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.
If you only "know" what you were told in government authorized indoctrination centers, the following letter from GEOWASH might be useful.
. . .
“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,
Just as the FOUNDERS pledged their lives, their fortunes and sacred honor, 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 (taxes, etc). .. by consent of the governed.
Shut up, sit down, pay and obey.
However, that does not negate the endowed rights of the American people (noncitizens) who did not consent to be governed.
. . .
WHAT ENDOWED RIGHTS?
" PERSONAL LIBERTY, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or Natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most SACRED and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987...
Note: sacred / inalienable / endowed rights include but are not limited to rights to life, liberty, absolute ownership of private property, and are not subject to nor object of the government's delegated powers.
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON, described by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
But once consent is given, shut up, sit down, pay and obey.
It's too late to object.
Don't believe me - go write a polite questionnaire to your public servants and ask them.
If "everyone" born in the USA is a citizen and has mandatory civic duties that abrogate ENDOWED RIGHTS, then WHO does have endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure?
Illegal aliens?
No state that explicitly protects private property levies an ad valorem tax upon it.
If you were misled to assume "all land" is "real estate" held with qualified ownership - well - can't blame the law.
An ad valorem tax charged by local and county governments is one thing, as the revenue pays for local and county public services (police, fire, library, etc.). But since when can a state insist that the public be entitled to use privately owned property in which the owner holds exclusive Title, without paying just compensation as required by the 5th Amendment?
Let's say a state park campground abuts one's privately owned property. Can the state insist that the public can use your backyard, too, in which to set up camp if they so wish? I would think not.
In America, no government is sovereign. Nor does it "own" all the land.
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the [sovereign] people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the [sovereign] 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)
● DEVOLVE - To pass on or delegate to another.
● REGENT - One who rules during the minority, absence, or disability of a monarch.
● SOVEREIGN - One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit.
= = = = =
“... 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[.]”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
If Justice John Jay is not lying, then no American government is a sovereign, does not own all land, nor can it "rule" / govern without consent of the governed.
DING DING DING.
So the sovereign American people exercise their sovereign powers over their private property, absolutely owned.
However, those who consented to be governed, surrendered their endowment.
So who benefits from tricking everyone into consenting to be without endowed rights to absolutely own private property?
An ad valorem tax charged by local and county governments is one thing, as the revenue pays for local and county public services (police, fire, library, etc.). But since when can a state insist that the public be entitled to use privately owned property in which the owner holds exclusive Title, without paying just compensation as required by the 5th Amendment?
Let's say a state park campground abuts one's privately owned property. Can the state insist that the public can use your backyard, too, in which to set up camp if they so wish? I would think not.
There is a vast difference between qualified ownership and absolute ownership.
One is a taxable privilege, the other is an endowed right.
A title to estate (held with qualified ownership) is not equivalent to a title to private property (held with absolute ownership).
There is a vast difference between qualified ownership and absolute ownership.
One is a taxable privilege, the other is an endowed right.
A title to estate (held with qualified ownership) is not equivalent to a title to private property (held with absolute ownership).
I understand that a title to estate is a qualified ownership. They frequently include utility easements, for example. The use of such an easement is limited to those authorized by the utility companies to provide utility services to the property, it is not public use land. But when there is no public use easement recorded on the title, how can the state insist that the public is entitled to trespass and use another's privately owned property, at will, without going through the legal acquisition of an easement process and paying just compensation as required by the 5th Amendment?
Why are littoral private property owners treated differently than a private property owner whose land abuts a state park (the example I gave) in the exact same state? Besides the 5th Amendment Takings Clause violation, that's also a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protections Clause.
I understand that a title to estate is a qualified ownership. They frequently include utility easements, for example. The use of such an easement is limited to those authorized by the utility companies to provide utility services to the property, it is not public use land. But when there is no public use easement recorded on the title, how can the state insist that the public is entitled to trespass and use another's privately owned property, at will, without going through the legal acquisition of an easement process and paying just compensation as required by the 5th Amendment?
Why are littoral private property owners treated differently than a private property owner whose land abuts a state park (the example I gave) in the exact same state? Besides the 5th Amendment Takings Clause violation, that's also a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protections Clause.
I can't tell from the data you gave, but I am assuming that the property in question is registered as real estate - not private property. Apples and orangutans.
(You can tell things changed from "Private property - No trespassing - Trespassers will be shot" to "You can only defend your property with deadly force if you feel threatened with bodily harm.")
I can't tell from the data you gave, but I am assuming that the property in question is registered as real estate - not private property. Apples and orangutans.
Nope. Exact same thing. Privately owned property abutting a state park and privately owned littoral property is Titled the exact same way, but the state isn't insisting that the public is entitled to use the privately owned property abutting state parks.
Clear violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protections Clause, as well as the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause.
Where do you get your ideas about the Left? In general, Leftists have no interest in old-style, autocratic, USSR-type government ownership control of everything. That's from 70 years ago.
Cons have to create a straw man about their opponents so they can devise some fictitious argument against them.
Nope. Exact same thing. Privately owned property abutting a state park and privately owned littoral property is Titled the exact same way, but the state isn't insisting that the public is entitled to use the privately owned property abutting state parks.
Clear violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protections Clause, as well as the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause.
I don't mean "titled the same way." I mean is it registered with the REAL ESTATE CLERK? Then it must be real estate.
If the property is on the tax rolls, it's NOT private property.
There is no requirement to register private property - it's PRIVATE.
" There is no Georgia statute compelling the recording of a deed."
- - - Encyclopedia of Georgia Law, 8 A, p. 265, Sec. 132
" Sole purpose and effect of recording of deed is to afford third parties constructive notice of the existence of the deed.
- - - City Whsle. Co. v. Harper, 100 Ga.App. 151, 110 S.E. 2d 561 (1959)
A private property transaction can provide constructive notice via a legal ad. It need not be recorded as estate nor placed on the tax rolls.
IDEOLOGICAL THIEVES
=\\=\\=\\=\\=\\=
A popular mantra among the Left Wing is that NO ONE CAN OWN LAND.
That is completely wrong.
Without absolute ownership and the right to exclude others, there is nothing to stop predation and vandalism.
Without the "right to own" the farmer has no "right" to exclude the herdsman from trampling his crops with his herd. The herdsman has no "right" to prevent hunters from killing and taking his animals. All that remains are primitive hunter - gatherers in perpetual conflict over the planet "nobody can own."
Ownership and exclusion are vital to civilization.
No piece of land can simultaneously be used for shelter, grazing, farming, hunting, gathering, wildlife, and / or transportation.
The REAL GOAL of the Left Wing is to persuade the owners to surrender ownership to the collectivist STATE, so it can rule the (m)asses.
Do not fall for it. Defend absolute ownership of private property, for if you can’t absolutely own yourself, your labor, and the fruits of that labor, who does own you and yours?
(You have no right to life, if you have no land upon which to live! All you have is a privilege, subject to the landlord. And your progeny will have no nation to live within, when others take the land for their own posterity.)
You are a product of European ideas about property ownership, but you need to recognize that these beliefs are not universal. Throughout history, may cultures have eschewed the concept of individual property rights. And there's variation in the United States regarding such beliefs, too. In the west, very violent conflicts over the concept of "fence in" and "fence out" regarding cattle grazing persist even to this day. However, Democrats do not really subscribe to the ideas you have assigned to them. They believe in individual property rights, too.
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.
