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.
On Tuesday, 12/21/2010, Glenn Beck featured a show devoted to the U.S. Constitution.
As usual, it followed a script that omitted some important aspects of the "republican form" promised in Article 4, Section 4.
His guests also stayed the course, misleading the audience.
Art.4, Sec.4, USCON.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;....
[United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4]
It's a common mistake to assume "republic" = "republican form".
REPUBLIC - A commonwealth; That form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. In another sense, it signifies the state, independent of its form of government.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 1302
A republic is not synonymous with a republican form of government.
The People's Republic of China is a republic but not a republican form.
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
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
The key distinguishing feature between a republican and democratic form is sovereignty.
In the republican form, the PEOPLE individually are sovereign and directly exercise that power.
In the democratic form, the "whole body of citizens" indirectly exercise it via representation. But in truth, democratic majorities override the individual, so no individual is sovereign.
Still need more proof?
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
And citizens are NOT sovereigns.
"... 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
Feel free to ask "your" public servant how and when American people (who were endowed with the birthright to be sovereign) became subject U.S. citizens at birth? But do not be surprised when they do not answer.
In fact, when asked if I was a "U.S. citizen", my reply was that I was born of American parentage within the boundaries of the United States of America - am I a citizen?
The public servant would not answer me, and walked on. Others have relayed similar experiences. The public servants ask - but will not tell.
It took me years of reading the law, to realize that the servant government is only master of its own citizenry - not the sovereign people. If involuntary servitude is unconstitutional and citizens have mandatory civic duties (i.e., militia, jury, etc), then NO ONE can be "born a U.S. citizen" without violating the 13th amendment - in the United States of America - or any place subject to THEIR jurisdiction.
(Remember for whom the 14th amendment was ratified?)
How did we, the sovereign people, served by government, become the subject citizens, serving government?
How and when did we consent to be governed?
When did we surrender our inalienable rights, and exchanged them for privileges?
Don't be misled by the world's greatest propaganda ministry, even when you want to believe the messenger. Go read the law for yourself. Ask your public servants to answer your questions. Then you will have the facts.
You are diggin way too deep. What Beck said was not wrong. I see you are really into this stuff, but you are not a Constitutional laywer, you're a Constitutional hobbiest. There is a big difference. I would take the word of someone who has 40 people researching facts over some lone wolf hobbiest. I don't mean to sound rude, but come one man, this is all your OPINION that you try to present as fact. Those sentences that you twisted around are only your opinion of what they mean.
You are diggin way too deep. What Beck said was not wrong. I see you are really into this stuff, but you are not a Constitutional laywer, you're a Constitutional hobbiest. There is a big difference. I would take the word of someone who has 40 people researching facts over some lone wolf hobbiest. I don't mean to sound rude, but come one man, this is all your OPINION that you try to present as fact. Those sentences that you twisted around are only your opinion of what they mean.
Beck is a propagandist and this is more proof by the OP.
You are diggin way too deep. What Beck said was not wrong. I see you are really into this stuff, but you are not a Constitutional laywer, you're a Constitutional hobbiest. There is a big difference. I would take the word of someone who has 40 people researching facts over some lone wolf hobbiest. I don't mean to sound rude, but come one man, this is all your OPINION that you try to present as fact. Those sentences that you twisted around are only your opinion of what they mean.
You may be correct.
Do not believe me - go read the law for yourself - I am not infallible and may have made an error.
Feel free to post any law, citation or ruling that explicitly states that the American people are NOT sovereign.
Or that U.S. citizens are NOT subjects.
{There is no such thing as a sovereign citizen, by the way. That's an oxymoron.}
To the best of my ability, in all that I have read, I found that servant government carefully omits any reference to the sovereign people, their private property rights, their natural and personal liberty, when dictating to their subject "citizenry" duly enumerated.
To illustrate my conclusions, consider this line of reasoning.
We know, thanks to the Declaration of Independence, that governments are instituted to secure the right to life, endowed by our Creator.
Okay?
But in the Articles of Confederation, 1777, Congress has the authority to mobilize the militia - in essence, ordering them to fight and die, on command. This is further restated in the U.S. Constitution, 1789.
The militia are defined as all able bodied male CITIZENS between 17 and 45.
If citizenship is NOT voluntary, then militia duty is involuntary servitude, and a violation of one's liberty and life.
If citizenship IS voluntary, then the vast majority of Americans were not "born as U.S. citizens", subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal government - a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
I can't find any delegation of power that contradicts the overriding obligation to secure rights (i.e., life, liberty, property, etc), except by consent of the governed. Infants cannot consent to be citizens.
I've asked "public servants" to explain this contradiction, and they demurred.
FWIW - I have repeatedly sent "corrections" to Mr. Beck (or his staff) regarding the many gaffs and mistakes he broadcasts as "fact". So far, he has not corrected himself.
---------------------------
Homework assignment for LAW 101:
If you wish to believe the "experts" who tell you what to know, do not bother. If you wish to know the truth that the "experts" do not wish you to know, take some time and delve into a legal reference (dictionary, etc).
Determine the (legal) difference between the following 9 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
Feel free to use multiple sources, and try to find any contradictory meanings or definitions.
Hint: All the "good" terms are on the left side.
Summed up, an American national / free inhabitant domiciled upon his private property within the boundaries of the United States of America is a sovereign, who directly exercises natural liberty (over all that he absolutely owns) and personal liberty (right of locomotion upon the public roads and waterways). He and his private property are protected by servant government, whose officers have sworn an oath to that effect.
What if "playing politics", voting and running for office was a distraction from restoring individual sovereignty?
What if withdrawing consent, and leaving national socialism was the real solution?
That's what I discovered, many years ago.
It's in the law, carefully shrouded in legal bafflegab and labyrinthine construction.
That's why I repeatedly urge people to GO READ THE LAW.
Frankly, if I went back in time, and told myself what I discovered, I would not believe myself, either.
You have to read it for yourself... especially in a county courthouse law library. There, you will learn the truth about how far we have fallen.
The scariest thought - what if Beck was playing for the same team that Huffington and Soros play for?
Who can you trust to tell you the unvarnished truth?
Beck is a propagandist and this is more proof by the OP.
Where is the proof? I read the OP, I couldnt tell what Beck said, vs the OP said. Nothing is in quotes, nor is there any marks to indicate the difference between one individuals statements and another..
Where is the proof? I read the OP, I couldnt tell what Beck said, vs the OP said. Nothing is in quotes, nor is there any marks to indicate the difference between one individuals statements and another..
Quote:
it followed a script that omitted some important aspects
Ahem - - you can't quote an omission.
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.
