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.
I've noted the partisanship of the so-called "left" and the so-called "right". But neither side seems to be aware that they're both contrary to the law of the land.
What law?
The U.S. Constitution. Particularly, Article 4, Section 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion ....
Like most Americans, I had not been informed of the nature of the republican form (not to be confused with the democratic form). In all my years of education, up to and including graduate studies, the educational establishment was mute on the United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4.
Is there something sinister about a "republican form of government"?
GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695
Did you know that the American people are sovereign over the government?
At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country.
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
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
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)]
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)]
And I know most Americans haven't been informed that they volunteered to be subject citizens.
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
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
"... 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)
Why do I say that "we" volunteered?
According to the 13th amendment, involuntary servitude was abolished in the United States of America... except after conviction. But civic duties are compulsory - with penalties for failure to perform.
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".
If compulsory military service is NOT INVOLUNTARY, then it must be voluntary servitude.
OR
If compulsory military service is not a violation of the 13th amendment, then the involuntary servitude under compulsion must be OUTSIDE of their jurisdiction (the States united).
13th amendment prohibits involuntary servitude "within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
14th amendment imposes citizenship upon persons "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
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
How many Americans were born subjects of a foreign corporation?
Somebody in Washington, D.C., thinks that all of us are their subjects, when they enact compulsory obligations on the citizenry.
But American people are sovereign!
That's what the courts and laws say...
Remember, that according to the Declaration of Independence, job #1 is to secure rights, and job #2 is to govern those who consent.
It appears that once consent is given, job #1 is waived. For the militia to be liable to train, fight, and die, on command, cannot be anything but a violation of their inalienable rights UNLESS they had given prior consent.
When and how did YOU give consent to be governed?
When and how did YOU surrender the endowment from your Creator?
When and how did YOU cease being a sovereign American, served by government, and become a subject citizen, in servitude to government?
When the partisan wingmen answer that, perhaps we might see through the fog. Until they provide the answer, do not believe them. Do not follow their lead. And read the law for yourself. . . it's available in any county courthouse law library.
--------------
Quick reference to "sovereignty"
SOVEREIGN - "...Having undisputed right to make decisions and act accordingly".
New Webster's Dictionary And Thesaurus, p. 950.
SOVEREIGN - A person, body or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested...
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1395.
SOVEREIGNTY - ...By "Sovereignty", in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1396.
"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)
"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."
[14th Amendment, Section 1.]
Write a polite letter to your representative and ask him if those "persons" mentioned in the 14th amendment do not refer to the sovereign Americans.
Ask why the Congress didn't use: "any party born within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction," to impose U.S. citizenship?
Maybe they never had the legal jurisdiction to subjugate the sovereign people, domiciled in the States united, except by subterfuge and fraud... THAT is a scary thought.
I find it refreshing that neither "wing" likes to argue about laws that protect private property rights from the "benevolent" government.
Neither wing has a clever retort to : THOU SHALT NOT STEAL - even if the government allows it!
We owe a debt of gratitude to the excessive zeal of the left wing thieves and right wing thieves, that have triggered a reaction from the somnolent people.
Some day, enough folks will embrace the "revolutionary" notion of their ancestors from 1776: That their rights come from their Creator, and government only promised to help secure those rights. Government has no delegated power to grant "rights". They only grant privileges and immunities - that may be called rights, entitlements, grants, endowments, or whatever - but they do not rise to the status of inalienable rights. In fact, anything government gives often requires a loss from somebody else - including the beneficiary.
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.
The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government.
City of Dallas v Mitchell (1922) 245 S.W. 944
K.I.S.S.
Governments in America have 2 jobs:
1. Secure YOUR rights, and
2. Govern those who consent.
Consent waives job #1.
Did you knowingly, willingly, and intentionally surrender your inalienable rights, your endowment and birthright from your Creator?
The government thinks you have - and they have your signature on the documents as evidence.
Why should he bow before a lowly judge? He is a human being and not the private property of that judge. Unless of course he chooses to offer himself as a sacrificial animal on the altar of GODvernment. I doubt that he has made that choice.
If you want to understand Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution you should be reading Federalist Paper No. 10 not Black's Law Dictionary.
See also Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849), where the court held that "'it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State ... as well as its republican character."
If you want to understand Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution you should be reading Federalist Paper No. 10 not Black's Law Dictionary.
See also Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849), where the court held that "'it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State ... as well as its republican character."
I contacted the Congressional Research Service and asked if Congress passed any statute pertaining to Art. 4, Sec. 4. Their answer was : NO. Congress has enacted no statute regarding that promise.
The Federal Papers are not court decisions, either.
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.
Do the Federalist Papers claim otherwise?
That the people are NOT the sovereigns?
That the government is not their servant?
And that the people, as individuals, retain their inalienable rights, powers, privileges and immunities, until they surrender them?
"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, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states;...."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
American nationals, free inhabitants, domiciled within the borders of the United States of America, are the sovereign people served by government, and who exercise natural and personal liberty.
I contacted the Congressional Research Service and asked if Congress passed any statute pertaining to Art. 4, Sec. 4. Their answer was : NO. Congress has enacted no statute regarding that promise.
The Federal Papers are not court decisions, either.
You are correct, the Federalist Papers are not court decisions. However, they do explain the intent behind the founder's wording which Black's Law Dictionary does not provide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.
Do the Federalist Papers claim otherwise?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
That the people are NOT the sovereigns?
Correct. The Supremacy Clause under Article VI of the US Constitution makes it very clear that the federal government is the only sovereign power, not individuals.
Quote:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Source: Article VI, Section 2, of the US Constitution
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
That the government is not their servant?
When Madison wrote Article IV, Section 4, his definition of a "Republican form of Government" was to be a representative democracy. This is explained in detail in Federalist Paper No. 10. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled in Luther v. Borden that Congress, and not the people, shall be the sole authority in determining what is a "Republican form of Government" for each State.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
And that the people, as individuals, retain their inalienable rights, powers, privileges and immunities, until they surrender them?
"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, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states;...."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
American nationals, free inhabitants, domiciled within the borders of the United States of America, are the sovereign people served by government, and who exercise natural and personal liberty.
This is a completely separate issue, and with the ratification of the US Constitution in 1789 the Articles of Confederation became null and void.
You are correct, the Federalist Papers are not court decisions. However, they do explain the intent behind the founder's wording which Black's Law Dictionary does not provide.
What proponents offer may be different from what is transacted.
Based on the Declaration of Independence, governments have two jobs:
1. secure rights, and
2. govern those who consent.
The sovereignty of the people is distinct from those who submitted to the government (subject citizens).
The fact that not all Americans had property, did not vote, and did not ratify the USCON underscores that the federal government could not govern "the people".
"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
The U.S. Constitution is a compact between the States united and the United States, in Congress assembled (aka Federal government). The rights of the people preceded it. And only those who take an oath to it, are bound to perform to the terms of it.
In short, unless the government is securing a right you injured, it has no authority over you and your property without your consent.
Quote:
The Supremacy Clause under Article VI of the US Constitution makes it very clear that the federal government is the only sovereign power, not individuals.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So can you show any law that trespasses upon the sovereignty of the American people?
Don't include subject citizens in your example.
Show a law that impairs the natural liberty of an American upon his private property (and don't sneak in "real estate" references).
Show a law that impairs the personal liberty of an American (and don't sneak in any references to "residents" or "citizens").
Quote:
When Madison wrote Article IV, Section 4, his definition of a "Republican form of Government" was to be a representative democracy. This is explained in detail in Federalist Paper No. 10. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled in Luther v. Borden that Congress, and not the people, shall be the sole authority in determining what is a "Republican form of Government" for each State.
Funny thing - there's no mention of a "representative democracy" in #10.
The State governments were composed of people who were oath bound to the USCON, but that authority does not extend upon private property and the private people, within the States united.
Check your own state's constitution for the explicit protection afforded to private property, absolutely owned by an individual.
And just for the fun of it, examine the following, and determine who exercises sovereign powers.
DEMOCRACY - That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 432
"GOVERNMENT (Republican Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, ... directly ...."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695
DFOG: Whole body of citizens indirectly exercise sovereignty
RFOG: Individuals directly exercise sovereignty
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
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)
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)
People are supreme, not the state.
Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 GA at 93.
The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative.
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)
At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country.
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
Where's that assertion that the U.S. Government is the sovereign?
Where's that claim that the people serve the government?
Quote:
This is a completely separate issue, and with the ratification of the US Constitution in 1789 the Articles of Confederation became null and void.
I think you may be surprised to learn that not only were the Articles incorporated by reference (engagements = mutual promises), but that the States and Congress exercised powers drawn from them.
For example, there is no mention of the exclusion of paupers and vagabonds, in the USCON or State constitutions.
"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, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; ."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
"STATUS CRIME - A class of crime which consists not in proscribed action or inaction, but in the accused's having a certain personal condition or being a person of a specified character. An example of a status crime is vagrancy Status crimes are constitutionally suspect."
Black's Law Dictionary, sixth ed., p.1410
Isn't that curious?
From 1777 to 1935, paupers and vagabonds are status criminals, and were guilty of crimes that were constitutionally suspect... then after 1935, the government is suddenly impotent with respect to "the homeless" (vagrants).
Methinks someone wants to hide the fact that every American who signs up with national socialism becomes a status criminal. All enumerated Americans are vagrants - including the "officers" and "public servants". No one has private property rights to protect. And therefore, can no longer raise defenses that were once the common law prerogative of the sovereign people.
"PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. "
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
"INHABITANT -One who resides actually and permanently in a given place, and has his domicile there."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.782
"DOMICILE - A person's legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.484
Isn't it a bit curious that we're constantly urged to declare that we are residents residing at residences?
"RESIDENT - ...when used as a noun, means a dweller, habitant, or occupant; one who resides or dwells in a place for a period of more, or less duration... Resident has many meanings in law, largely determined by statutory context in which it is used."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.1309
"RESIDENCE - Place where one actually lives ... Residence implies something more than physical presence and something less than domicile. The terms 'resident' and 'residence' have no precise legal meaning... [One can have many residences but only one domicile]
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.1308, 1309
Why would "someone" wish us to claim that we're transients residing at places that are less than legal homes?
That explains why only residents need to get permission (license) to live, travel, work, buy and sell.
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.
