[Ask the Gulch] Do you believe endowed rights are superior to government granted privileges?
Posted by jetgraphics 8 years, 1 month ago to Ask the Gulch
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- 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
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Endowed rights are far superior.
Rights inherent in reality always trump rights by fiat. Reality trumps fiat proclamations every time.
" 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.
In this excerpt we see that sacred rights encompass natural rights, personal liberty, and the right to private property (i.e., absolutely owned by an individual).
NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, LIBERTY, privacy, and good reputation.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324
This is why the republican form of government is the best form on earth... no democratic majority can vote away endowed rights and liberties.
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."
--"A nation can do it...but neither can do it by
right", -(Ayn Rand)
But the facts speak for themselves 85% of the Senate all leftists voted to replace the bill of rights and civil rights with arrest by mere suspicion. and the head Fascist signed it into law....Dec 31st 2015. Shhhhh don't mention how the left destroyed civil rights....you might ruin their only three candidates and Obeyme's legacy
Constitution...
INALIENABLE - That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable rights.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inal...
as late as the 1960's the two had separate meanings one meant cannot be changed and inalienable meant can be changed under certain circumstances. Looks like the 50 year battle for changing definitions has won another round.
Except among those of us who reject PC and leftist definitions.
In American law there are SOVEREIGN people who have endowed rights, and SUBJECT citizens who waived them.
BY CONSENT.
If you do not know how or when you consented, that's another topic.
But as GEOWASH says:
. . .
“ 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.).
Militia duty
From Bouvier’s Law dictionary, 1856 ed.
AGE.... In the United States, at twenty-five, a man [citizen] may be elected a representative in congress;
at thirty, a senator; and at thirty-five, he may be chosen president. He is liable to serve in the militia from eighteen to forty- five inclusive, unless exempted for some particular reason.
{only applies to “citizens” not “all Americans”}
Being obligated to TRAIN, FIGHT and DIE on command is definitely a violation of endowed rights - unless one has CONSENTED.
Of course, most Americans don't know this, thanks to the world's greatest propaganda ministry.
A subject near and dear to my 24 years in the Infantry and my firm belief draftees are more trouble than they are worth.
ishness that whether one believes rights to be
granted "by nature or by God", "the issue of man's origin does not alter the fact the he is a being of a specific nature..." (that was a memory quote).Natural rights are part of man's nature;
they are "unalienable" as Jefferson says; they
cannot be taken away by someone's authority
or by majority (or other) vote.
The government doesnt protect my property, in fact it takes it away regularly.
The government doesnt protect my rights, in fact it substitutes others' rights over mine routinely.
The government says I have free speech , unless I speak out against the government (Snowden), in which case all bets are off.
The only privacy I have is to never let anyone know what I am thinking or doing. Otherwise, the NSA uses its powers to track me for its own nefarious purposes.
The government says they protect me from terrorists, but it wants to take away my ability to protect myself (guns).
The government says it protects our country from external invasion, but in fact no other country could take over the USA if there was no government that it could first take over and then use it to conquer the individuals.
is not the answer. Aside from other considerations,
it can't work. Without some form of organized gov-
ernment, we would be taken over by the nearest
dictatorship within a few days.
And, a military force without a government is a
gang, like the Mafia.
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.
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...
constantly violates man's rights, which are a part
of man's nature. The ones who vote that s--t in are
responsible for violating their fellow-beings' rights,
as, for instance, those voters who repeatedly
voted FDR in over and over.
endowed rights are so because reality makes it so.
No matter how much a government espouses the world to be flat, it does not make it so.
Jimmy Carter once said as much about His Highendness in the lit up nighttime Rainbow House.
verb "rescind," implying that government-granted-
rights is an oxymoron. -- j
.
40 years to late I'd say.
to a horrible event. . we are growing up gradually, in this fight. -- j
.
Patriot Act went into action right after 9/11 so a decade and near half another has past.
Knee Jerk
Suspension of civil liberties and the Constitution within 100 miles of our coastlines and borders ...measured going into the country.
Arrest with no civil rights for suspicion of terrorism with it's very loose definition and no limits now adding arrest for suspicion of supporting terrorism.
Not to mention air travel courtesy of TSA and the formation of a US Protective Echelon....
Just how long is this knee jerk reaction going to take ?
No points for this one John....
growing up gradually? or giving up gradually. When our gasic civil protections were sacrificed we lost the war and the terrorists both foreign and home grown won.
And no I'm not going to re re re re re re post the sources for the umpteenth time.
Anyone that didn't watch the news casts on New Years Eve, nor read the papers, nor any of a hundred plus BLOGS including this one. can do their own damn homework.
.
Perhaps we should make a weapons control law with that in mind.
Endowed by whom? A Supreme Being?
If not, by who else?! Society? Government? Your next-door neighbor?!
When you participate in a community or society or culture, you get the benefits of any and all rights that the group agrees to 'confer on you.'
THAT is the source, if any, of any 'rights' you enjoy. If the culture 'changes its mind and you object, you can try to 'change their minds back' but if you're not successful, their Consensus And Agreement trumps your views and Your Rights Have Been Changed!
What puzzles me is that so many folks here can't Get That Point.
I believe that Rand, for all your quoting, is probably only right in the context of the 'guy alone on the desert island' as far as what Rights He's Got, but as soon as there are two or more humans interacting, it's all by Agreement that "Rights" are established.
But hey, WTF do I know? I'm just an engineer who likes to ask questions... whether I get answers or not.
Cheers!... now back to your regularly-scheduled programming...
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 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).
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.
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.
And if the Declaration is "on point," then American governments are instituted with two jobs:
#1 : secure (endowed) rights, and
#2 : govern those who consent.
That is consistent with all I have read in both federal and state constitutions and laws.
I quite forgot.
But surely that much interest must have resulted in some action.
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.
In American law, people have rights and powers.
Citizens have privileges and immunities. They are mutually exclusive.
“ 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... ]
Citizens have mandatory civic duties that void endowed rights to life, liberty and property ownership.
Those that fail to keep up with current events have no real way to use the lessons of history for or against.
. . .
“... 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 in Chisholm v. Georgia (2 U.S. 419 (1793))
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremeco...
Justice John Jay says government is an agent for the sovereign people, not sovereign over them. They govern themselves (unless they consent otherwise).
In no other nation are the people sovereigns over their government. All other people are subjects of their sovereign governments. Only America has a republican form of government.
That less than 1 in 100,000 can define it or know its source is a victory for the world's greatest propaganda ministry.
(No, it's not a "republic" nor is it a "constitutional republic.")
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 a “constitutional republic.”
. . .
REPUBLICAN FORM - that form of government wherein the people directly exercise sovereignty, and are served -not ruled- by government (and its subject citizens). The sovereign people retain possession of all their endowed and inalienable rights, powers, and liberties, and no democratic majority can vote them away. The servant government exercises power to secure rights, and only by special delegation via consent, may it govern. Though not perfect, it is the best form, securing the maximum liberty and freedom to its sovereign people.
. . .
"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_...
As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, 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).
You must learn HOW and WHEN you gave consent and decide if you wish to continue or withdraw that consent.
Until the current system is destroyed, you still have the freedom of choice.
Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, government has two jobs:
▸ [1] secure (endowed) rights and
▸ [2] govern those who consent.
CAVEAT : consent waives job #1 !
. . .
natural rights. And if you waive your fundamental
rights, that does not relieve you of your responsib-
ility for respecting your neighbor's rights; you cannot waive your right to freedom of con-
science, and then escape responsibility for mur-
der, if you send your neighbor to Auschwitz.
However, with respect to securing rights of an injured party, governments are delegated power to punish and deny rights and liberties.
And sovereign property owners have the right to inflict capital punishment in defense of their property (with due notice) as evidenced by "Private Property - No Trespassing - Trespassers will be Shot!"
(Of course, this is inapplicable to qualified ownership of estate - a privilege)
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.
Sad, but......there it is in living color....
By extension, does a man then own the fruits of his body's labor? Obviously governments believe they have the right to confiscate wealth, so the answer would be "no," coming from people in power.
What made America unique is that our founders were of the same mind as John Locke, who wrote in his “Second Treatise on Government:” “The great and chief end therefore, of men united into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.”
So in answer to your question, yes, natural (endowed) rights trump state-created laws, but the trouble is defining which rights are natural and which are necessary parts of a social contract.
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.
People incorrectly ascribe altruistic self-sacrifice as the meaning of morality because that is what they have been taught to believe by thousands of years of religion and philosophy, leaving people with no moral guidance in their personal lives and causing destruction and resentment within any society that tries to practice altruism. Sacrifice of oneself to others versus sacrificing others to oneself, both of which are commonly practiced, is a false alternative.
Despite the altruist preaching, in the more successful, civilized societies people have figured out on their own not to try live that way, at least consistently, such as the Enlightenment implicitly endorsing individualism under the principle of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of one's own happiness here on earth. But it is undermined by the explicit, false principles accepted as morality and that, along with the undermining of reason, is why we are losing the countryf to statism and collectivism and their consequences. Very few philosophers have advocated or attempted a consistent rational egoism rejecting the false alternatives of who sacrifices to whom. See Leonard Peikoff's book The Ominous Parallels.
If you are attracted to the sense of life of Atlas Shrugged you should learn what Ayn Rand's philosophy is in contrast to the conventional slogans. The ethics is explained in The Virtue of Selfishness, beginning in the first chapter, "The Objectivist Ethics*.
However it's a moot point since the Constitution was rescinded...and replaced by Obeyme's Law along with consent of 85% of Congress.
Something for historians to ponder but of no real relevance any more.
1. Secure (endowed) rights, and
2. Govern those who consent.
CAVEAT - consent waives job #1.
If government's actions are not securing rights of an injured party - LOOK TO CONSENT. That you may not know how and when you consented is not the fault of the servant government (so saith the law).
Americans who enjoy the republican form of government are unique among the world - they are sovereigns. (Citizens, by definition, are subjects - obligated to perform mandatory civic duties - do not confuse them with the sovereign people)
“... 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..."
- - - Justice John Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia (2 U.S. 419 (1793))
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremeco...
FYI : Sovereign = social equal to every other monarch.
That's why Americans do not bow nor kneel to foreign monarchs.
But if one has descended to a subject citizen, by consent, all bets are off.
He who consents cannot object.
The legally binding document was the Constitution
until the majority of the population decided to ignore it.
That's history reality is you can get arrested with no civil rights and then sentenced on 'mere suspicion.'
Nice history lesson but I see no change in sight to what IS than even more of what IS.
Three Socialist candidates are the front runners Clinton, Trump, Sanders
The military has so far refused to uphold it's oath of office.
and all you can offer are words?
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".
States of America.
http://www.nccs.net/1998-06-the-decla...
The Declaration of Independence Part of American Law
Professor John Eidsmoe writes:
"The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.
"The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.' (Christianity and the Constitution, pp. 360-361)”
. . . .
That most Americans do not know this is a credit to the world's greatest propaganda ministry.
<><><><><>
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.
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.
See further the posts https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... and https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... on this page.
The notion that the adoption of the Constitution did not displace or supersede the Articles of Confederation and the even earlier Continental Congresses in setting up a new government is historically absurd. You have been had. The website you referred to further pushes the absurd notions that there is a "declaration in American law of the simple, fundamental belief in a Supreme Creator" and "Acceptance of God as Our King". How can anyone say or cite that with a straight face?
It is trying to rationalize a false religious conservative 'narrative' promoting a revisionist history, attributing the founding of the country to religion and proselytizing for a revival of mysticism and theocracy. That 'narrative' is ignorant of the Enlightenment in its largely rejecting the previously prevailing primitivist religious beliefs, the intellectual role of the Enlightenment in the founding of this country, and the fundamental difference between the Christian dogmas and the nature of this country. Primitive mysticism as the founding of this country is not only historically false, it would be impossible.
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
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.)
Of course, since 1933, America has been under EMERGENCY RULES that effectively bypass all constitutional law and civilized behavior.
FETICIDE - an abortion, specifically, the killing of a fetus. One who kills a fetus. The act of destroying a fetus or causing an abortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocra...
“... I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.” (Variation 1)
“... I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.” (Variation 2)
Abortion doctors are “oath breakers.”
STATE OF EMERGENCY
. . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of...
As of October 2014, thirty states of emergency remain in effect, one reaching as far back as the Roosevelt Administration.
United States, Senate Report 93-549 states: "That since March 09, 1933 the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." Proclamation No. 2039 declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 9, 1933. This declared national emergency has never been revoked and has been codified into the US Code (12 U.S.C. 95a and b).
. . . .
Senate Report 93-549
https://archive.org/stream/senate-rep...
War and Emergency Powers Acts
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."
FREEDOMS ... GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION ... HAVE BEEN ABRIDGED BY LAWS ... UNDER EMERGENCY RULE ...
Constitutional U.S.A. (1787 - 1933) R.I.P.
Hint...viability brought about the change as did the argument for citizens right to due process before being executed. It's part of the old Constitution which so it may not exist anymore.
But since the latest rulings late term and partial birth abortions have been a very small part of that procedure for a number of years.
Do your due diligence and make sure the research is complete before making such statements.
and no i won't change your diapers for you.
STATE OF EMERGENCY
. . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of...
As of October 2014, thirty states of emergency remain in effect, one reaching as far back as the Roosevelt Administration.
United States, Senate Report 93-549 states: "That since March 09, 1933 the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." Proclamation No. 2039 declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 9, 1933. This declared national emergency has never been revoked and has been codified into the US Code (12 U.S.C. 95a and b).
. . . .
Senate Report 93-549
https://archive.org/stream/senate-rep...
War and Emergency Powers Acts
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."
FREEDOMS ... GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION ... HAVE BEEN ABRIDGED BY LAWS ... UNDER EMERGENCY RULE ...
Constitutional U.S.A. (1787 - 1933) R.I.P.
In contrast, endowed (natural) rights include, but are not limited to life (and all harmless actions in support thereof), to liberty (natural and personal), to absolutely own one's self, labor and property, and the right to defend those rights, liberties, and property from attack.
People who have rights need no permission. People who need permission have no rights.
Do privileges by their nature attempt to deny people their natural rights?
Does it work like this: We all have a right to get around but not in away that puts other people at risk. So the gov't grants privileges to drive vehicles or fly planes to those who can use them safely.
My simplistic way of thinking about it is gov't takes away freedom to do something dangerous to maximize liberty. I don't like the idea of privileges because it implies that the burden is on the individual to show the state should not interfere with his life. I like stating it that the gov't is curtailing your freedom, which puts the burden on the state to show it's justified.
It would probably do me good to read more non-fiction philosophy b/c I'm sure there are many frameworks for this idea that I've come up with from reading things here and there.
George will explain it for you - - -
. . .
“ 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.)
. . . . . . . . . .
The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, MILITIA, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".
Since the militia only include male CITIZENS, and not all people (who apparently retain their rights), citizenship must be voluntary. But once one volunteers, those civic duties become mandatory.
Now that we know it is our consent to be citizens that waives our right to life and liberty, it is futile to argue over the loss of other inconsequential rights.
Complaining about consent already given is as useful as a volunteer on a suicide mission, blurting out "They want me to do WHAT?! - That could get me KILLED!"
. . . . . . . . . .
Of course, non-citizen American nationals / sovereigns are not obligated, and retain their endowment.
Ambrose Bierce made a joking reference to it:
.................................................. ...............
ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.
- - - - “The Devil’s Dictionary” (1906), by Ambrose Bierce
(copies can be downloaded from http://gutenberg.org)
.................................................. ...............
Today's American has not been informed of his consent that surrendered his sovereignty and imposed "voluntary servitude" upon him. But 100 years ago, Americans knew they were sovereigns - otherwise no one would get the joke.
With regard to licenses to "do" stuff, you should find that they are limited to "citizens" and "residents." There are no licensing requirements for non-citizen inhabitants domiciled within the united States of America. They have natural rights, natural and personal liberty. It's not a trespass for them to exercise those rights and liberties.
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.
birth, and continuing to live in the country, to being
conscripted into servitude.
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...
---I was not given a middle name at birth. I made
up a name I liked, and sent a lawyer to court (with
the argument that as my surname was in 2 parts,
it led to confusion; I also had realized that the surname was never going to change in the reg-
ular way). Petition granted; I had to pay court
costs for this recognition, which I considered
only fair, since it was a benefit I was asking for.