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.
All rights in property, whether in fee, tenancy, license or incorporeal hereditament, exist only to the extent provided by law. Nor are you free to do anything you wish with your property. The old saw that "a man's home is his castle" was never true, for all property rights have always been subject to the power of the federal, state and municipal authority, witness the myriad laws, statutes, zoning ordinances, easements, rights or way, and use restrictions that limit the rights of property ownership. Even a prescriptive right is only valid to the extent recognized by law. If you need further proof, just try putting on an addition to your house without a building permit and see what happens to you, not to mention your property. (Not long ago, the owner of an high-rise office building in San Diego had to take off the top two floors because they intruded on federal airspace - and he had a building permit!) There are some jurisdictions (e.g., Glendale, Arizona) that even regulate the amount of water your toilet can flush. So if you think you’re king of your castle, you’d better start using a chamber pot for a throne.
Likewise, the right to engage in business (and to earn a living) is subject to the State authority. One may not run a business without license; nor may one contract the labor of others without compliance with the State’s requirements for payment of employment taxes, compensation and casualty insurance, and all other provisions of the law - the violation of which may be sanctioned by civil and criminal penalties. The notion that one has an absolute right to the product of one’s labors (and that of others) is utter nonsense. There are no absolute rights.
All that you post is true - for those who gave consent to be subject citizens.
As to the first thing you wrote, about "all rights in property," only applies to qualified ownership of estate.
Absolute ownership of private property is neither subject to taxation nor any codes.
Go check your own state constitution and laws for the explicit protection afforded to private property. Then note the section that authorizes ad valorem taxes. Those taxes will be limited to estate (qualified ownership - a privilege).
The quoted dicta by Chief Justice John Jay in his concurring opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia was not pertinent to the court’s ruling, much less the ratio decidendi of the majority opinion binding as authority. See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). In any event, the decision was effectively overruled by the adoption ratification of the Eleventh Amendment in 1795.
The quoted dicta by Chief Justice John Jay in his concurring opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia was not pertinent to the court’s ruling, much less the ratio decidendi of the majority opinion binding as authority. See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). In any event, the decision was effectively overruled by the adoption ratification of the Eleventh Amendment in 1795.
So far this has been the best post of this entire thread. thanks!
Without absolute ownership of private property all that remains is qualified ownership of estate, subject to registration, zoning, codes, rules, regulations, and taxation.
I am generally okay with that. I don't want somebody putting a salvage yard or a nightclub next door, for instance. Property taxes -- meh, but we've got to have some way to pay for roads, schools, fire departments, etc.
Jetgraphics, society doesn't work like that. What you want is anarchy. That is the definition of anarchy. You are not a sovereign, a sovereign denotes royalty, meaning you command others what you want, everyone else is beneath you and your subjects. That is not how America works. You have taken the law and twisted it to extremes. Your main caveat is that everyone with a Social Security number is a "consenter" to government, and those without are "free sovereigns". Am I right?
"One argument which I like to use now is to ask people why they believe in some hierarchies and not others. As it happens, very few people in the Western world still believes in slavery, or monarchy. Many people don’t believe in sexism, racism, capitalism, or organized religion. This is especially relevant insofar as it is usually the fact that they are hierarchical (i.e. the fact that some order and others obey, that only some people get to have their say) which is most reprehensible about them. How is it that people can lack belief in these, but not in the other ones that currently exist?"
Compliance with the law is not subject to consent. Compliance with the law is compulsory. Those that do not comply with the law are subject to its sanctions.
Compliance with the law is not subject to consent. Compliance with the law is compulsory. Those that do not comply with the law are subject to its sanctions.
Course, "sanction" has opposite meanings depending on the twist of the ribbon, dud nit?
I just can't sanction those who would mouth such inanity - Or, CAN I?
Borrowing from jetgraphics, I Thee Sanction:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
[3] Yes, you can renounce your citizenship, especially if fraud was used to induce you to consent. And yes, you can relocate from the United States back to the United States of America.
[2] Subject citizens do not directly exercise sovereign power. But the government can only govern those who consent. The "Rule of Law" has two parts : malum in se and malum prohibitum. Laws that punish criminal acts that injure another are not "ruling" nor "governing."
Sovereign people directly exercise sovereignty over their private property.
An example of sovereign prerogative is the right to summarily execute trespassers without benefit of trial. You can verify that your state recognizes this. And you've certainly seen posted signs: "Private property - NO TRESPASSING - Trespassers will be shot."
{Of course, qualified ownership of estate is not the same thing, nor can it be defended as if it were private property.}
[1] Actually, endowed rights existed BEFORE the government was instituted to secure them.
"There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional right as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. "
- - - Hale vs Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.
And let us not forget the Declaration of Independence
Job #1: secure rights;
Job #2: govern those who consent.
Title 8 USC Sec. 1401.
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
. . .
Doesn't that sound like the 14th amendment?
. . .
Now, where exactly IS the jurisdiction of the "United States"?
Title 28 United States Code, §3002. Definitions,
(15) “United States” means -
(a) a Federal corporation
FEDERAL CORPORATIONS - The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
- - - Volume 19, Corpus Juris Secundum XVIII.
Foreign Corporations, Sections 883,884
"The United States and the State of California are two separate sovereignties, each dominant in its own sphere."
- - - Redding v. Los Angeles (1947), 81 C.A.2d 888, 185 P.2d 430.
. . .
According to the USCON, Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia and Federal forts and other such places under the special admiralty / maritime jurisdiction of the US (Title 18 USC Sec 7)
So most Americans were not born "in the jurisdiction of the United States."
Consider this - citizenship comes with MANDATORY CIVIC DUTIES.
.....
- 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".
.....
So being born a subject U.S. citizen is "voluntary servitude"?
See any contradiction in that statement?
[] 13th amendment, Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
{United States, in the plural, means the States united aka "USA"}
Restating: Involuntary servitude shall not exist within the United States (of America) or any place subject to THEIR jurisdiction.
Yet:
[] 14th amendment.
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.
Why didn’t the writers use “and in any place subject to THEIR jurisdiction?”
Because the “United States” was a direct reference to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, a “foreign corporation” with respect to a state or any of them.
. . .
Still not convinced?
Let's go back to the original code cite -
Title 8 USC Sec. 1401.
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it." Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61 S.Ct. 742 (1941)).
"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
- - - Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)
= = =
That statute cannot refer to any American sovereign.
IF that is not enough to persuade you, write a polite letter to your congressman and ask for a copy of the constitutional law that IMPOSES citizenship upon all Americans born within the united States of America that does not violate the 13th amendment ban on involuntary servitude, nor the Declaration of Independence, nor the Republican form of government.
IF that is not enough to persuade you, write a polite letter to your congressman and ask for a copy of the constitutional law that IMPOSES citizenship upon all Americans born within the united States of America that does not violate the 13th amendment ban on involuntary servitude, nor the Declaration of Independence, nor the Republican form of government.
See the first clause of the 14th Amendment which reads:
1: 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.
See the first clause of the 14th Amendment which reads:
1: 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.
Do you really think the 14th Amendment cancelled the 13th Amendment?
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.
