses were banned from giving out voter registration forms to anyone without a Social Security number. No longer. Lou Dobbs of CNN reported that an Oct. 19 memo from the state DMV informed the clerks they don’t “have any statutory discretion to withhold a motor voter form.” What’s more, the computer block preventing a DMV clerk from transmitting a motor voter registration without a Social Security number was removed.
Gov. Spitzer’s office told me the courts have upheld their position on Social Security numbers. Sandy DePerno, the Democratic clerk of Oneida County, says that makes no sense. “This makes voter fraud easier,” she told me.
As shown by the above material, it is quite clear that the New York State Legislature’s very legitimacy will come into question with the 2008 election, because it will include members who represent foreign nationals as opposed to Americans. Unless these deficiencies are corrected, and the voting rolls purged of non-citizens, residents of New York State should consider themselves under no moral obligation to obey any law passed by their state’s legislature after 2008. The same goes for Maryland and Iowa. Since “Maryland officials wave illegal immigrants through the registration process,” Maryland’s legislature is no longer a legitimate lawmaking body, and nothing it does is worthy of respect or obedience by the state’s residents.
We are not proposing anarchy by any means, because the states in question have foundations of laws that were enacted before illegal immigrants were given access to the voting booth. No one is going to argue with the set of laws that protect natural rights, such as laws against murder, theft, rape, robbery, and other crimes against persons and their property. No one can argue that laws that were enacted by previous legislatures, for whose members only U.S. Citizens could vote, are not legitimate. Only laws passed by legislatures that have been significantly (i.e. to the point of changing election results) tainted and contaminated by the votes of non-citizens should be regarded as illegitimate and unworthy of respect or obedience. In such cases, people are morally obliged to obey them only if they feel like doing so, and juries are similarly obliged to enforce them only if they seem reasonable.
We underscore the statement “no moral obligation.” The states in question will undoubtedly use their police powers to attempt to enforce the illegitimate laws that their foreign-elected legislatures pass, so we are not going to actually advise anyone to commit acts of civil disobedience. All we can say is that juries are under no obligation whatseover to enforce them. It is very important to educate all potential jurors of this fact.
New York Governor Eliot Spitzer (well known for his lack of ethics during his tenure as Attorney General, as described by the Wall Street Journal’s descriptions of his de facto shakedowns of businesses) will doubtlessly accuse us of encouraging anarchy and contempt for the law. Spitzer, you need to look in a mirror for that. By encouraging and empowering illegal aliens to participate in our elections, YOU have earned total contempt and disrespect for the directives and laws of your state, and indeed questions as to your own legitimacy as Governor. You, Eliot Spitzer, are undermining the rule of law. We are only the messenger who is delivering the bad news.