Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's the problem with SovCit types, they can read it but they don't understand it.
And using a false claim and rebutting it (sovcit) is getting old.
There is no such thing as a sovereign citizen.
A citizen, by definition, is a subject of a sovereign.
A citizen has mandatory civic duties that abrogate endowed rights that the sovereign people retain.
Defending one's ignorance of the law by denigrating others is not persuasive. In fact, it shows that you have exhausted all logical rebuttals, and must resort to less noble means.
. . .
SOVEREIGNS WITHOUT SUBJECTS
“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
Now, if you wish to claim the Supreme court is lying, that's your prerogative.
Who is the SOVEREIGN?
It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
[ Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997 ]
People are unconditionally sovereigns. Case closed.
Geo.Wash. Sums it up nicely
. . .
“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.
[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]
IN SHORT,
The American citizen has no endowed right to life, nor liberty, nor absolute ownership because, as a subject, he can be ordered to train, fight, and die, on command (militia duty), and was obligated to give up a portion of his property (estate) (taxes, etc). .. by his consent to be governed.
Shut up, sit down, pay and obey.
However, that does not negate the endowed rights of the sovereign American people (noncitizens / free inhabitants) who did not consent to be governed.
Even the USCON makes a distinction between PEOPLE (who retain all powers and rights, 9th & 10th amendments), and CITIZENS (who have privileges and immunities in exchange for participation in government).
CITIZENS = SUBJECTS, not sovereigns
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
- - - State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)
If you were misled to presume you were "born a citizen" / subject / obligated to perform mandatory civic duties, you may wish to discuss it with your elected public servant.
. . . . . . . . . .
The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, MILITIA, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".
Since the militia only include CITIZENS, and not all people (who apparently retain their rights), citizenship must be voluntary. But once one volunteers, those civic duties become mandatory.
I'm no fan of congress but an awful lot of them are lawyers and I suspect they've spent a lot more time studying and practicing law than you give them credit for, especially compared to folks who have a law degree from The University of Youtube.
Merely quoting PELOSI : "We have to pass the bill before you can see what's in it"
. . .
As to the constitutionality, let me refer you to:
Senate Report 93-549 https://archive.org/stream/senate-re...3-549_djvu.txt
War and Emergency Powers Acts
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."
FREEDOMS ... GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION ... HAVE BEEN ABRIDGED BY LAWS ... UNDER EMERGENCY RULE ...
Constitutional U.S.A. (1789 - 1933) R.I.P.
United States, Senate Report 93-549 states: "That since March 09, 1933 the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." Proclamation No. 2039 declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 9, 1933. This declared national emergency has never been revoked and has been codified into the US Code (12 U.S.C. 95a and b).
(* Title 12 USC sec. 95(a), 95(b) grants pre-approved powers to the president and the secretary of treasury during this “emergency.” BTW - the secretary of treasury is also the U.S. governor of the World Bank, IMF, etc, etc, and shall not be paid by the U.S. government. Title 22 USC Sec. 286a(d)1. He is paid by the fiduciary agent - the Federal Reserve corporation. Connect the dots?)
((For legal beagles, one can now find that there is a claim that the “State of Emergency” was modified, by law, in 1976. The National Emergencies Act (Pub.L. 94-412, 90 Stat. 1255, enacted September 14, 1976, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1601-1651) is a United States federal law passed to stop open-ended states of national emergency and formalize the power of Congress to provide certain checks and balances on the emergency powers of the President. However, in my copy of the 1992 U.S. Code, Title 12 USC Sec. 95 is still in force and effect, granting sweeping powers to the SECRETARY OF TREASURY. Likewise, the previous entry in Wikipedia (2014) asserted the fact that 12 USC sec.95 was the codification of the Emergency which has since been “scrubbed.”))
Another WIKI page now says:
Certain emergency authorities were exempted from the act at the time of its passage:
12 USC 95(a) (regulating transactions in foreign gold and silver)
YES INDEED, TRUST THE LAWYERS AND POLITICIANS TO OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!
THEY KNOW LAW AND YOU PLEBES ARE FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE.
[SNICKER, SNICKER]
(To be fair and balanced, the USCON has nothing to do with the republican form of government, other than guaranteeing it to the states united. AS long as the republican form is the law of the land, no harm, no foul. Of course, 99.9% of Americans consented to be part of the People's Democratic Socialist Republic, but that's amenable to change.)
I'd point out your response is right on target with the usual that one gets from SovCit types, a hodgepodge of nonsensical faux-legalese regurgitated word salad that does nothing but illustrate my point. Where did you go to law school, anyway?
Worth noting (and I may get bashed) but it may not be a textbook definition of 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth but we'll see higher unemployment, under-employment, more defaults on the typical debts, higher interest rates, and using savings to live.
Housing very high in many places, bad health care system, financial markets very high for a long time, a job market with stagnant and declining wages.
My feeling is that it will come faster. A lot of countries are already in trouble, Turkey, Argentina, and Iran are all headed towards recession and Brazil and South Africa are also in trouble. At the same time China is slowing down and car sales worldwide are dropping. In addition to this the first real tariff got imposed and we will get another one in the end of the year.
China also has a massive property bubble that cannot be sustained. It has gotten so expensive, that you cannot afford a new apartment unless you sell an apartment, or you pool together grandparents and the parents income. The numbers of willing buyers are dropping, which will lead to larger inventories. Once the inventories become too big, the housing market will crash.
China is going to be hit hard, and when the markets notice it will cause a global stock market crash. Then a lot of companies will go bankrupt, because investors are not willing to finance their massive deficits anymore. And housing bubbles worldwide will pop. Federal Reserve will launch another QE, interest rates go back down to 0, inflation goes up and the US currency drops. The result is that US enter a recession 1-3 quarters after the stock market crash. This time US will have to reduce government spending or increasing taxes, which will make the recession long and painful.
I expect the euro to do well initially. Eurozone has a huge trade surplus, which they use to finance US debt. Money is going towards US because US have a much higher interest rate, this will be reversed when the interest rates drop, and the Federal Reserve starts financing the US deficit. Hence, the euro will surge, and their exports will suffer. EU will probably do okay for a while, but then it will crash, just like in 2011.
Remember the GOP (Reagan/Bush) Savings and Loan Scandal? The true cost of that was massive. I remember Real Estate in our example (desirable burb close to big city) not going anywhere for a decade. This was due to the massive bailouts and vast amounts of real estate tied up in being resold or dumped.
.
1. I just howl with laughter at revisionist history like the above. Why you might ask.........four of the Keating Five were democrats.
2. Democrat/speaker of the house Jim Wright made the S&L crisis worse TWICE!
3. The root of the S&L crisis began well before Reagan took office (1979 Fed.- W.G. Miller/Paul Volcker). But please continue with the left wing fakery/nonsense.
Now we have 2018 where the power-that-be are saying we are in the "best ever" and yet the DOW hasn't gone anywhere all year! Then this thread predicts another recession! This on top of 40 years of virtually no wage growth for actual workers.
A lot of the problems are still continuing that existed before the Great Recession (as I assume you'll agree).
The good thing is low unemployment.
It's far better than high unemployment - but is only one piece of the complex economic puzzle.
This article was updated in August.
Quote:
The US Economy's Doing Great, But Not Everyone's Doing Well. Here's Why
Oxford economists recently found that the bottom 60 percent of American earners was essentially drawing on their savings just to maintain their lifestyles
By Josh Boak
Published at 11:37 AM CDT on Jun 15, 2018 | Updated at 4:08 PM CDT on Aug 1, 2018
The real indicator there is the amount of money made (real wages). They haven't gone anywhere in 40 years and even worse (declined) for the lower-end workers.
It's weird using an arbitrary number like 40.
Is there a different result if looking at 50, 30, 25, or 10 years?
Half a century after the Moon landing and scientists apparently can't mention planned obsolescence in cars but we are supposed to stop climate change. What a joke!
My regular customers often worked at a steel mill or in some other job that paid the equiv of $35 an hour (today) PLUS benefits. They could afford a decent house easily, a couple of cars and extras. All of this without racking up massive debts. That is almost impossible for the average manufacturing worker today, who makes less than 1/2 (including benefits) what his or her German or Danish counterpart does.
Why, then, don't they move to Germany or Denmark?
Heck, Germany needs able-bodied men of working age -- that's the main reason they let in all the Middle-Eastern refugees. Demographically speaking, they really need more people working to offset their aging population.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
