Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the “Declaration of Independence” wrote that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This core philosophy, that would be used as both a rallying cry for our struggle against the British monarchy, as well as the inspiration for our Constitution literally says that “all men are created equal.” This beautiful and inspiring statement is not what the Founding Fathers meant. Women were not universally granted voting rights in the United States until 1920, and people of color, whether or not legally freed from their servitude, were not seen as equals. Even ‘whiteness’ is an oversimplification, as the Founders did not see all Europeans as equally ‘white’. A harsh truth that immigrants from Eastern Europe, Italy and Ireland had to contend with when they came to our shores.
The Bill of Rights guarantees all Americans the “right to keep and bear arms” through the Second Amendment to the Constitution. However, we know that our understanding of ‘arms’ differs greatly from what our Founders had in mind. The musket is a sling-shot compared to the hardware available today. From weapons that burst fire 5 rounds a second, to literal missile launchers and tanks. How could the Founders predict the RPG, or the Gatling gun or the AR-15? They meant for us to have what they knew, muskets. Were they military grade? Yes; however, they could not, in their wildest imagination, predict that we would have the capacity to accurately fire a round 300 meters, create bullets that punch clear through steel, or split the atom.[1]
Why am I bringing this up? Every single libertarian has heard these arguments and said the same thing: “The [law/Constitution] says I can own an ‘arm’, not just a musket.” or “the Declaration of Independence says “all men are created equal” not just white men.” Why don’t we conform to the desires or intentions of the Founders? Because it doesn’t matter. No future generation has ever been beholden to conform to the intentions or desires of their predecessors. The Founders didn’t want women and people of color to be our equal and they likely would not agree that an individual person should be able to drive a Panzer tank down Broad Street. But whether they did or they didn't, what matters is what the laws or amendments say, not what they personally wanted.
We Libertarians have always adopted Textualism for legal interpretation. Textualism is a commitment to a literal reading of laws and the Constitution. If the Constitution says that the right to Freedom of Speech will not be abridged we do not ask if that’s what they really meant, or if modern changes would have resulted in the Founders reassessing their position, or if the Founding generation acted in a different manner.[2] We follow it to the letter, unless it otherwise is incompatible with the Principle of Non-Aggression. Should a law, or the Constitution itself advocate for something we deem to be an act of aggression against rights bearers, we call for the necessary changes (in line with accepted legal procedures) to bring the law and the axiom into alignment.[3] We have always taken the position that if the law says X then it’s X. We have used this exact line of reasoning to reject every instance of gun-grabbing (I distinctly remember Libertarians rightfully pissed when Trump banned bump-stocks), censorship (some argue that even private enterprises can’t censor within the confines of their own organization), and even the limitations placed on Third Parties for ballot access. Never, have we relied on, or even really accepted the argument that the Founders’ or drafter’s intention was paramount. In fact, if we opened that door, we invite reasoned defenses for things we find abhorrent:
Gun Control Advocates: “Americans should not have access to assault weapons or military tech. As the Founders never intended for a single American to have the kind of firepower to single handedly defeat Gen. Cornwallis.”
Libertarians: “The right to bear arms is Constitutionally affirmed. It doesn’t specify what is or is not an acceptable ‘arm’”.
Censorship Advocates: “The Founders would agree that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly was not intended to allow anti-vaxers, who threaten our health, from having anti-lockdown protests. The U.S. has the authority to make them disperse until such time when we deem it safe.”
Libertarians: “The Constitution does not list exemptions to Freedom of Speech or Assembly. What part of “Congress shall make no law” don’t you get?”
This can be repeated ad nauseam if it’s still unclear. Suffice to say, we have always taken the position that what matters is what is written, not their intention, interpretation, etc. So why then do we suddenly have so many saying that somehow, the 14th Amendment, which clearly states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside… ” doesn’t protect Birthright Citizenship? Why, after decades of commitment to Textualism, are we suddenly concerned about what John A. Bingham really meant (most of you only learned John A. Bingham existed a few weeks ago).
Donald Trump and his cronies (you know, the ones he picked despite us begging for Massie and Cohen at the behest of Angela McArdle?) are operating in direct violation of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedence to enact their anti-immigration policies (or perhaps we should call it “anti-Hispanic policies”, given the clear racial profiling in their approach). They are engaging in warrantless entries and trial-less convictions to force otherwise peaceful people from their homes, friends and family. It has gotten so bad (in a frightfully short period of time) that they are now LITERALLY opening an internment facility (so they can ‘concentrate’ on what they did wrong) in Guantanamo Bay (a facility we’ve historically rallied against ever since G.W. used it to indefinitely inter anyone he deemed to be “terrorists”). This flies in the face of the law, the Constitution, Supreme Court rulings, and Platforms of both LP National and the NJLP:
LP National Platform
“We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders…[4] We uphold and defend the rights of every person, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or any other aspect of their identity. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual’s human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference, or sexual orientation. Members of private organizations retain their rights to set whatever standards of association they deem appropriate, and individuals are free to respond with ostracism, boycotts, and other free market solutions.”[5]
NJLP Platform
“Issue: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality or national origin. The right to freely travel between States and Nations is a fundamental right. Humans must be free to leave tyrannical regimes. Employees, employers, and contractors must be free to negotiate without government interference or restriction. Principle: We oppose state immigration restrictions, whether for the purpose of cooperating with Federal restrictions or otherwise. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. The state has no business regulating productive, voluntary interactions between consenting parties. Transition: Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor or move about unimpeded…”[6]
There have been some who say that since the parents of these children weren’t here legally, then they don’t count. Firstly, that is directly refuted by United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Plyler V. Doe (1982).[7] Many have argued that the Court was mistaken. That’s fair. The Court makes mistakes all the time. When that happens, we have an apparatus for that. It’s called the Amendment process. Others say that WKA is misinterpreted. That the children of illegal immigrants aren’t “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States”. This is a clear misunderstanding of the law, as in WKA it’s explained that the only people that are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States are Indigenous Americans,[8] invading armies and foreign dignitaries.[9] Even Trump’s administration recognizes this, which is why they are pathetically trying to reclassify refugees as an “invading army”. Even common sense tells us this is ridiculous. Since when are illegal immigrants not subject to our laws? Can they murder without repercussion? If they steal, can’t we prosecute them? For that matter, when an American citizen is abroad and commits a crime, are we somehow protected from their laws? I don’t recall many Libertarians saying Brittney Griner was above Russian drug laws, but rather that incarcerating non-violent drug offenders is wrong.
Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that all of the above is incorrect. Surely then the federal Government should be able to round up people and send them to Ausch… er… Guantanamo, right? No. Again, we Libertarians are supporters of Textualism, but more importantly, we commit ourselves to THE RULE, the Non-Aggression Principle. Our axiom states the initiation of force, regardless of the reasoning, is wrong.[10] Period. Force is only acceptable if and when it is done in a retaliatory sense against the initial aggressor. An aggressor must have violated your bodily or earthly property rights through their act to be a deserving recipient of retaliation. As such, the only moral laws are ones that do not rely on, or promote the initiation of force against people. How are our rights being violated? Has your home been seized? Has your loved one been victimized? Has your wealth been plundered? If you answered yes to any of the above, you're probably thinking about the State. Illegal immigrants are shown, time and time again, to be even more law-abiding than US citizens.[11] But we aren’t even talking about all illegal immigrants, but babies born on U.S. soil. There is literally NO WAY they violated anything, outside maybe your sense of smell if you happen to be downwind of their soiled diapers. The monies seized for social welfare programs assisting transients, illegal immigrants and refugees were collected, at gunpoint by the government. The mismanagement of our treasuries and budgets have been perpetrated by our government. If the U.S. goes bankrupt, blame not the illegal, blame Uncle Sam. Hell, aren’t we opposed to all of these programs anyway? Shouldn’t we applaud illegal immigrants for bankrupting these abhorrent systems faster? Isn’t the enemy of our enemy a friend?
There are 101 more arguments that can refute the cries of Statists and their Ludwig von Wanabee allies who applaud the imprisonment of otherwise harmless people and the expulsion of American babies (I repeat AMERICAN BABIES), but it seems that their minds are as closed off as their hearts. No appeal to reason, our traditions or the Axiom itself will change the mind of someone so far buried within their own cavernous innards. It’s truly disheartening to see so many Party members fall so short of the very Axiom we all swore allegiance to. It makes you wonder if the critics were right? That these people really are burdened with the many ‘isms’ that cloud the mind and invite the kind of group-think we individualists abhor. I’m always cautious to employ a harmful signifier unless I’ve exhausted every other explanation; however, sometimes we must accept that a duck is a duck and a bootlicker is a bootlicker. It seems that in 2025, Trump’s shoe polish is on the menu.
Editor's Note: Due to the limitations of this format the 11 citations found in the original document cannot be posted here. Please contact the editor if you want the unabridged copy.
[1] Discovered by John Dalton did so in 1804, though theorized by Democritus (c.460 - c. 370 BC)
[2] Textualism and Constitutional Interpretation
[3] The only exception being anarcho-Libertarians, but anarchists generally don’t call for mass deportations, as they see all national borders to be an affront to human freedom.
[4] LP National Platform: 3.4 Free Trade and Migration
[5] LP National Platform: 3.5 Rights and Discrimination
[6] NJLP Platform: 15. Immigration
[7] For more, I recommend checking out Legal Eagle’s video on the topic
[8] Later changed with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
[9] See Lethal Weapon 2.
[10] https://www.npr.org/2022/08/04/1115541890/brittney-griner-russia-drug-trial
[11] https://www.cato.org/blog/new-research-illegal-immigration-crime-0