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 don't have the time ATM to explain in detail why [1] you seem to believe in fairy-tales .. .. ..
[2] Thomas Jefferson would hate almost everything about our government, and modern society in-general. Thomas Jefferson did not like our Constitution. He believed our executive branch had too much power, he thought our legislature was corrupt, and that our Supreme Court was a form of oligarchy.
. . . .
[3] In any case, in the future, don't reference Thomas Jefferson to delude yourself into believing we live in a Republic, or in an effort to pretend that you are a "free man" or a "sovereign".
. . . .
[4] I'm not stupid enough to believe that nonsense.
[1, 4] If the law, court citations, and quotations are fairy-tales, and people are stupid for believing that nonsense, then what do wise people like yourself rely upon?
[2] So what? Actually, the republican form and the current socialist democratic form are mutually exclusive. You cannot be in both at the same time. TJ certainly would hate a democracy where a majority could deny rights to the minority, or despise a socialist democracy where the government would steal from one to give to another, or compel one into slavery.
[3] Your argument fails. A republic is not synonymous with a republican form. The People's Republic of China is a republic, but it is certainly NOT a republican form. And contrary to your understanding and beliefs, the law and court decisions support my assertion that the republican form is the ideal form of government, securing rights with minimal loss of liberty.
Since you already have concluded that any evidence that contradicts your view point cannot be real, and therefore must be illusion / fairy-tales / delusion, I suggest that you avert your eyes from the following.
AVERT THINE EYES
PLEASE
SAVE YOURSELF FROM FURTHER PAIN
You have been warned.
“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.
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
"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) http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln
As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, endowed by our Creator, promised by the USCON, instituted by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
- - Our Endowment - -
[] Natural rights
[] Natural liberty
[] Personal liberty
[] Absolute ownership
What facts support this conclusion that we're endowed with rights that government was instituted to secure?
" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324
NATURAL LIBERTY - The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner in which they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere in the equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 123,
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth edition, p. 919.
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
Did we cover the endowment?
[] Natural rights - CHECK
[] Natural liberty - CHECK
[] Personal liberty - CHECK
[] Absolute ownership - CHECK
Americans are endowed with natural rights and liberties (natural and personal) that are not subject to infringement by servant government, instituted to secure those rights. Americans can exercise sovereign prerogatives (without any restraint or control) over that which they absolutely own: themselves, their labor, the fruits of their labor, their private property. They have personal liberty and the right of locomotion upon the public roads and waterways. They can defend their person, liberty and private property with deadly force, if trespassed upon.
Now, who else says the American people are sovereigns, and that the government is NOT the sovereign?
“... 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. . .
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
Is Justice John Jay a madman for saying that AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SOVEREIGNS WITHOUT SUBJECTS? Or that our governments are not sovereigns, but agents / servants for the sovereign people?
I think not.
So far, the evidence supports my postings about the IDEAL republican form of government.
Of course, since most Americans have consented to the SOCIALIST DEMOCRATIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT, they have not experienced the republican form of government, despite it being in the law.
How did a nation of sovereigns without subjects, endowed with inalienable rights, liberties, powers and privileges, that governments were instituted to secure, become transformed into a constitutionally limited indirect democratic socialist totalitarian police state, with compulsory charity (slavery), loss of endowed rights, required to get government permission (license) and / or pay taxes to live, work, travel, buy, sell, cut hair, operate a business, hunt, fish, build a house, own land, marry or own a dog?
How did government get the power to abolish liberty by prior restraint?
Short answer : CONSENT.
Long answer : CONSENT.... and ignorance.
Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, governments have two jobs - - -
Job #1 : secure (endowed) rights, and
Job #2 : govern those who consent.
Caveat - consent waives job #1.
How / when did we consent to be governed?
Answer: volunteering to be subject citizens is #1.
Citizens, by definition, are subjects, obligated to perform mandatory civic duties, that effectively abrogate endowed rights and liberties. To illustrate, from day one, militia duty involved the obligation to train, fight, and die, on command. Obviously, one so obligated has no right to life nor liberty.
Do not believe me - go read the law for yourself.
Or read what George Washington has to say about it.
. . .
“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 ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]
Make no mistake!
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to life.
• But citizens have no inalienable (endowed) right to life.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to natural and personal liberty.
• But citizens have only civil and political liberty.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to absolutely own private property (upon which you can pursue happiness without permission of a superior).
• But citizens have no private property, absolutely owned... a portion can be claimed by the government.
If you've consented to be a citizen, you have NO ENDOWED RIGHTS.
Zip. Nada. Bumpkiss. Empty Set. Nought.
Any presumption to the contrary is an error not supported by law nor court ruling.
The government can order you to train, fight, and die, on command.
The government can take a portion of your property -or wages - or whatever - as it sees fit.
All authorized by your consent to be a CITIZEN (state or U.S.).
(The USCON complies with this, too. People have rights and powers. Citizens have privileges and immunities. And they’re mutually exclusive.)
You weren't informed of this in your "Social Studies?"
OOPS.
“The great draft riot in New York City in July 1863 involved Irish immigrants who had been signed up as citizens to swell the vote of the city's Democratic political machine, not realizing it made them liable for the draft.”
Are you like those Irish immigrants who did not know the consequences for consenting participation in the democratic form of government?
From day one, citizens were obligated to perform mandatory duties that effectively voided all endowments.
The only question left is how and when did you consent?
If you thought you were "born a U.S. citizen" via the 14th amendment, you're in error.
Congress has no sovereign jurisdiction in any of the states united, to impose involuntary servitude, let alone void the republican form of government, wherein the people are sovereigns.
A government instituted to secure endowed rights cannot impose citizenship at birth that voids endowed rights.
The law says one thing - but we believe something else.
Go read the law for yourself. Ask your public servants to explain themselves.
Or consider this:
13th amendment, Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
{United States, in the plural, means the States united aka "USA"}
14th amendment, Section 1. 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.
{The term “thereof” means of the thing just mentioned. So one who is subject to the “United States” for the purposes of U.S. citizenship means the federal government. United States, in the singular, must refer to the Federal government, a foreign corporation with respect to a State.}
"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it's own..."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383
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
"The United States and the State of California are two separate sovereignties, each dominant in its own sphere."
Redding v. Los Angeles (1947), 81 C.A.2d 888, 185 P.2d 430.
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)]
.......................................
One born within the boundaries of the USA of American parentage is an AMERICAN national.
If born within Federal jurisdiction, one is a U.S. citizen.
If born outside Federal jurisdiction, one is not a U.S. citizen.
The Supreme court ruled that mandatory civic duties were NOT involuntary servitude banned by the 13th amendment, which can only mean that
(a) citizenship is voluntary -or-
(b) U.S. citizens were not within "their jurisdiction" where involuntary servitude is banned.
They can't have it both ways - either imposition of U.S. citizenship upon infants is involuntary servitude banned by the 13th amendment - or its not really applicable to those born in the USA.
No American national, endowed with liberty from his Creator can be born a subject citizen, without violating the Declaration of Independence and the 13th amendment.
I stipulate that the governments are quite mute when it comes to the American national, non-citizen, free inhabitant, non-resident. In fact, in the 50 titles of the US CODE, I found only ONE REFERENCE to American nationals.
In the 1993 edition of the 1992 US Code (50 titles):
Title 8, USC Sec. 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.”
That is ALL that the Federal government will say about American nationals.
(An American national is NOT synonymous with a U.S. national, defined in Title 8 of the U.S. code.)
P.S.- the State department will graciously issue passports for non-citizen American nationals.
All the rules, regulations, restrictions and taxes that apply to U.S. citizens / U.S. residents do not apply to American nationals, free inhabitants, domiciled upon private property within the boundaries of the united States of America.
In fact, you cannot even accidentally sign up for socialist slavery (FICA) because Form SS-5 is only for U.S. citizens / residents. American nationals / free inhabitants cannot enroll - nor would they wish to.
I would argue that the entire West is in a state of decline, if not outright collapse. Evidence for this is legion. Separatist movements in Catalonia and Scotland, Brexit, and the rise of nationalist candidates in the US, UK, France, the Netherlands, Austria, Italy, Germany and elsewhere. More generally, there is a very low level of confidence in the political and economic systems throughout the Western countries?
Obviously, there are many factors at play. However, I believe that the single largest reason for the collapse of the West is relatively simple: politicians in the West no longer represent the interests of their constituents. Representative governance is a core fundamental of Western society. But who is represented when millions of Islamic refugees are let into Germany? Not the average German. Who is represented when illegal immigrants are allowed into the US to take all of the non-skilled jobs? Who is represented when the US government makes unfavorable trade deals or allows economic competitors to manipulate their currency? Not the average US voter.
The Western elites have perverted the political narrative into one where it is now considered xenophobic, racist, nationalist or bigoted when politicians represent the interests of the majority. Consequently, the average citizen has little to no confidence in the political and economic systems. I believe that is one of the main reasons the West is collapsing.
why is the west collapsing?
illegal immigration, islamic refugees and too much debt.
[1, 4] If the law, court citations, and quotations are fairy-tales, and people are stupid for believing that nonsense, then what do wise people like yourself rely upon?
[2] So what? Actually, the republican form and the current socialist democratic form are mutually exclusive. You cannot be in both at the same time. TJ certainly would hate a democracy where a majority could deny rights to the minority, or despise a socialist democracy where the government would steal from one to give to another, or compel one into slavery.
[3] Your argument fails. A republic is not synonymous with a republican form. The People's Republic of China is a republic, but it is certainly NOT a republican form. And contrary to your understanding and beliefs, the law and court decisions support my assertion that the republican form is the ideal form of government, securing rights with minimal loss of liberty.
Since you already have concluded that any evidence that contradicts your view point cannot be real, and therefore must be illusion / fairy-tales / delusion, I suggest that you avert your eyes from the following.
AVERT THINE EYES
PLEASE
SAVE YOURSELF FROM FURTHER PAIN
You have been warned.
“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.
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
"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) http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln
As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, endowed by our Creator, promised by the USCON, instituted by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
- - Our Endowment - -
[] Natural rights
[] Natural liberty
[] Personal liberty
[] Absolute ownership
What facts support this conclusion that we're endowed with rights that government was instituted to secure?
" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324
NATURAL LIBERTY - The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner in which they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere in the equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 123,
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth edition, p. 919.
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
Did we cover the endowment?
[] Natural rights - CHECK
[] Natural liberty - CHECK
[] Personal liberty - CHECK
[] Absolute ownership - CHECK
Americans are endowed with natural rights and liberties (natural and personal) that are not subject to infringement by servant government, instituted to secure those rights. Americans can exercise sovereign prerogatives (without any restraint or control) over that which they absolutely own: themselves, their labor, the fruits of their labor, their private property. They have personal liberty and the right of locomotion upon the public roads and waterways. They can defend their person, liberty and private property with deadly force, if trespassed upon.
Now, who else says the American people are sovereigns, and that the government is NOT the sovereign?
“... 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. . .
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
Is Justice John Jay a madman for saying that AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SOVEREIGNS WITHOUT SUBJECTS? Or that our governments are not sovereigns, but agents / servants for the sovereign people?
I think not.
So far, the evidence supports my postings about the IDEAL republican form of government.
Of course, since most Americans have consented to the SOCIALIST DEMOCRATIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT, they have not experienced the republican form of government, despite it being in the law.
How did a nation of sovereigns without subjects, endowed with inalienable rights, liberties, powers and privileges, that governments were instituted to secure, become transformed into a constitutionally limited indirect democratic socialist totalitarian police state, with compulsory charity (slavery), loss of endowed rights, required to get government permission (license) and / or pay taxes to live, work, travel, buy, sell, cut hair, operate a business, hunt, fish, build a house, own land, marry or own a dog?
How did government get the power to abolish liberty by prior restraint?
Short answer : CONSENT.
Long answer : CONSENT.... and ignorance.
Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, governments have two jobs - - -
Job #1 : secure (endowed) rights, and
Job #2 : govern those who consent.
Caveat - consent waives job #1.
How / when did we consent to be governed?
Answer: volunteering to be subject citizens is #1.
Citizens, by definition, are subjects, obligated to perform mandatory civic duties, that effectively abrogate endowed rights and liberties. To illustrate, from day one, militia duty involved the obligation to train, fight, and die, on command. Obviously, one so obligated has no right to life nor liberty.
Do not believe me - go read the law for yourself.
Or read what George Washington has to say about it.
. . .
“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 ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]
Make no mistake!
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to life.
• But citizens have no inalienable (endowed) right to life.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to natural and personal liberty.
• But citizens have only civil and political liberty.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to absolutely own private property (upon which you can pursue happiness without permission of a superior).
• But citizens have no private property, absolutely owned... a portion can be claimed by the government.
If you've consented to be a citizen, you have NO ENDOWED RIGHTS.
Zip. Nada. Bumpkiss. Empty Set. Nought.
Any presumption to the contrary is an error not supported by law nor court ruling.
The government can order you to train, fight, and die, on command.
The government can take a portion of your property -or wages - or whatever - as it sees fit.
All authorized by your consent to be a CITIZEN (state or U.S.).
(The USCON complies with this, too. People have rights and powers. Citizens have privileges and immunities. And they’re mutually exclusive.)
You weren't informed of this in your "Social Studies?"
OOPS.
“The great draft riot in New York City in July 1863 involved Irish immigrants who had been signed up as citizens to swell the vote of the city's Democratic political machine, not realizing it made them liable for the draft.”
Are you like those Irish immigrants who did not know the consequences for consenting participation in the democratic form of government?
From day one, citizens were obligated to perform mandatory duties that effectively voided all endowments.
The only question left is how and when did you consent?
If you thought you were "born a U.S. citizen" via the 14th amendment, you're in error.
Congress has no sovereign jurisdiction in any of the states united, to impose involuntary servitude, let alone void the republican form of government, wherein the people are sovereigns.
A government instituted to secure endowed rights cannot impose citizenship at birth that voids endowed rights.
The law says one thing - but we believe something else.
Go read the law for yourself. Ask your public servants to explain themselves.
Or consider this:
13th amendment, Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
{United States, in the plural, means the States united aka "USA"}
14th amendment, Section 1. 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.
{The term “thereof” means of the thing just mentioned. So one who is subject to the “United States” for the purposes of U.S. citizenship means the federal government. United States, in the singular, must refer to the Federal government, a foreign corporation with respect to a State.}
"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it's own..."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383
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
"The United States and the State of California are two separate sovereignties, each dominant in its own sphere."
Redding v. Los Angeles (1947), 81 C.A.2d 888, 185 P.2d 430.
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)]
.......................................
One born within the boundaries of the USA of American parentage is an AMERICAN national.
If born within Federal jurisdiction, one is a U.S. citizen.
If born outside Federal jurisdiction, one is not a U.S. citizen.
The Supreme court ruled that mandatory civic duties were NOT involuntary servitude banned by the 13th amendment, which can only mean that
(a) citizenship is voluntary -or-
(b) U.S. citizens were not within "their jurisdiction" where involuntary servitude is banned.
They can't have it both ways - either imposition of U.S. citizenship upon infants is involuntary servitude banned by the 13th amendment - or its not really applicable to those born in the USA.
No American national, endowed with liberty from his Creator can be born a subject citizen, without violating the Declaration of Independence and the 13th amendment.
I stipulate that the governments are quite mute when it comes to the American national, non-citizen, free inhabitant, non-resident. In fact, in the 50 titles of the US CODE, I found only ONE REFERENCE to American nationals.
In the 1993 edition of the 1992 US Code (50 titles):
Title 8, USC Sec. 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.”
That is ALL that the Federal government will say about American nationals.
(An American national is NOT synonymous with a U.S. national, defined in Title 8 of the U.S. code.)
P.S.- the State department will graciously issue passports for non-citizen American nationals.
All the rules, regulations, restrictions and taxes that apply to U.S. citizens / U.S. residents do not apply to American nationals, free inhabitants, domiciled upon private property within the boundaries of the united States of America.
In fact, you cannot even accidentally sign up for socialist slavery (FICA) because Form SS-5 is only for U.S. citizens / residents. American nationals / free inhabitants cannot enroll - nor would they wish to.
[1, 4] If the law, court citations, and quotations are fairy-tales, and people are stupid for believing that nonsense, then what do wise people like yourself rely upon?
Look, I've been a member of this forum since 2009. If you could go back to my early posts, you would hear me ranting incessantly about "original intent" and the American Constitution. You would see that I oppose vehemently the "Living-document" theory.
I spent years debating these issues on this very forum, and in order to win my battles, I did what I always do, I provided as many facts as possible, and provided links. And in every case, I believed that I had what should have been an "airtight" argument.
Let me tell you what I've learned from my many years debating people both on the internet, as well as real life; No one cares what the Constitution means, except insofar as it means what they want it to mean.
Which is just a part of a larger problem. That everything people believe about this world, is always filtered through their own biases. In simplest terms, people believe what they want to believe. They see what they want to see. They hear what they want to hear.
"The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory." - Thomas Jefferson
"Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced" - H.L. Mencken
If you think you are going to convince people to believe something, which if they did, would limit them, or punish them, or impoverish them, or would otherwise be of disutility to them, you are fooling yourself.
And the truth is, there is no Constitution, and there has never really been a Constitution. Alexander Hamilton began ripping it up the moment it was signed. Which led Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to nearly cause the dissolution of the United States in 1798(or Civil War) with their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.
"Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force... The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress." - Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolution, 1798
And that resolution was literally the entire basis for the "compact theory", which was itself the basis for "nullification", which itself was the basis for secession. And guess what happened?
If you were to also go through my posts, you would see that I have been incredibly critical of Lincoln, the Civil War, and the eventual 14th amendment(which was unconstitutionally ratified).
But again, no one cares. And they will look for any justification, no matter how remote or absurd it is in fact, to continue believing whatever it is that they want to believe. And you simply aren't going to change their minds.
But let us not forget that people on both sides of every issue are equally blinded by their own biases. The average Constitutionalist is no less biased than a socialist. And to the extent that he is a Constitutionalist, it is for one reason alone, that he believes it would serve his interests better than the alternatives.
Now, I'm not going to say that there aren't exceptions, I am sure there are. But here is the truth, the vast-majority of Americans can be bought-off. Whether it is by welfare, or corporate subsidies/contracts, or lower taxes, or free healthcare, or free college, or better wages, or other free stuff. If you wave a dollar in front of the average American's face, he will forget all about the Constitution.
I mean, I loved Ron Paul, and mainly for one reason, he was principled and honest. But of the 535 members of Congress, how many of them are principled and honest? How many of them actually understand the Constitution? How many of them understand economics? How many know history?
The reason why Ron Paul stands out, is because he is one of the few exceptions in what should be a body of our best and brightest. And if they are our best and brightest, what does that say about the rest of us?
Now, I have a difficult time believing that anyone could disagree with anything I said thus far. But if all of this is true, then what point is there to even discussing the Constitution? I gave up discussing the Constitution after the same-sex marriage court case last year.
Some quotes from Scalia's dissent...
"Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy."
"The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since."
"They know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution."
There is no Constitution. Let me repeat again, there is no Constitution.
You know it, I know it, and every sane person knows it.
So here is my advice to you, if you want a Republic, if you want a limited government, if you want a Constitution, then you better start a revolution, because you ain't going to get it any other way.
"Whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner, No Treason, 1867
"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."
Did you and I give our consent to be governed? When did we? By being born?
The notion that any government on Earth is by consent is plain nonsense.
"My intention here is not to exclude the consent of the people from being one just foundation of government where it has place. It is surely the best and most sacred of any. I only contend that it has very seldom had place in any degree and never almost in its full extent. And that therefore some other foundation of government must also be admitted." - David Hume
"In the very nature of things, the act of voting could bind nobody but the actual voters. But owing to the property qualifications required, it is probable that, during the first twenty or thirty years under the Constitution, not more than one-tenth, fifteenth, or perhaps twentieth of the whole population (black and white, men, women, and minors) were permitted to vote. Consequently, so far as voting was concerned, not more than one-tenth, fifteenth, or twentieth of those then existing, could have incurred any obligation to support the Constitution." - Lysander Spooner
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Americans are endowed with natural rights and liberties (natural and personal) that are not subject to infringement by servant government, instituted to secure those rights. Americans can exercise sovereign prerogatives (without any restraint or control) over that which they absolutely own: themselves, their labor, the fruits of their labor, their private property. They have personal liberty and the right of locomotion upon the public roads and waterways. They can defend their person, liberty and private property with deadly force, if trespassed upon.
These are nice sentiments, but where do these supposed rights actually exist? Nowhere.
"I consider all the ill as established which may be established. I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away." - Thomas Jefferson
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
The Declaration says that you have an endowed right to life, liberty, and property.
I love the Declaration of Independence. But let us remember, the Declaration of Independence was a revolutionary document, the Constitution was not. The Declaration is a statement, it is not law. And the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, if followed, would bring down every government on Earth.
"One essential of a free government is that it rest wholly on voluntary support. And one certain proof that a government is not free, is that it coerces more or less persons to support it, against their will." - Lysander Spooner
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
This line reminded me of this quote...
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick.'" - Mikhail Bakunin
With that said, after finally reading your entire post, I am a bit confused on your point? In one breath you seem to revere the Constitution; Then in the next, you seem to argue that it is a slave document which strips away men's rights to life, liberty, and property, without authority, and in opposition to the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence, and natural law itself.
Why is the west collapsing. Its a long list but its pretty simple:
Debt, both US govt. and public debt/ too many financing their lifestyle on credit. Too much govt. bureaucracy/too much law/regulations/red tape. Welfare: Paying far too many people not to work and paying them so well, it makes more sense for many to go on govt. aid than to work. Feminism and liberalism, has skewed the courts system and educational system so much, that many men are opting out of marrying and having children. Birth rate declines even more. Its a sign people see no hope of a better future.
Too many on drugs/illegal drugs and the whole criminal element it infects.
Lastly and most importantly, that Americans have largely walked away from God. 50 years ago, 1/2 the population attended church on Sunday. Today, its probably about 10% and sinking fast.
The west is in decline because there is no sense of nationalism anymore./ thread
Basically, most of the West hates itself because of past atrocities. The west thinks it can remedy thsee atrocities by not behaving in its own interests.
When it's all said and done, most of the West will be a 3rd world multicultural hellhole with pockets of wealth and structure.
The west is in decline because there is no sense of nationalism anymore./ thread
Basically, most of the West hates itself because of past atrocities. The west thinks it can remedy thsee atrocities by not behaving in its own interests.
When it's all said and done, most of the West will be a 3rd world multicultural hellhole with pockets of wealth and structure.
This. And now we give way too much free publicity and promotion to Muslims/the Middle East and what they're doing. We barely even talk about our Western values anymore.
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.
