U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 08:21 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
67,348 posts, read 34,285,763 times
Reputation: 14497

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ET14 View Post
I don't believe in god and rights come from who is mighty enough to take them and control them. Sometimes its not for the best interest of the collective sometimes it is.
Many would die on their feet, before they ever live on their knees.
"I'm their property" mentality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 08:27 PM
 
Location: SGV
25,457 posts, read 9,899,293 times
Reputation: 9867
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Who respects your rights and how do you protect that right?
Those willing to respect it...respect it.

That one was easy.

I protect it however I damn well see fit through non-aggression and respect for private property rights. If I want a nuclear warhead I should have the right to own one. If a man comes at me with a baseball bat and I choose to let him beat me to death with it...that's my right.

That too was easy.

I don't need involuntary middle men to micromanage my life. Sorry if I'm not as lazy and dumb as the guy who does so. But his laziness and lack of brain power aren't morally and logically sound reasons to enslave me.

You see this and think it's a facade or bravado...like all statists do. I'm not scared. And that doesn't make me brave. I'm just not that into you, BB. And you shouldn't be that into me either. I have so many personal weaknesses/mistakes to focus on I can't be bogged down with the collective's problems. And I sure as hell ain't spreading around my few and far between strengths/accomplishments for the good of the collective either.

Aren't you tired yet? Let go of the final vestiges of statism. Nothing happens. I mean, nothing bad. You feel a great sense of relief. It's liberating (hey, look at that word - liberating ).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:30 PM
 
Location: SGV
25,457 posts, read 9,899,293 times
Reputation: 9867
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
This nation was founded upon Natural Law, with government instituted to secure those sacred rights, and to adjudicate disputes.
Why aren't there competing governments to secure my rights?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:33 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
67,348 posts, read 34,285,763 times
Reputation: 14497
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
Those willing to respect it...respect it.

That one was easy.

I protect it however I damn well see fit through non-aggression and respect for private property rights. If I want a nuclear warhead I should have the right to own one. If a man comes at me with a baseball bat and I choose to let him beat me to death with it...that's my right.

That too was easy.

I don't need involuntary middle men to micromanage my life. Sorry if I'm not as lazy and dumb as the guy who does so. But his laziness and lack of brain power aren't morally and logically sound reasons to enslave me.

You see this and think it's a facade or bravado...like all statists do. I'm not scared. And that doesn't make me brave. I'm just not that into you, BB. And you shouldn't be that into me either. I have so many personal weaknesses/mistakes to focus on I can't be bogged down with the collective's problems. And I sure as hell ain't spreading around my few and far between strengths/accomplishments for the good of the collective either.

Aren't you tired yet? Let go of the final vestiges of statism. Nothing happens. I mean, nothing bad. You feel a great sense of relief. It's liberating (hey, look at that word - liberating ).



Who figures out the justification for your actions when violence is waged & defended?
You may not want to admit it, but you fall clearly in the:
[] One of the sovereign people who directly exercise sovereignty over their person, liberty and property, whose endowed rights are secured by government?


With all due respect, there is plenty of evidence to refute your unsubstantiated opinion on the matter.
. . .
In the united States of America, there are non-citizen American nationals who have not consented to be governed, nor bound by the terms of the compact.(Your category)

One reference to non-citizen free inhabitants:
"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states ..."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
Another:
In the 1993 edition of the 1992 US Code (50 titles), I found only ONE reference to American nationals.
Title 8, USC Sec. 1502. Certificate of nationality issued by the Secretary of State for person not a naturalized citizen of the United States for use in proceedings of a foreign state.

“ The Secretary of State is authorized to issue, in his discretion and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by him, a certificate of nationality for any person not a naturalized citizen of the United States who presents satisfactory evidence that he is an American national and that such certificate is needed for use in judicial or administrative proceedings in a foreign state. Such certificate shall be solely for the use in the case for which it was issued and shall be transmitted by the Secretary of State through appropriate channels to the judicial or administrative officers of the foreign state in which it is to be used.”
. . .
That is ALL that the Federal government will say about American nationals.
(An American national is NOT synonymous with a U.S. national, defined in Title 8 of the U.S. code.)

P.S.- the State department will graciously issue passports for non-citizen American nationals.
. . .
NO one can be bound to the terms of a compact that they are not parties to.
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain...."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia
. . .
" When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent."
- - - CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.
. . .
"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)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln
As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, endowed by our Creator, promised by the USCON, instituted 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).
“... 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)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...CR_0002_0419_Z
. . .
NOTE: American governments are not sovereigns, but agents for the sovereign PEOPLE.
. . .
In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
- - - Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)

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

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
- - - Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)
. . .
The People Are The Sovereigns, the government their servant - UNLESS - consent to be governed is granted.
Then, as citizens, they descend to subjects, obligated to perform mandatory civic duties.

CITIZENS ARE SUBJECTS
CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244

"... 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)

SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
. . . Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
. . .

Under the Republican Form of Government, American people are sovereigns, with endowed rights, but if they consent to be governed, surrender their endowment in exchange for political liberty, and become obligated to perform mandatory civic duties, as part of the (indirect) Democratic Form of Government.
. . .
. . .
Still skeptical?

Constitution of Virginia, 1776
For a glimpse into the understanding of the Founders' generation:
Virginia Constitution, 1776.

SEC. 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected*, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled, for the public good.
● All men ... cannot be taxed without their own consent.
● All men ... cannot be deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent.
● All men ... cannot be bound by any law that is not for the public good.

{*only tax paying property owners could vote, ergo, not all Virginians gave consent to be bound by all laws.}
. . .
. . .
Pennsylvania Constitution,
Article 1, Section 1. Inherent Rights of Mankind

All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.
. . .
. . .
To this day, the government is careful to craft laws that don't trespass upon the private property rights of the sovereign people - what few remain.
. . .

What about those who consent to be citizens?
. . .
Will you trust George Washington?
“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 (taxes, etc).

However, that does not negate the endowed rights of the American people (noncitizens) who did not consent to be governed. To assert otherwise is a denial of the endowment expressed in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, the source of the Republican Form of Government, and guaranteed to the PEOPLE of the USA.
CONSTITUTION, Art. 4, Sec. 4. The guarantee of a republican form of government to every "state" means to its people and not to its government: Texas v. White. 7 Wall. (U. S.) 700, 19 L. Ed. 227.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. (1914), P.635
The republican form is guaranteed to the PEOPLE (sovereigns) not to the state governments (oath bound subjects of the U.S. government), nor the subjects (citizens) of those governments.

I hope that is sufficient to support my previous post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:42 PM
 
Location: SGV
25,457 posts, read 9,899,293 times
Reputation: 9867
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Who figures out the justification for your actions when violence is waged & defended?
You may not want to admit it, but you fall clearly in the:
[] One of the sovereign people who directly exercise sovereignty over their person, liberty and property, whose endowed rights are secured by government?


With all due respect, there is plenty of evidence to refute your unsubstantiated opinion on the matter.
. . .
In the united States of America, there are non-citizen American nationals who have not consented to be governed, nor bound by the terms of the compact.(Your category)

One reference to non-citizen free inhabitants:
"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states ..."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
Another:
In the 1993 edition of the 1992 US Code (50 titles), I found only ONE reference to American nationals.
Title 8, USC Sec. 1502. Certificate of nationality issued by the Secretary of State for person not a naturalized citizen of the United States for use in proceedings of a foreign state.

“ The Secretary of State is authorized to issue, in his discretion and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by him, a certificate of nationality for any person not a naturalized citizen of the United States who presents satisfactory evidence that he is an American national and that such certificate is needed for use in judicial or administrative proceedings in a foreign state. Such certificate shall be solely for the use in the case for which it was issued and shall be transmitted by the Secretary of State through appropriate channels to the judicial or administrative officers of the foreign state in which it is to be used.”
. . .
That is ALL that the Federal government will say about American nationals.
(An American national is NOT synonymous with a U.S. national, defined in Title 8 of the U.S. code.)

P.S.- the State department will graciously issue passports for non-citizen American nationals.
. . .
NO one can be bound to the terms of a compact that they are not parties to.
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain...."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia
. . .
" When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent."
- - - CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.
. . .
"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)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln
As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, endowed by our Creator, promised by the USCON, instituted 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).
“... 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)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...CR_0002_0419_Z
. . .
NOTE: American governments are not sovereigns, but agents for the sovereign PEOPLE.
. . .
In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
- - - Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)

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

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
- - - Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)
. . .
The People Are The Sovereigns, the government their servant - UNLESS - consent to be governed is granted.
Then, as citizens, they descend to subjects, obligated to perform mandatory civic duties.

CITIZENS ARE SUBJECTS
CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244

"... 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)

SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
. . . Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
. . .

Under the Republican Form of Government, American people are sovereigns, with endowed rights, but if they consent to be governed, surrender their endowment in exchange for political liberty, and become obligated to perform mandatory civic duties, as part of the (indirect) Democratic Form of Government.
. . .
. . .
Still skeptical?

Constitution of Virginia, 1776
For a glimpse into the understanding of the Founders' generation:
Virginia Constitution, 1776.

SEC. 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected*, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled, for the public good.
● All men ... cannot be taxed without their own consent.
● All men ... cannot be deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent.
● All men ... cannot be bound by any law that is not for the public good.

{*only tax paying property owners could vote, ergo, not all Virginians gave consent to be bound by all laws.}
. . .
. . .
Pennsylvania Constitution,
Article 1, Section 1. Inherent Rights of Mankind

All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.
. . .
. . .
To this day, the government is careful to craft laws that don't trespass upon the private property rights of the sovereign people - what few remain.
. . .

What about those who consent to be citizens?
. . .
Will you trust George Washington?
“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 (taxes, etc).

However, that does not negate the endowed rights of the American people (noncitizens) who did not consent to be governed. To assert otherwise is a denial of the endowment expressed in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, the source of the Republican Form of Government, and guaranteed to the PEOPLE of the USA.
CONSTITUTION, Art. 4, Sec. 4. The guarantee of a republican form of government to every "state" means to its people and not to its government: Texas v. White. 7 Wall. (U. S.) 700, 19 L. Ed. 227.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. (1914), P.635
The republican form is guaranteed to the PEOPLE (sovereigns) not to the state governments (oath bound subjects of the U.S. government), nor the subjects (citizens) of those governments.

I hope that is sufficient to support my previous post.
Copying and pasting fiction that I never consented to isn't an argument.

Come back when you have something concrete.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:47 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
67,348 posts, read 34,285,763 times
Reputation: 14497
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
Why aren't there competing governments to secure my rights?
There are 50, with additional territories that do just that. Within those 50+, there are 1000's, that are to do just that.
They swear an oath to uphold when they take office and it is not to secure peoples feelings.
The 16th Amendment, is the root of all that is wrong with Freedom & Liberties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:09 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
67,348 posts, read 34,285,763 times
Reputation: 14497
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
Copying and pasting fiction that I never consented to isn't an argument.

Come back when you have something concrete.
Fiction, eh?




In the united States of America, there arenon-citizen American nationals who have not consented to be governed, nor bound by the terms of the compact.(Your category)

One reference to non-citizen free inhabitants:
"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states ..."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
Another:
In the 1993 edition of the 1992 US Code (50 titles), I found only ONE reference to American nationals.
Title 8, USC Sec. 1502. Certificate of nationality issued by the Secretary of State for person not a naturalized citizen of the United States for use in proceedings of a foreign state.

“ The Secretary of State is authorized to issue, in his discretion and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by him, a certificate of nationality for any person not a naturalized citizen of the United States who presents satisfactory evidence that he is an American national and that such certificate is needed for use in judicial or administrative proceedings in a foreign state. Such certificate shall be solely for the use in the case for which it was issued and shall be transmitted by the Secretary of State through appropriate channels to the judicial or administrative officers of the foreign state in which it is to be used.”
. . .
That is ALL that the Federal government will say about American nationals.
(An American national is NOT synonymous with a U.S. national, defined in Title 8 of the U.S. code.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:21 PM
 
Location: SGV
25,457 posts, read 9,899,293 times
Reputation: 9867
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
There are 50, with additional territories that do just that. Within those 50+, there are 1000's, that are to do just that.
They swear an oath to uphold when they take office and it is not to secure peoples feelings.
The 16th Amendment, is the root of all that is wrong with Freedom & Liberties.
They are all under the same government. You're so high on the Constitution yet your ignoring the fact that it grants states rights who in return grant lower levels of the same government rights.

I mean...in your world. Parchment doesn't grant rights to the logically and morally consistent crowd.

So why isn't there more than one government competing (See that word competition? The hallmark of capitalism.) for my business?

How come your precious document doesn't have room for that? Is it because it's a socialist piece of garbage? Yep, it is.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:22 PM
 
Location: SGV
25,457 posts, read 9,899,293 times
Reputation: 9867
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Fiction, eh?




In the united States of America, there arenon-citizen American nationals who have not consented to be governed, nor bound by the terms of the compact.(Your category)

One reference to non-citizen free inhabitants:
"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states ..."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
Another:
In the 1993 edition of the 1992 US Code (50 titles), I found only ONE reference to American nationals.
Title 8, USC Sec. 1502. Certificate of nationality issued by the Secretary of State for person not a naturalized citizen of the United States for use in proceedings of a foreign state.

“ The Secretary of State is authorized to issue, in his discretion and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by him, a certificate of nationality for any person not a naturalized citizen of the United States who presents satisfactory evidence that he is an American national and that such certificate is needed for use in judicial or administrative proceedings in a foreign state. Such certificate shall be solely for the use in the case for which it was issued and shall be transmitted by the Secretary of State through appropriate channels to the judicial or administrative officers of the foreign state in which it is to be used.”
. . .
That is ALL that the Federal government will say about American nationals.
(An American national is NOT synonymous with a U.S. national, defined in Title 8 of the U.S. code.)
*yawn*

Pure fiction. I never consented and you don't have a higher claim on my life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:27 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
67,348 posts, read 34,285,763 times
Reputation: 14497
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
They are all under the same government. You're so high on the Constitution yet your ignoring the fact that it grants states rights who in return grant lower levels of the same government rights.

I mean...in your world. Parchment doesn't grant rights to the logically and morally consistent crowd.

So why isn't there more than one government competing (See that word competition? The hallmark of capitalism.) for my business?

How come your precious document doesn't have room for that? Is it because it's a socialist piece of garbage? Yep, it is.

I have only spoken of the Declaration of Independence and the Republican Form of Government, to it's counter of being property of the State.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top