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 we want an example of the founding generation, let us look at this:
1776 Virginia Constitution.
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.
*(Since only property owners who had paid taxes could vote, only they had consented to be governed. The rest still had their inalienable rights intact.)
Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, governments were instituted to (a) secure rights and (b) govern those who consented.
Those who did not give consent, were still secure in their rights, but free of being "governed".
Probably most along the lines of the Constitution and Libertarian parties. Small government, small federal debt, maximum individual and state liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EclecticTastes
I think perhaps our founding fathers would say that all of the American political parties are the reincanation of the monarchy against which they fought.
The kings and queens of old Europe ruled by the "divine right of kings" the idea that God had appointed the monarch to rule over the masses. And as such, the kings and queens believed in their God given right to live in the utmost of luxury while the serfs lived subsistence existences struggling to pay the taxes which funded the lavish lifestyles of the court.
Whether democrat or republican, tea partyist or left wing liberal, I think most of us are tired to seeing our supposed representatives in Washington living lavish lifestyles while so many Americans struggle to survive.
Is there anyone in elected office in Washington D.C. who doesn't have the "let them eat cake" attitude of Marie Antoinette?
They live in lavish homes funded by taxpayer dollars; they ride in limosines and fly private planes for which we pay; they dine on restaurant meals that cost more than my week's salary at the expense of the taxpayers.
After only one term in office they get a lifetime pension, lifetime health care, and other lifetime perks.
Personally, I think the founding fathers would say that NONE of them in Washington are what they had in mind when they risked their lives to fight the against a monarch living in luxury while the majority of his subjects struggled just to survive.
It won't have any lasting effect.
The better solution is to withdraw consent.
(Of course, you were never informed that you had granted CONSENT to their perfidy. But read the law, sometime. It's available in any county courthouse law library.)
If only a few withdraw consent, not much will happen.
If a few million withdraw consent, great fear will erupt on Capitol Hill.
If a few hundred million withdraw consent, their game's over.
I wouldn't be surprised by a resignation, en masse, of all government officers, and a mad rush to emigrate to nations that do not extradite. (Which isn't all that bad - since they'd be stuck with them, instead of us.)
It won't have any lasting effect.
The better solution is to withdraw consent.
(Of course, you were never informed that you had granted CONSENT to their perfidy. But read the law, sometime. It's available in any county courthouse law library.)
If only a few withdraw consent, not much will happen.
If a few million withdraw consent, great fear will erupt on Capitol Hill.
If a few hundred million withdraw consent, their game's over.
I wouldn't be surprised by a resignation, en masse, of all government officers, and a mad rush to emigrate to nations that do not extradite. (Which isn't all that bad - since they'd be stuck with them, instead of us.)
Ok. I don't have a problem admitting my ignorance on the subject you brought up of withdrawing consent. How do you propose we do that?
Also, I don't have a problem with going to read the law either. The problem I do have is when faced with finding something I'm looking for is being able to stay focused on just what it is I'm looking for. (especially looking for particular laws) First of all I think most people, (including myself) need a class on how to look for law in the library. That in itself is a feat to master. Perhaps you could make it easy for us and let us know where to look. Of course this means I must be lazy.
I'll also admit I have never heard of withdrawing consent but it sounds most interesting as I do agree with you voting does not seem to make a difference and most of us feel very, very far removed from being able to make any sort of change.
Ok. I don't have a problem admitting my ignorance on the subject you brought up of withdrawing consent. How do you propose we do that?
One "harmless" tactic - write a polite letter to "your" district congressman and ask the following questions:
1. What law compels all Americans in the USA to enroll into FICA/ Social Security?
2. What law punishes any American who does not?
3. If there is no law, and participation is 100% voluntary - what is the official procedure to volunteer out?
{No, there's no law, because involuntary servitude is unconstitutional.}
If a few million wrote to their representatives, I suspect that a cosmic wedgie or puckered orifices would be the result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots
Also, I don't have a problem with going to read the law either. The problem I do have is when faced with finding something I'm looking for is being able to stay focused on just what it is I'm looking for. (especially looking for particular laws) First of all I think most people, (including myself) need a class on how to look for law in the library. That in itself is a feat to master. Perhaps you could make it easy for us and let us know where to look. Of course this means I must be lazy.
Very true. Most novices are defeated by the sheer confusion that most law is written in.
The "secret" is to determine whether the law is dealing with malum in se (evil in itself) or malum prohibitum (regulatory). Malum in se laws are those that deal with injuries to victims - assault, murder, rape, theft. Those are simple to read and easy to comprehend.
But when it comes to the other - whoa!
Which should raise an alarm - WHY would "regulatory" law be confusing while others are fairly clear? Because they're hiding how YOU gave consent to be so regulated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots
I'll also admit I have never heard of withdrawing consent but it sounds most interesting as I do agree with you voting does not seem to make a difference and most of us feel very, very far removed from being able to make any sort of change.
Caveat - walking down the road of knowledge can cause unpleasant repercussions. Your friends and relatives may consider you "bizarre" or shun you, because you will have "seen" that which they are blind to.
----------------
Homework assignment for LAW 101:
Determine the (legal) difference between the following pairs:
national v. citizen
sovereign v. subject
individual v. person
inhabitant v. resident
domicile v. residence
natural liberty v. civil liberty
personal liberty v. political liberty
private property v. estate (real and personal property)
absolute ownership v. qualified ownership
If you do not know the legal difference, you will not understand what has happened to the United States of America and the republican form of government promised to the American people. (See: Art.4, Sec.4, USCON)
GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of 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
Yes, folks, that's what you've lost... the only government on this planet that recognized that the people were sovereign and superior to it. Where each sovereign individual directly exercised sovereignty. Where sovereigns did not go "begging" for scraps tossed from the table of "Big Brother". (i.e., "entitlements")
I think perhaps our founding fathers would say that all of the American political parties are the reincanation of the monarchy against which they fought.
Oh, puleeeze! Washington with his entourage of slaves, George Mason one of the richest plantation owners in Virginia, Robert Morris who would have been right at home with any hedge fund manager, or John Dickinson, a son of a prosperous farmer, educated in England, married into money?
Determine the (legal) difference between the following pairs:
national v. citizen
sovereign v. subject
individual v. person
inhabitant v. resident
domicile v. residence
natural liberty v. civil liberty
personal liberty v. political liberty
private property v. estate (real and personal property)
absolute ownership v. qualified ownership
Sovereign v. Subject
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.
....
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)
----
Fairly clear, right?
Citizens are subjects of their sovereign governments.
Now, why should it matter?
The subject citizens and sovereign people are mutually exclusive.
What proof exists that the American people are the sovereigns?
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)]
"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)]
{Who are the American inhabitants who are NOT citizens?} Inhabitant v. resident
"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
"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
"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
Did someone forget to tell Americans that inhabitants have domiciles, not residences? That sovereign Americans have permanent legal homes, while subject citizens / residents are transients (vagabonds) who merely reside at temporary residences? (A "legal residence" is still not a domicile, a legal home, in law.)
Now you see why "inhabitant" is an important term, not to be confused with a "resident".
======
You may be wondering how "all people" born in the United States are subject U.S. citizens, obligated to perform compulsory civic duties (involuntary servitude is still unconstitutional!). Babies can't give consent.
What about the American people, free inhabitants, who are sovereign and not compelled?
Reference that offers documented proof that we've been lied to for generations, check out this document:
https://www.pcip.gov/PreExistingCond...082310_508.pdf (https://www.pcip.gov/PreExistingConditionPlan_EnrollmentForm_082310_508 .pdf - broken link)
On Page 1, Section 3:
Quote:
[] I am a noncitizen national of the United States
Also note that though U.S. citizens have to provide 'their SSN', American nationals do not. (Form SS-5, application for an account and number, is only for U.S. citizens / U.S. residents. American nationals / free inhabitants are not eligible - and wouldn't wish to participate in that abomination.)
Gouverneur Morris who wanted a strong central government?
Charles Pinckney whose main concern was the preservation of slavery?
Alexander Hamilton who wanted a government more like the British Parliamentary system and believed in vigorous federalism?
Elbridge Gerry who wanted nothing to do with the Constitution?
Franklin who opposed property requirements for voters?
Madison who at one point wanted to grant the federal government the right to veto any and all state legislation?
We could go on highlighting the various other 49 proponents and opponents of proposals to the Constitution and we still wouldn't have an answer to the question.
Personally I think that it is a fool's errand to try and divine how men, dead for some 200 years would have felt about a country far more populous and complex than any 18th century American could have foreseen.
Was Washington not a founder? He is my man for the best of them since he tended to go along with Hamilton's advice over that of Jefferson. Of course, Washington was trying to nation build and just didn't want to kill the nation that he inherited.
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.
