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.
SOVEREIGNS do not accept "honors" because sovereign IS the highest status there is.
SOVEREIGN - A person, body or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested...
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1395.
SOVEREIGNTY - ...By "Sovereignty", in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1396.
In American law, the PEOPLE are the SOVEREIGNS - until they surrender that sovereignty to become subject citizens... or worse ... submit to foreign sovereigns for honors.
"At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country."
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
The American people are the sovereigns.
That is the gist of the "republican form of government".
That is what WE were promised.
NOW do you comprehend why it so vital that Americans be indoctrinated to be ignorant of that heritage.
There is only ONE nation whose government recognizes that the people are the sovereigns.
"Government is not Sovereignty. Government is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power."
City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 78 P. 2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1
In 1989, I wrote to over 30 embassies, asking questions about their forms of government. Specifically, I asked if their government copied America's republican form. The answer was surprising. NO other nation adopted the republican form.
You all have heard the trite saying, "America's government is not perfect, but it's the best there is."
IF it was the best, why hasn't any other nation adopted it?
Simple answer - in every other nation, the people are SUBJECTS of government, 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
"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
REPUBLICAN (form of) GOVERNMENT. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, ... directly,....
In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219;
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary
IF I COULD WRITE THIS IN LETTERS 30 FOOT HIGH, I WOULD WRITE:
GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - THE ONLY LAND WHERE EACH AMERICAN CAN BE SOVEREIGN, FREE AND INDEPENDENT.
Now you know WHY the republican form is the BEST -
IF you are a sovereign.
Big problem here the Poster is from the Red Meat State of Georgia...
Do you know the amount of the "settlement" with the Kopechne family you're referring to above?
Has anyone ever given any statement under oath, deposition, or affidavit about any "settlement" received by the Kopechne family? I'd be really intersted in hearing what you know about such a "settlement," such as the amount, and where you learned the information.
Google Book
"Despite this outcome, the Kopechnes chose not to file a civil suit against Ted saying, as Joseph Kopechne later explained, "We figured people would think we were looking for blood money." Instead they received a settlement of 140,904 - $90,904 from Kennedy and $50,000 from his insurance company."
FYI = Larksville, PA (near Wilkes-Barre) is a poor area. Swiftwater, in the Poconos, is not. You do the math - or read between the lines.
MJ dies in 1969, parents forgive Ted, and move to Pocono resort area in 1973.
I'm no expert here but I think the key part in all this is "title of nobility" which knighthood is not.
Title of nobility is like duke, duchess, baron, earl, etc.
Now if the controversy here is whether or not Ted Kennedy deserved this honor, well that is not what this thread is supposed to be about.
If knighthood is not a title, then what is "Sir" and "Dame".
Here's the bottom line -
Government is the servant of the sovereign American people.
If there are servants who are taking "honors" from some other sovereign, isn't that suspicious?
Especially, when they took an oath to first GET PERMISSION before taking any honors from ANY foreign sovereign, or nation.
If knighthood is not a title, then what is "Sir" and "Dame".
Here's the bottom line -
Government is the servant of the sovereign American people.
If there are servants who are taking "honors" from some other sovereign, isn't that suspicious?
Especially, when they took an oath to first GET PERMISSION before taking any honors from ANY foreign sovereign, or nation.
A non-Briton -- in other words, the recipient of an HONORARY knighthood -- is NOT permitted to use the title of "Sir."
And, by your "standard," Americans should not be eligible to receive Nobel honors, either.
U.S. Constitution:
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
So TED KENNEDY who holds the office of SENATOR must get consent of CONGRESS before he can accept any title of nobility of any kind whatever.
IF he fails to get consent, he has violated his oath to the US Constitution, and is unworthy of his office.
Good research. I'd like to think that that should shut up the leftist apologists efforts to defend the indefensible....but then, truth and facts aren't something that matter to the left.
I can't think of a time where fat teddy was EVER worthy of his office.....can you?
Articles of Confederation:
VI. No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.
U.S. Constitution:
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Amendment XIII (original)
Passed by Congress May 1, 1810 - Ratified December 9, 1812. Mysteriously removed before 1865.
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the united States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
If you think it's a harmless honor, you will not find one instance where any monarch accepted a title of nobility from another monarch - without surrendering sovereignty.
And it's a slap in the face of every patriot who fought and died so that we would be a sovereign people.
In case it was omitted from your "Socialist Studies" - - -
“People are supreme, not the state.”
Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 GA at 93.
“The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative.”
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)
“At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country.”
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
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)
Any American who surrenders his sovereign status to accept a title of nobility from a foreign monarch is a traitor.
SHAME ON RONALD REAGAN
SHAME ON ANY AMERICAN WHO ACCEPTS A KNIGHTHOOD
SHAME ON ANY AMERICAN WHO APPROVES
HEE heee!! This'll sure have the righties a spittin' and asputterin'
^^
Do you enjoy preying upon and exploiting division? Do you get satisfaction in taking digs at "lefists"?
Seems there's a better use of your time. Seems this issue is pretty irrelevant.
Honestly - who cares?
"lefists"???
Let me turn the question around. Did the "lefists" get any satisfaction from constantly attacking Bush, and calling him far worse names than any conservative has called the fraud from kenya?
One thing you can always count on with "lefists"....give'em a moment or two, and they'll reveal their hypocrisy, and their true nature, which is hate.
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.