Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
kokonutty:
I expect the four states have changed their "Bills of Rights" so to speak. I'm not arguing that. My premise is that at, and around, the time the 2nd Amendment was added to the constitution these states held these views.
Just because a state changes it's language in it's constitution or declaration of rights does not mean those rights no longer exist. One's right to defend oneself is the foundation from which other rights originate for if we don't have the right to defend ourselves individually, what right do we have to form groups and establish states to begin with. States are at their core agreements of the level of civil behavior expected of their members (citizens).
Actually a Constitution is a living document that can change and has a process within designating how that process takes place. Once a change is made what existed in the past is no more. Kentucky has had four versions of its Constitution since 1792; the current version allows for concealed carry only with a permit. There is no unfettered right and no court has ever recognized what you claim.
The right and process to form states is delineated in the US Constitution, just as the process for enacting legislation is. Although it may make sense, I find nothing that defines all rights as deriving from the right to defend ourselves.
Actually a Constitution is a living document that can change and has a process within designating how that process takes place.
Not really a "living document" as that is contradictory by definition. There is an Amendment process and the document can be nullified or modified by a Constitutional Convention and ratification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty
Although it may make sense, I find nothing that defines all rights as deriving from the right to defend ourselves.
The Right of self-defense exists without the Constitution. It precedes The U.S. Constitution. Without the Right to self-defense, the Right to Life, all other Rights are irrelevant.
Not really a "living document" as that is contradictory by definition. There is an Amendment process and the document can be nullified or modified by a Constitutional Convention and ratification.
The Right of self-defense exists without the Constitution. It precedes The U.S. Constitution. Without the Right to self-defense, the Right to Life, all other Rights are irrelevant.
The fact that a Constitution includes within the process for altering it is sufficient to euphemistically call it a living document. It is not carved in stone, never expected to be altered, but that is simply a matter of semantics.
We're talking about the law here, United States law to be precise - if you are of the opinion that the right of self defense exists without the Constitution no one can take your opinion away but that does not give it any standing within the law and certainly no legal standing that all other rights stem from such.
The key is the distinction between "people" and "militia"... they are mutually exclusive.
Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, all men (i.e. people) have endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure. Among those rights is the right to life, and thus the right to defend that life with whatever means one deems fit.
The second amendment clearly states that the people have the right to bear arms.
BUT
The militia have no endowed rights.
A militiaman can be compelled to train, fight, and die on command ("selective service", the draft, etc).
Obviously he has no right to life nor liberty.
WHO ARE THE MILITIA?
Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, CITIZENS of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
Pennsylvania General Assembly
Title 51, Part II, Chapter 3
The Militia
§ 301. Formation.
(a) Pennsylvania militia.--The militia of this Commonwealth shall consist of:
(1) all able-bodied citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing within this Commonwealth, who are at least 17 years six months of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age;
What most Americans are unaware of is the legal status of the non-citizen American nationals / free inhabitants who are not obligated to perform mandatory civic duties, and thus retain their endowed rights.
The "Trick"
"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979)
(quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61S.Ct. 742 (1941)).
"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)
Let's look at the infamous "ban" on guns in school zones.
Title 18 USC § 922 (firearms)
(a) It shall be unlawful
(1) for any person ...
The infamous NY Sullivan Act that bans unlicensed concealed carry of weapons appears to only apply to “persons”...
That's how "gun bans" and restrictions can be 100% constitutional but not applicable to the "sovereign people."
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.
“... 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 [sovereign] people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign [the people] in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns."
- - - Justice John Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia (2 U.S. 419 (1793)) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...CR_0002_0419_Z
*NOTE: American governments are NOT sovereigns, but agents for the sovereign people. However, they are sovereign over their subject citizens.*
According to the Declaration, anything beyond securing endowed rights requires CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. And asserting citizenship is a VOLUNTARY ACT.
Of course, this poses the question : "Who are the U.S. citizens at birth?"
Citizenship comes with mandatory civic duties that abrogate endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure!
Can't have it both ways...
Did someone lie to us about the "jurisdiction" of the United States?
Ask your public servants to explain how a government that is instituted to secure endowed rights can impose citizenship upon an infant who cannot consent, abrogating his endowed rights by virtue of mandatory civic duties.
Was that citizenship limited to a small subset of people who had no endowed rights to begin with? (i.e. slaves?)
Good luck getting an answer to THAT.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
- - - 14th amendment, USCON
Phew... the amendment does not apply to SOVEREIGN PEOPLE. And the US Gubmint is a foreign corporation with respect to a state of the 50 united States of America.
FEDERAL CORPORATIONS - The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
- - - Volume 19, Corpus Juris Secundum XVIII. Foreign Corporations, Sections 883,884
"The United States and the State of California are two separate sovereignties, each dominant in its own sphere."
- - - Redding v. Los Angeles (1947), 81 C.A.2d 888, 185 P.2d 430.
"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own..."
- - - United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
Most Americans were never born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States federal government.
As you may well know, the Feds have limited jurisdiction within any state.
Frankly, if one was fully informed of the consequences of volunteering to be a citizen, I doubt that few would do so.
BTW - there is no such thing as a "sovereign citizen" - an oxymoron.
In American law, the people are sovereigns, whereas the citizens are subjects, obligated to perform mandatory civic duties.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 09-02-2020 at 05:53 AM..
Reason: Please do not use red text. Red is used for moderator edits. Thank you.
Art. 1, Sec. 8, USCON (1789)
Congress shall have power ... To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of ALL able-bodied MALES at least 17 years of age and, ... under 45 years of age who are ... CITIZENS of the United States
Geo.Wash. Sums it up nicely in 1783 - long before the constitution
“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... ]
IN SHORT,
The American citizen has no endowed right to life, nor liberty, nor absolute ownership because, as a subject, he can be ordered to train, fight, and die, on command (militia duty), and was obligated to give up a portion of his property (qualified ownership of estate) (via ad valorem taxes, etc). .. by his consent to be governed.
Shut up, sit down, pay and obey.
However, that does not negate the endowed rights of the sovereign American people (noncitizens / free inhabitants) who did not consent to be governed.
. . .
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.). Citizens, like the Founders, have pledged their lives, property and sacred honor in service to others and to the government.
ONLY Non-citizen nationals (people) retain their endowed rights.
(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 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 like the right to bear arms.
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!"
WEREN'T YOU INFORMED ABOUT YOUR CONSENT?
CONSENT OF THE CITIZENRY
“ Our theory of government and governmental powers is wholly at variance with that urged by appellant herein. The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1
. . .
The rights of the individual / national / non-citizen / inhabitant / non-resident are not derived from government, but are Creator endowed.
But once consent to be governed is granted, via citizenship, that endowment has been surrendered / waived by the citizenry. Why? Because mandatory civic duties abrogate endowed natural rights, natural and personal liberty, absolute ownership of private property, etc, etc.
In support of individual sovereignty
An example of the lost knowledge of our forefathers comes from “The Devil’s Dictionary”, by Ambrose Bierce, a collection of humorous definitions, originally published in a weekly paper starting in 1881.
Apparently his audience knew what he was writing about, though today’s reader would not.
.................................................. ...............
ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.
- - - - “The Devil’s Dictionary” (1906), by Ambrose Bierce
.................................................. ...............
His audience knew what an “American sovereign” was, to understand the joke.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 09-02-2020 at 05:54 AM..
Reason: Please do not use red text. Red is used for moderator edits. Thank you
You can't read the second amendment and get the right understanding without reading the whole original bill of rights. Clearly all those amendments were written to protect the rights of citizens from having their individual freedoms taken away by the federal government. They were concerned about a strong central government becoming too powerful and enslaving its citizens. So the second amendment is part of that also.
The 2nd Amendment does NOT grant people the right to own and carry firearms, it simply affirms the right that people ALREADY have to protect their families, their property and themselves.
Citizens WILL continue to carry firearms no matter who says we can or can't.
The 2nd Amendment does NOT grant people the right to own and carry firearms, it simply affirms the right that people ALREADY have to protect their families, their property and themselves.
Citizens WILL continue to carry firearms no matter who says we can or can't.
I think what you are getting at is the U.S. Constitution really doesn't say what people can do, it's designed to say what the government CANNOT do. People, particularly those from other countries, still don't get that. Many Americans still don't get that concept. It's really unique in the world, even today.
In turn, the Declaration of Independence lays the foundation that certain rights are not the purview of government laws. Certain rights are "Unalienable rights" are given by the creator (or by the nature of man himself) - not by a government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Great secret revealed
