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.
The Eleventh Amendment was passed by Congress in 1794, & ratified by the states in 1795; it overruled the SCOTUS’s decision in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793).
Only with respect to lawsuits - not the sovereign status of American people.
Do you have a reference that states that American people are subjects and not sovereigns?
And that they ceased to have Creator endowed rights?
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
- - - Eleventh Amendment
I see no mention of "PEOPLE" - only "CITIZENS".
Last edited by jetgraphics; 04-24-2022 at 05:11 AM..
“It will be sufficient to observe briefly that 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, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere... 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[.]
“From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the [sovereign] people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the [sovereign] people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns."
- - - Justice John Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia (2 U.S. 419 (1793)) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...CR_0002_0419_Z
Who are the sovereigns served by the servant government?
The PEOPLE !
● DEVOLVE - To pass on or delegate to another.
● REGENT - One who rules during the minority, absence, or disability of a monarch.
● SOVEREIGN - One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit.
● CITIZEN - One who is subject of a sovereign, and has mandatory civic duties that abrogate endowed rights.
The sovereign American people have the right to govern - themselves. They have supreme power only over that which they absolutely own - private property. They descend to servants, when in the government. And to be eligible to serve in the government, they must assert citizenship - which entails accepting mandatory civic duties which amount to a surrender of endowed rights to life, liberty and absolute ownership of private property. (This is how “Selective Service” is not involuntary servitude)
However, it would appear that the “Powers” behind American government have used the world’s greatest propaganda ministry to indoctrinate the American people to be subjects / serfs who need government permission (license) and / or pay taxes to live, to travel, to work, to own, and to marry. As good socialists, they no longer own themselves, their labor, their lands or even their children, who are now wards of the benevolent administration (aka totalitarian police state) and taught thusly.
At one time, Americans were aware of the difference... before national socialism (1930s)
.................................................. ...............
ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.
- - - - “The Devil’s Dictionary” (1906), by Ambrose Bierce
(download available from www.gutenberg.org)
.................................................. ...............
P.S. - there is no such thing as a "sovereign citizen" (oxymoron).
1930s, what could you be referring to as “national socialism”?
Please find this Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies here:
We believe in a way of living in which political democracy and free private enterprise for profit should serve and protect each other—to ensure a maximum of human liberty not for a few but for all.
It has been well said that "the freest government, if it could exist, would not be long acceptable, if the tendency of the laws were to create a rapid accumulation of property in few hands, and to render the great mass of the population dependent and penniless."
Only with respect to lawsuits - not the sovereign status of American people.
Do you have a reference that states that American people are subjects and not sovereigns?
And that they ceased to have Creator endowed rights?
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
- - - Eleventh Amendment
I see no mention of "PEOPLE" - only "CITIZENS".
The Preamble states “We the people of the United States” & establishes the United States Constitution:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The United States Constitution is not a religious document.
We believe in a way of living in which political democracy and free private enterprise for profit should serve and protect each other—to ensure a maximum of human liberty not for a few but for all.
It has been well said that "the freest government, if it could exist, would not be long acceptable, if the tendency of the laws were to create a rapid accumulation of property in few hands, and to render the great mass of the population dependent and penniless."
From the Communist manifesto: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
__"The private ownership of gold is a privilege, not a right. Congress revoked the privilege of private ownership in 1933 and restored it in 1974. Congress could easily revoke the privilege again. In fact, at no time during this century has the U.S. government recognized the right of private gold ownership. The Trading With The Enemy Act, which President Roosevelt invoked in 1933 to restrict private gold transactions, remains law. The government could reactivate the machinery, which The Trading With The Enemy Act established, to implement gold confiscation."
- - - Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 297, 320 (1982)
Congress and FDR declared that private ownership of gold was a privilege, not a right.
Really?
__“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and user must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” — Senate Document No. 43, 73D Congress, 1st Session, entitled: “Contracts Payable in Gold”, by George Cyrus Thorpe, submitted to the senate: April 17, 1933
......
Is that clear enough?
The STATE abolished private property (absolute ownership by individuals).
......
But before 1933, private property ownership was a SACRED RIGHT.
" 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.
Few Americans can remember what private property was, since it has been 89 years under glorious socialism. Of course, participation is 100% voluntary - no law compels participation nor punishes non-participants.
“The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work within the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one...”
- - - The Social Security Administration http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ScottSSNLetter.pdf
Get your own personalized letter from the SocSecAdmin . . .
Since the 1930s, Americans have embraced the notion it was a "good thing" for government to TAKE from one to GIVE to another, thus instituting socialism, and abolishing private property ownership (of those who gave consent, via enrollment in FICA).
IMHO, Mr Spooner is an ignoramus. He has no grasp of the republican form of government.
I prefer the republican form of government, where the people are sovereigns, and the government is their servant. I like it when government secures endowed rights, but only governs those who consent.
An endowment of liberty, from one’s Creator, is contrary to all other forms of government, save the Republican Form. For in all other governments, people are subjects of their sovereign government, however that government is organized. Thus they have no endowment of rights and liberties, except that which is granted - or withheld - by their sovereign government.
That is why American people are sovereigns, unlike all other nations.
I can find no fault in being sovereign, with a servant government to help secure my rights.
But if you wish to be a subject citizen to participate in the democratic form of government, to vote and hold office, who am I to say you can’t? But please stop complaining! You gave consent, didn’t you?
When dealing with the travails of democracy -
• Until consent is withdrawn, no remedy exists.
• After consent is withdrawn, no remedy is needed.
By only governs those who consent do you mean that if ( f.ex ) individuals don't explicitly give consent to be governed then any power the government attempts to wield over them is illegitimate ?
Because IIRC Spooner made an argument along those lines which is why I brought him up .
As for the rest of this post I agree with much of it , except for the tidbits about a proper endowment of liberty only existing in the republican form of government as well as the implication that American people are the only free people on Earth .
IMHO mixed government/monarchy can be forms of government that are very conducive to liberty , though obviously they shouldn't be attempted in the United States for a myriad of reasons , and I also believe that the freedom of American citizens has been greatly curtailed by the power of the state in all its forms ( whether it be federal , state , or local level ) for quite some time now .
__"The private ownership of gold is a privilege, not a right. Congress revoked the privilege of private ownership in 1933 and restored it in 1974. Congress could easily revoke the privilege again. In fact, at no time during this century has the U.S. government recognized the right of private gold ownership. The Trading With The Enemy Act, which President Roosevelt invoked in 1933 to restrict private gold transactions, remains law. The government could reactivate the machinery, which The Trading With The Enemy Act established, to implement gold confiscation."
- - - Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 297, 320 (1982)
Congress and FDR declared that private ownership of gold was a privilege, not a right.
Really?
__“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and user must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.” — Senate Document No. 43, 73D Congress, 1st Session, entitled: “Contracts Payable in Gold”, by George Cyrus Thorpe, submitted to the senate: April 17, 1933
......
Is that clear enough?
The STATE abolished private property (absolute ownership by individuals).
......
But before 1933, private property ownership was a SACRED RIGHT.
" 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.
Few Americans can remember what private property was, since it has been 89 years under glorious socialism. Of course, participation is 100% voluntary - no law compels participation nor punishes non-participants.
“The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work within the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one...”
- - - The Social Security Administration http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ScottSSNLetter.pdf
Get your own personalized letter from the SocSecAdmin . . .
Since the 1930s, Americans have embraced the notion it was a "good thing" for government to TAKE from one to GIVE to another, thus instituting socialism, and abolishing private property ownership (of those who gave consent, via enrollment in FICA).
The Preamble states “We the people of the United States” & establishes the United States Constitution:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The United States Constitution is not a religious document.
And it also promises to preserve the pre-existing republican form of government.
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. . . The fourth section of the fourth article of the constitution, directs that "the United States shall guaranty to every state in the Union a republican form of government." The form of government is to be guarantied, WHICH SUPPOSES A FORM ALREADY ESTABLISHED, and this is the republican form of government the United States have undertaken to protect.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, 1856
. . .
The republican form existed BEFORE the USCON, thus it cannot be limited by it.
. . .
Under the subsection:
CONSTITUTION, Art. 4, Sec. 4. The guarantee of a republican form of government to every "state" means to its people and not to its government: Texas v. White. 7 Wall. (U. S.) 700, 19 L. Ed. 227.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. (1914), P.635
"In the sense of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, the term `state' is used to express the idea of a people or political community, as distinguished from the government. And the people constitute the state."
Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, State, page 3124.
CONSTITUTE: To be the elements or parts of; compose.
Are we the people in the preamble?
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain...."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia
---
"The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government and not for the government of the individual States."
- - -John Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 7 Peters 204, (1822).
---
Remember, not all Americans could vote, and ratify that constitution (compact). Those who could not vote, could not be presumed to give consent. Therefore, if we are the "private people" we're not parties to that compact, and if we are people of the individual States, we are not the "people of the United States" who are parties to that compact. In short, without our consent, all that servant government is authorized to do “to” us is serve us. It has no delegated POWER to lead us, rule us, govern us, restrict us, regulate us, or trespass upon our rights.
FYI: The United States is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
Title 28 United States Code, §3002. Definitions,
(15) “United States” means -
(a) a Federal corporation
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.
"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 its own..."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
You may have missed learning of this in government approved education. It shows up in the Articles of Confederation (1777).
Article I. The Stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Please note: The 50 states united are the "United States of America".
The "United States" (federal government) refers to Congress, and its two other branches - executive and judicial.
So who were "The People of the United States" who ordained and established the compact?
Not the "private people".
Do you know of anyone who was deprived of their property and was given JUST COMPENSATION in lawful money?
LAWFUL MONEY - "The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States..."
Title 12 United States Code, Sec. 152.
Since 1933, no lawful money has circulated, after government confiscated it all, and criminalized the ownership by "free" Americans.
D'Oh!
From 1933 forward, private possession and ownership of gold was illegal for U.S. citizens. Any refusal to return one’s gold was punishable by a fine of $10,000 and 10 years in prison. https://web.archive.org/web/20161106...3-to-1975/165/
And it also promises to preserve the pre-existing republican form of government.
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. . . The fourth section of the fourth article of the constitution, directs that "the United States shall guaranty to every state in the Union a republican form of government." The form of government is to be guarantied, WHICH SUPPOSES A FORM ALREADY ESTABLISHED, and this is the republican form of government the United States have undertaken to protect.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, 1856
. . .
The republican form existed BEFORE the USCON, thus it cannot be limited by it.
. . .
Under the subsection:
CONSTITUTION, Art. 4, Sec. 4. The guarantee of a republican form of government to every "state" means to its people and not to its government: Texas v. White. 7 Wall. (U. S.) 700, 19 L. Ed. 227.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. (1914), P.635
"In the sense of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, the term `state' is used to express the idea of a people or political community, as distinguished from the government. And the people constitute the state."
Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, State, page 3124.
CONSTITUTE: To be the elements or parts of; compose.
Are we the people in the preamble?
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain...."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia
---
"The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government and not for the government of the individual States."
- - -John Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 7 Peters 204, (1822).
---
Remember, not all Americans could vote, and ratify that constitution (compact). Those who could not vote, could not be presumed to give consent. Therefore, if we are the "private people" we're not parties to that compact, and if we are people of the individual States, we are not the "people of the United States" who are parties to that compact. In short, without our consent, all that servant government is authorized to do “to” us is serve us. It has no delegated POWER to lead us, rule us, govern us, restrict us, regulate us, or trespass upon our rights.
FYI: The United States is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
Title 28 United States Code, §3002. Definitions,
(15) “United States” means -
(a) a Federal corporation
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.
"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 its own..."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
You may have missed learning of this in government approved education. It shows up in the Articles of Confederation (1777).
Article I. The Stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Please note: The 50 states united are the "United States of America".
The "United States" (federal government) refers to Congress, and its two other branches - executive and judicial.
So who were "The People of the United States" who ordained and established the compact?
Not the "private people".
“We the people” are the people who are living here in the present day. The people who designed the United States Constitutions are long gone.
The United States Constitution is not a religious document. Perhaps you prefer the Confederate States Constitution?
The Preamble to the Confederate Constitution:
"We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America."
Do you know of anyone who was deprived of their property and was given JUST COMPENSATION in lawful money?
LAWFUL MONEY - "The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States..."
Title 12 United States Code, Sec. 152.
Since 1933, no lawful money has circulated, after government confiscated it all, and criminalized the ownership by "free" Americans.
D'Oh!
From 1933 forward, private possession and ownership of gold was illegal for U.S. citizens. Any refusal to return one’s gold was punishable by a fine of $10,000 and 10 years in prison. https://web.archive.org/web/20161106...3-to-1975/165/
Are you unaware of the facts & circumstances surrounding the Great Depression?
“Under the surface of the governmental regulation of the securities market, the same forces that produced the riotous speculative excesses of the “wild bull market” of 1929 still give evidences of their existence and influence. Though repressed for the present, it cannot be doubted that, given a suitable opportunity, they would spring back to pernicious activity. Frequently we are told that this regulation is throttling the country’s prosperity. Bitterly hostile was Wall Street to the enactment of the regulatory legislation. It now looks forward to the day when it shall, as it hopes, resume the reins of its former power.”
~Ferdinand Pecora
New York City
February, 1939
from the preface of Wall Street Under Oath: The Story of Our Modern Money Changers(Library of money and banking history) by Ferdinand Pecora
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.
