If the Government was out to "control" and "exploit" you with laws...

[Know Nonsense]

Originally Posted by Shankapotomus

You're not free to leave? You're not free to renounce your citizenship?

Again, learn the true meaning of freedom and what it takes to maintain it.

[petch751]

Originally Posted by Shankapotomus

No where near a one trick pony. Ask anybody. I just like this new angle and want to use it.

Yeah, there are social and economic costs. So what? If you feel unable to change the U.S. to your liking and feel it is causing you an undue degree of hardship, you are free to weigh the costs and benefits of renunciation versus staying.

When you're throwing around words like "tyrannical" how much of an inconvenience can you claim leaving will really be?

You can't say it's "tyrannical" and then say "But I'm just too lazy to leave." It makes your original claim seem a tad disingenuous.

You must be listening to Obama.... There are those who try to warn you of tyranny, you should reject those voices. Of course there are those who want you to remain blind, they'll even tell you.

[Know Nonsense]

Some founding principles of this great country:

The rule of law is a First Principle that mandates that the law governs everyone
The First Principle of unalienable rights recognizes that everyone is naturally endowed by their Creator with certain rights
Equality is a First Principle that recognizes that all persons are created equal
The First Principle of the Social Compact recognizes that governments are instituted by the people and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed
The First Principle of limited government means that the protection of unalienable rights is the legitimate purpose and limit of government requires the government to be strong enough to fulfill its purpose yet limited to that purpose
A final First Principle is the right to declare revolution when the other First Principles are being infringed by the government.

[Shankapotomus]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

Pursuant to the organic documents that founded these united States of America - - -

[] American people have endowed rights and powers.
[] American citizens have privileges and immunities, but surrendered endowed rights, etc.
. . .

"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)

Abraham Lincoln - Wikiquote
. . .
<> 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".

Consider that since 1777, all male citizens (who qualified) were the militia, obligated to train, fight and die on command. What happened to their endowed rights to life and liberty?
. . .

“ 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 ... personal services (civic duties) ... [and] military service.
What happened to the citizens' endowed rights to life, liberty and private property ownership?
. . .

If citizenship is imposed at birth, and citizens are subjects, compelled to perform mandatory civic duties, then WHO ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE UNCONDITIONALLY SOVEREIGN?
. . .

“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)]

.................................................. ...............
ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.
- - - - “The Devil’s Dictionary” (1906), by Ambrose Bierce
(download available from gutenberg.org)
.................................................. ...............

Did someone mislead us into claiming to be "voluntary" citizens / subjects?

Citizens are NOT sovereigns

"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

. . .

Now what did ABE LINCOLN say about American Republicanism? Something about CONSENT ...

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

Those Americans who have not consented to be governed (ruled) are not subjects of government, but served by government. They are the sovereign people who retained all their endowed rights and liberties. They directly exercise sovereignty over their private property, absolutely owned, and constitutionally protected. They are non-citizen nationals, not subject to nor object of the myriad laws, rules and regulations that apply to "persons liable."

In the 1993 edition of the 1992 US Code (50 titles), I found only ONE reference to American nationals.

Title 8, U.S.C.S. 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.”

Is there any other mention of non-citizen Americans in the law?

"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)]

FYI : inhabitants have domiciles; residents have residences (less than a domicile).

" No inhabitant of this state shall be molested in person or property ... on account of religious opinions..."
- - - Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Sec.1, Paragraph 4

“ Citizens, protection of. All citizens of the United States, resident in this state, are hereby declared citizens of this state ; and it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to enact such laws as will protect them in the full enjoyment of the rights, privileges, and immunities due to such citizenship.”
- - - Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Sec.3, Paragraph 7

Uh OH! U.S. citizens can only be RESIDENTS in the state.

Did someone mislead us into claiming to be "voluntary" citizens / subjects?

Okay, now I see what you were going for with this. You want your cake and eat it too. You want all of the benefits of citizenship and none of the responsibilities. It's cognitive dissonance.

When you're getting a benefit, something you want, it is at your consent. But when it's a law enacted (also at your consent because representatives only govern by your consent) that places a responsibility on a citizen, it's "tyranny!" and you're being treated like a "subject" .

Certainly, there will be occassions when the Constitution is poorly applied. But the brilliance of our system is, whether you view yourself as a citizen or a subject, you are free to dissolve your ties and relationship to the United States. A true subject, someone being forcibly subjected to someone else's will, is not free to dissolve their relationship.

You can say you were "born" a "subject" but you are certainly by no means required to remain one. Stop being a coward and skirting the issue.

Certainly severing ties with a nation would not be easy. It will require work and planning. But it's your responsibility to do that if you are unhappy and can't change the system by voting or advocating changes to legislation to your satisfaction.

Stop whining about how you're cornered. You're not. You have an option to opt out. Have the guts to take it.

[buddy5]

If?

[Shankapotomus]

Originally Posted by BentBow

No, but I am free to defend myself and other people from oppression of liberties, that turn freemen into criminals. To the point that the oppressors leave me alone and leave town.

Oh gad, you are so dramatic. Just pay your taxes or move to Montana, ya big baby.