Sovereign

From PreparingYou
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Sovereign

noun: sovereign; plural noun: sovereigns

1. a supreme ruler, especially a monarch.
synonyms: ruler, monarch, crowned head, head of state, potentate, suzerain, overlord, dynast, leader; More king, queen, emperor, empress, prince, princess, czar, royal duke, regent, mogul, emir, sheikh, sultan, maharaja, raja
2. a former British gold coin worth one pound sterling, now only minted for commemorative purposes.

adjective: sovereign

1. possessing supreme or ultimate power.
"in modern democracies the people's will is in theory sovereign"
synonyms: supreme, absolute, unlimited, unrestricted, boundless, ultimate, total, unconditional, full; More principal, chief, dominant, predominant, ruling; royal, regal, monarchical
"sovereign control" (of a nation or its affairs) acting or done independently and without outside interference.


Sovereign citizen movement

According to Wikipedia:

The sovereign citizen movement is a loose grouping of American litigants, commentators, tax protesters and financial-scheme promoters. Self-described sovereign citizens take the position that they are answerable only to their particular interpretation of the Common Law and are not subject to any statutes or proceedings at the federal, state or municipal levels or that they do not recognize U.S. currency and that they are "free of any legal constraints."
They especially reject most forms of taxation as illegitimate.[5] Participants in the movement argue this concept in opposition to "federal citizens" who, they say, have unknowingly forfeited their rights by accepting some aspect of federal law.


Wy people think American citizens are sovereign seems alomst ludicrous when you examine the modern relationships of citizens with their government.

“The union of a man and a woman is of the law of nature.”[1] But we can see an Attorney Dale Bruder argued, “The Respondent ‘renounced his naturally acquired and naturally endowed personal sovereignty’, when he applied for and executed a marriage license under the laws of the State of California so as to obtain the status of ‘marriage’”. He went on to clarify his legal position, “Said license provided irrefutable proof that, the respondent ‘has voluntarily, intentionally, knowingly submitted, and subjected himself to the jurisdiction’ of the State of California”[2]
“People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative.”[3] “In one sense, the term ‘sovereign’ has for its correlative ‘subject’. In this sense, the term can receive no application; for it has no object in the [Original] Constitution of the United States. Under that Constitution there are citizens, but no subjects.”[4] “For when the [so called American] revolution took place, the people of each state became themselves sovereign; and in that character hold the absolute right to all their navigable waters, and the soils under them, for their own common use, subject only to the rights since surrendered by the constitution to the general government.”[5]

The Federal government originally operated not by right, but by the privileges granted it by the States. The people may continue to grant more privileges by their application and participation or their apathy and sloth. This is evident by the Bible, and of curse many others like Plutarch and Polybius.

“The government has no inherent sovereignty within the 50 union states...and Congress can exercise no power which the sovereign people have not entrusted to it: all else is excluded.”[6]
“There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the [federal] United States... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they [the sovereign people] have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld.” Supreme Court Justice Field, 1863-97.

The original States, finding their limited authority and dominion inadequate, vested some of their rights and duties in a separate governmental organization called the United States.

Today, “in the United States ‘it [citizenship] is a political obligation’ depending not on ownership of land, but on the enjoyment of the protection of government; and it ‘binds the citizen to the observance of all laws’ of his sovereign”.[7] to the laws of a “sovereign”. A sovereign is “one who exercises supreme power; a supreme ruler; the person having the highest authority in a state, as a king, emperor, queen, etc.; a monarch”.[8] A sovereign makes law.

“Constantly bearing in mind that in entering into society individuals must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest…”[9]

The Fourteenth Amendment uses the word “citizens” as a word denoting membership, as opposed to the former use of the word, which denoted merely an inhabitant. This is not to say that there was not citizenship of the United States prior to the amendment, for there surely was. The Fourteenth Amendment was an across-the-board offer of citizenship as a member of the United States Federal Government.

Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, “No private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of Constitution. The constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The states are party to it”. [10]

“People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative.”[11] “In one sense, the term ‘sovereign’ has for its correlative ‘subject’. In this sense, the term can receive no application; for it has no object in the [Original] Constitution of the United States. Under that Constitution there are citizens, but no subjects.”[12] “For when the [so called American] revolution took place, the people of each state became themselves sovereign; and in that character hold the absolute right to all their navigable waters, and the soils under them, for their own common use, subject only to the rights since surrendered by the constitution to the general government.”[13]

The Federal government originally operated not by right, but by the privileges granted it by the States. The people may continue to grant more privileges by their application and participation or their apathy and sloth.

“The government has no inherent sovereignty within the 50 union states...and Congress can exercise no power which the sovereign people have not entrusted to it: all else is excluded.”[14]
“There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the [federal] United States... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they [the sovereign people] have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld.” Supreme Court Justice Field, 1863-97.

The original States, finding their limited authority and dominion inadequate, vested some of their rights or rather privileges and duties in a separate governmental organization called the United States.

Today, “in the United States ‘it [citizenship] is a political obligation’ depending not on ownership of land, but on the enjoyment of the protection of government; and it ‘binds the citizen to the observance of all laws’ of his sovereign”.[15] to the laws of a “sovereign”. A sovereign is “one who exercises supreme power; a supreme ruler; the person having the highest authority in a state, as a king, emperor, queen, etc.; a monarch”.[16] A sovereign makes law.

“Constantly bearing in mind that in entering into society individuals must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest…”[17]

The Fourteenth Amendment uses the word “citizens” as a word denoting membership, as opposed to the former use of the word, which denoted merely an inhabitant. This is not to say that there was not citizenship of the United States prior to the amendment, for there surely was. The Fourteenth Amendment was an across-the-board offer of citizenship as a member of the United States Federal Government.

Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, “No private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of Constitution. The constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The states are party to it”. [18]

I Federalist 51, James Madison wrote; "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." ([1788] n.d., 337)

See The Matrix and the U.S. Constitution

Mammon | Come out | Fraud | Welfare types | Corban | Christian conflict |
Sovereign | Benefactors | Merchandise | Redemption | Legal title |
The Blessed Strategy | Daily ministration | Fervent Charity | Perfect law of liberty |
Covetous Practices | Romans 13 | The Way | Fellowship | Free Assemblies |
Church | Ministers | Congregations | Congregants | Network |

Footnotes

  1. Conjuctio mariti et femina est de jure naturæ.
  2. Fabricus vs. Fabricus, Superior Court of California, Case No. 09-231956, May 26, 2009.
  3. Lansing vs Smith 21 D. 89...4 Wendell 9, 20 (1829) [Court of Appeals of New York, relevant to eminent domain law]
  4. Chishom v.Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419,455, 1L Ed 440 (1793).
  5. Martin vs Waddell, 41 US (16 Pet) 367, 410 (1842)
  6. Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S.421 (1884).
  7. “... the term ‘citizen’ in the United States, is analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government.” 14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122.(1838)
  8. Websters Unabridged Dictionary 2nd Ed.
  9. Andrew Jackson, March 4, 1833.
  10. Supreme Court of Ga, Padelford, Fay & Co. vs Mayor& Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438,520 (1854)
  11. Lansing vs Smith 21 D. 89...4 Wendell 9, 20 (1829) [Court of Appeals of New York, relevant to eminent domain law]
  12. Chishom v.Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419,455, 1L Ed 440 (1793).
  13. Martin vs Waddell, 41 US (16 Pet) 367, 410 (1842)
  14. Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S.421 (1884).
  15. “... the term ‘citizen’ in the United States, is analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government.” 14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122.(1838)
  16. Websters Unabridged Dictionary 2nd Ed.
  17. Andrew Jackson, March 4, 1833.
  18. Supreme Court of Ga, Padelford, Fay & Co. vs Mayor& Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438,520 (1854)

About the author

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Departments
Navigate
.
Tools