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.
It's a type of straw man argument which you probably know - it depends on whether you are dishonest or stupid.
Not a straw man, and this discussion has run its course. start another thread about sov cits, and we can discuss it there. This has nothing to do with the fact that the OP is wrong.
Wow! My how clueless you really are, or are you just playing dumb for the debate?
The sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance...
No such ideas obtain here; 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...
This means..... Each individual, at least so far as respects his unalienable rights is his own sovereign.
These rights weren't given to any government. In fact, they can't be.
Perhaps you can give up all of your rights, if you so choose, but who has the power to give your rights up for you?
In America, no one can, because we're all equal. In American this principle of popular sovereign is recognized by all governments - state and federal.
When the states became independent, the state governments were formed, all of them based on the authority of the people, and not the will of one man or a small body of men. The federal government as we know it today was created in 1789 when the federal constitution went into effect.
The constitution mentioned something previously unknown in American law:
Citizenship of the United States:
The term, citizens of the United States, must be understood to intend those who were citizens of a state, as such, after the Union had commenced, and the several states had assumed their sovereignties. Before this period there was no citizen of the United States...
Manchester v. Boston, Massachusetts Reports, Vol. 16, Page 235
(1819)
This brings us to what are considered as being the rights inherent in Citizenship in America
Sovereign citizen is indeed an oxymoron.
Citizen denotes a relationship to the state with a set of mutual obligations. A sovereign represents the state. A citizen represents a person who is not only under the jurisdiction of the state, but under obligation to the state.
When our nation declared independence from the British, and from the sovereign who ruled that state, it didn't make citizens all sovereign in their own right. The loyalty and obligations previously accorded to the king of England and his government were now owed to the government of the United States, a government that was chosen by the people and represented the people of the United States.
The Sovereign Citizen movement asserts that no loyalty and obligations are owed to the government. And that is incorrect. Citizens who don't wish to honor their obligations to a government are free to leave, and to find another government that their personal beliefs are more in line with, or to find a place without any government, any law, where they can truly enjoy their own sovereignty. But as long as a citizen lives in a place with a government, they are not and cannot be sovereign.
The wonderful thing about the United States was that it tacitly recognized that a government rules only by the consent of the people governed. A sovereign may be toppled. A dictatorship might suffer a coup d'etat. But if we live in a place where there are laws, then citizens are not sovereign, but subject to those laws. And choosing to live where there are laws is consent. Civil disobedience is not an assertion of sovereignty. Even criminality is not an assertion of sovereignty. Protests against the government is not an assertion of sovereignty. Sovereignty is an assertion that the laws don't apply to the person claiming sovereignty. And citizenship is an assertion that the laws do apply to the person claiming citizenship. They are opposites. They cannot coexist.
Agreed. There are way too many issues with Obama's birth certificate, college records, social security number, and tuition support.
How in the hell could someone get through Columbia and Harvard with no student loans from his background? It is impossible.
There is something very wrong about Obama, yet the media and adoring throngs look the other way.
How many people share your Social Security number?
probably none. you'd have to check with the social security administration...... who have directly confirmed that obama has a valid SS#!
so far the "bounel" claim is based solely on a single entry in an unknown database. the census information is contradicting the the possibility that obama and bounel shared a SS#.
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.
