[Ask the Gulch] Do you believe endowed rights are superior to government granted privileges?
Posted by jetgraphics 8 years, 2 months ago to Ask the Gulch
- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
I have not read all law, but I have yet to find a law that trespasses upon the natural and personal liberty of the American national / free inhabitant domiciled upon private property within the boundaries of the united States of America.
However, there ARE voluminous rules, regulations, taxes, and penalties imposed on U.S. citizens / residents, duly enumerated (via FICA), engaged in usury, who reside at residences, registered as real estate, and are obligated to get permission (license) and / or pay taxes to live, work, travel, buy, sell, operate a business, transmit radio, fly a plane, trade in healthcare, buy medicine, cut hair, build a house, hunt, fish, marry, and / or own a dog.
In short, if one has not given consent, all that servant government can do is secure rights, as in prosecute those who deliberately injure the person and property of another. But once consent is given, all bets are off.
Do not believe me - go read law (statutes) yourself. I am not infallible and may make mistakes. The more eyes on the law, the better.
But if you do go to the courthouse law library, remember to wear knee pads and "Depends" (adult diapers) ... you may fall to your knees, weeping, or pee yourself.
The Lincoln part while interesting historically had nothing to do with the CFR Statute number for the At Large Documents section.
The best comment I found was something like this ...always safe to read the principles of the Declaration of Independence when discussing the intent of the Constitution ....
Or more simply never judge anything except in the context of it's own time using the language and definitions of that time..
Ergo sum my point is that a llittle scholarship and due diligence would have solved what is now a point of contention. Rather than using one source with out fact checking.
That same attribute caught the Princeton Professor Ms. Daniel on her claim the Declaration of Indpendence was a forged document. When all she had to do was be somewhat conersant with grammar and punctuation.
OKAY.
Do you admit that Art. 4, Sec. 4 guarantees a republican form?
Yes?
What is the SOURCE of the REPUBLICAN FORM of government?
. . . .
"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 says it's the DECLARATION, which means that the DECLARATION is incorporated by reference, via ART. 4, SEC. 4, as well as part of the mutual promises of ART.6.
And since the republican form existed BEFORE the USCON, the "reorganized" US GOV did not "replace" any previous form of government.
I do not dispute that "the powers" exerted a great effort and expense to eradicate knowledge of the republican form of government. But the law, in the public record, still shows that the republican form is still the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
That makes the principles of the DECLARATION part of the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
As this citation shows, the pre-existing rights and liberties of the republican form predate the constitutional government.
" 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.
These "sacred" rights (endowed by our Creator) were declared part of American law in 1776.
verb "rescind," implying that government-granted-
rights is an oxymoron. -- j
.
Find a law that is a) not internal to government, b) not securing an endowed rights, c) not based on consent, and yet violates endowed rights or liberties of those who did not consent.
I haven't found one yet. Maybe you will.
But "they" already gave themselves an easy "out" just in case - - -
SHALL - As used in statutes, contracts, or the like, this word is generally imperative or mandatory... But it may be construed as merely permissive or directory (as equivalent to "may"), to carry out the legislative intention and in cases where no right or benefit depends on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense.
- - - Blacks Law dictionary, Sixth ed., p.1375
MAY - Word "may" usually is employed to imply permissive, optional or discretional, and not mandatory action or conduct... In construction of statutes and presumably of federal rules word "may" as opposed to "shall" is indicative of discretion or choice between two or more alternatives, but context is which word appears must be controlling factor.
- - - Blacks Law dictionary, Sixth ed., p.979
If a law states, "It shall be unlawful..." and you can show that if the law was mandatory in your case it would violate a PRIVATE RIGHT, the law can be construed to mean "It may be unlawful..." and merely optional, permissive or directory, without penalty for disobedience.
(This exclusion is in addition to exemptions, exclusions, and clauses based on the law not violating endowed rights and liberties of the sovereign people.)
The following offered by Wikpedia may clear the air somewhat. I draw your attention to the last two paragraphs....having found nothing of a later date to contradict....
Publication of the United States Statutes at Large began in 1845 by the private firm of Little, Brown and Company under authority of a joint resolution of Congress. During Little, Brown and Company's time as publisher, Richard Peters (Volumes 1–8), George Minot (Volumes 9–11), and George P. Sanger (Volumes 11–17) served as editors.
In 1874, Congress transferred the authority to publish the Statutes at Large to the Government Printing Office under the direction of the Secretary of State.
Pub.L. 80–278, 61 Stat. 633, was enacted July 30, 1947 and directed the Secretary of State to compile, edit, index, and publish the Statutes at Large. Pub.L. 81–821, 64 Stat. 980, was enacted September 23, 1950 and directed the Administrator of General Services to compile, edit, index, and publish the Statutes at Large. Since 1985 the Statutes at Large have been prepared and published by the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).[3]
Until 1948, all treaties and international agreements approved by the United States Senate were also published in the set, but these now appear in a publication titled United States Treaties and Other International Agreements, abbreviated U.S.T. In addition, the Statutes at Large includes the text of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, amendments to the Constitution, treaties with Indians and foreign nations, and presidential proclamations.
Sometimes very large or long Acts of Congress are published as their own volume of the Statutes at Large. For example, the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was published as volume 68A of the Statutues at Large (68A Stat. 3).
What "Sweeping Claims" do you refer to?
As to "replacing previous forms - - -"
Have you read the Articles of Confederation? What new powers were granted to Congress under the Constitution?
Did this "new form" eradicate the republican form which existed BEFORE the USCON?
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, which means the USCON didn't REPLACE anything. It only reorganized the United States, in Congress assembled. No new powers were granted to Congress.
"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..."
And in the Declaration of Independence, who is the CREATOR that endowed men with rights? Monoparent?
“I firmly believe that the benevolent Creator designed the republican Form of Government for Man.”
- - - Samuel Adams;
Statement of (14 April 1785), quoted in The Writings of Samuel Adams (1904) edited by Harry A. Cushing
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_A...
Creators keep popping up.
What about "religious mysticism?"
= = = = =
Thomas Jefferson thought highly of Christianity - - -
“Yours is one of the few lives precious to mankind, and for the continuance of which every thinking man is solicitous. Bigots may be an exception. What an effort, my dear sir, of bigotry in politics and religion have we gone through! The barbarians really flattered themselves they should be able to bring back the times of Vandalism, when ignorance put everything into the hands of power and priestcraft. All advances in science were proscribed as innovations. They pretended to praise and encourage education, but it was to be the education of our ancestors. We were to look backwards, not forwards, for improvement … This was the real ground of all the attacks on you. Those who live by mystery & charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying THE CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY — THE MOST SUBLIME AND BENEVOLENT, but most perverted system that ever shone on man — endeavored to crush your well-earned & well-deserved fame.
- - - Letter to Dr. Joseph Priestley (21 March 1801); published in The Life of Thomas Jefferson (1871) by Henry Stephens Randall, Vol. 2, p. 644; this seems to be the source of a misleading abbreviation: "[Christianity is] the most … perverted system that ever shone on man".
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_...
= = = = =
"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
- - - General Orders (2 May 1778); published in Writings of George Washington (1932), Vol.XI, pp. 342-343
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_...
= = = = = =
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die.”
- - - George Washington, General Orders, July 2, 1776
https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/f...
Finally, show me a law that does violate the Declaration of Independence.
1st United States Congress
June 1, 1789: An act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, Sess. 1, ch. 1, 1 Stat. 23
did not mention the the Declaration of Independence
Maybe those are the one's that remembered it's a system closed to all but the socialist left - statists, corporatists, union leaders, and the balloting is rigged for the most part with winner take all provisions.
If you are contemplating that $100 instead of losing one dollar remember the odds are more in favor of the end score being 99% than 95%
which brings us back to the above statement. You be living in the history of the past and haven't figured out the difference between the reality of fiction and the fiction of reality.
But then that's why it's a sucker bet.
<><><><><>
Few Americans are aware that both the Declaration of Independence -and- the Articles of Confederation are incorporated by reference into the U.S. Constitution.
. . .
“All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
- - - Article Six, U.S. Constitution
ENGAGEMENT - a promise, obligation, or other condition that binds.
What promises or obligations created while under the Articles are binding on the Congress under the USCON.
What particular promise or obligation binds Congress?
"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)
In Article 4, Section 4, USCON, we see the promise of the republican form of government. Since the source of the republican form is the Declaration of Independence, the obligation to secure the endowed (sacred) rights of those who did not consent to be governed is part of the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
In short, the Articles and the Declaration are part of American law. Those who do not consent to be governed, retain their endowment as sovereign people / free inhabitants.
Coincidentally, when the USCON mentions rights and powers, it refers to people. But when it mentions privileges and immunities, it refers to citizens. This is no mistake.
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Art. 4, Sec. 2
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
Citizens have no endowed rights nor powers, having surrendered them in order to exercise political and civil liberty (aka “civil rights”).
ORGANIC LAW - law determining the fundamental political principles of a government.
In America’s case, the organic law is the Declaration of Independence, where it states that Americans are endowed by their Creator with rights, etc, that government was instituted to secure.
Anything more requires consent of the governed.
Collectivists and statists around the world have denied that a man owns his own body. "Ownership" is not the starting point of the political philosophy of freedom. It requires an ethics, epistemology and metaphysics as the basis.
Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration and the Committee submitted its final report to Congress on June 28. Congress passed the Resolution on July 2 and adopted the Declaration with amendments after 3 days of debate on July 4. It began with a brief statement of the philosophy of government on which it was based, followed by the list of grievances justifying separation. The last paragraph included the July 2 Resolution of Independence. On July 19 the Declaration was engrossed as the Unanimous Declaration of the 13 United States of America. On August 2 it was declared engrossed and signed by the members, some of whom were not present but signed it later.
The law was legally enforced by what is known as the "American Revolution".
But what most Americans assume are "violations" stem from CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. Thus the responsibility falls back on the people who failed to take pains and READ LAW, assuming nonsense that was told to them.
SKEPTIC RELIEF:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/N...
LONG answer:
All land is NOT real estate.
..................
LAND. ... The land is one thing, and the estate in land is another thing, for an estate in land is a time in land or land for a time.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.877
.................
Estate in land is "another thing". Estate is time in land or land for a time. Remember that.
................
"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted."
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
................
Ownership is qualified (not absolute) when it is shared, or time is limited, or use is restricted.
Remember, estate is land for a time.
What is estate?
...................
"ESTATE - The degree, quantity, nature and extent of interest which a person has in real and personal property. An estate in lands, tenements, and hereditaments signifies such interest as the tenant has therein."
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.547
"REAL ESTATE .... is synonymous with real property"
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1263
"REAL PROPERTY ... A general term for lands, tenements, heriditaments; which on the death of the owner intestate, passes to his heir."
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1218
.......................
Estate is interest in "real and personal property", which boils down to qualified ownership.
What is NOT qualified ownership?
.....................
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
.....................
Land and house that is absolutely owned is private property.
What Is Interest?
........................
INTEREST - ...More particularly it means a right to have the advantage of accruing from anything ; any right in the nature of property, but LESS THAN TITLE.
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.812
........................
TITLE - "The formal right of ownership of property..."
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1485
.......................
Real estate / Real property refers to "lands, tenements, heriditaments" a person or tenant has NO formal right of ownership of property - only the advantages from it.
..................
PROPERTY TAX - "An ad valorem tax, usually levied by a city or county, on the value of real or personal property that the taxpayer owns on a specified date."
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1218
.................
Hmmm ... real property = real estate = estate.
Unpaid taxes on "real estate" can result in confiscation, whereas private property is defined as being protected from being taken for public use without just compensation. Sadly, most Americans record their "title deed" with the Real Estate registry. Coincidentally, there is no law compelling the recording of private property. But all "real estate" transactions may be recorded!
Private property and estate are mutually exclusive.
Private property ownership is a right secured by government.
Qualified ownership of estate is a privilege taxed by government.
This country was based on the Enlightenment, not religious mysticism. The Enlightenment did not have Ayn Rand's ethics of egoism, but did base its concept of rights on individualism and reason. "Nature and nature's god" meant the nature of reality, regardless of how much of it was known at the time. The common understanding was a deist predecessor of a natural order of the universe, and that the "laws" of the natural order, i.e., the principles describing it, are discovered by human reason, not a mystical decree of what we should believe, which explains and validates nothing.
This history of the founding of the country has been entirely subverted by religious conservatives claiming that authoritarian pronouncements of "rights" decreed by the supernatural somehow provide an irrefutable foundation of rights as "intrinsic" as opposed to subjectivist decrees by statists. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Mystical appeals to the supernatural as authority are not an irrefutable basis of anything, are just as subjective as the statists, and don't convince anyone who doesn't already share the same mystic beliefs.
The alternative to the mystic intrinsicism versus the subjectivist statism is the understanding that laws of the universe are objective recognition of facts of reality discovered and formulated as principles by human reason. Our "endowment" is our nature as human beings with certain requirements to live. Regardless of how we evolved to become what we are, we are here and have a definite nature to be discovered and understood. That is the basis of objectively formulating rights, not appeals to the supernatural dictating principles.
As Ayn Rand wrote in "Man's Rights":
"In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God—others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man's nature.
"The Declaration of Independence stated that men 'are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.' Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man's origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind—a rational being—that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival."
Quoting from Atlas Shrugged she continued:
"The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational."
If you are thinking of the 14th amendment, that only has force and effect in the "United States" (federal territories). Go Please read the 13th amendment and note that the use of the term "United States" refers to the plural states united, whereas the 14th amendment only refers to the federal government. Also remember for whom that amendment was enacted.
If citizenship can be imposed in the uSA, then the Declaration of Independence, the republican form of government and the Articles of Confederation are all lies. And the USCON is the biggest CON job ever.
I think I will trust Thomas Jefferson and other founders that stated Americans are SOVEREIGNS, unless they consent to be subjects.
Furthermore, you may contact the State department and / or passport office about passports for NON-CITIZEN AMERICAN NATIONALS. They told me that they do issue passports for non-citizen nationals, and to use the regular form - omitting sections that do not apply.
. . . .
In the 1993 edition of the 1992 US Code (50 titles), I found only ONE reference to American nationals.
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.)
The first "official" reference to non-citizens is in the Articles of Confederation *1777:
"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)]
Who are those "free inhabitants" if not Americans who are not citizens?
Subjects at birth? :: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/N...
ly as much outrage as the civilian government). I
am not defending the way the government has
been behaving more and more, through the past
several generations; we have to start reining it in. I mere say that total abolition of government
(anarchy) is not the answer.
from outside the country). We are born such,
whether we want to be or not.-
Membership in the armed forces should be
voluntary. Conscription is indeed involuntary servitude.
Load more comments...