# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Declaration of Independence is the law

## american.swan

Napolitano said the Declaration of Independence was codified in the law by congress and signed by the President not long after our government started.   Today if you read the millions and millions of laws on the books, the Declaration of Independence according to Napalitano is there.  It's the law.  SO... 

When the government stops recognizing natural rights, it is the duty of the people to alter or abolish it.  

Is it then legal to follow the law?  To alter or abolish the government?  What does that mean?  How would a person go about doing that?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Napolitano said the Declaration of Independence was codified in the law by congress and signed by the President not long after our government started. Today if you read the millions and millions of laws on the books, the Declaration of Independence according to Napalitano is there. It's the law. SO... 
> 
> When the government stops recognizing natural rights, it is the duty of the people to alter or abolish it. 
> 
> Is it then legal to follow the law? To alter or abolish the government? What does that mean? How would a person go about doing that?


 *Just walk away, like you probably would from the OTHER Mafia.*

----------


## AbuHatem

Well, I handn't heard that, but if you look at the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment it guarantees the rights to life, liberty, and property protected by both the federal and state governments!

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Well, I handn't heard that, but if you look at the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment it guarantees the rights to life, liberty, and property protected by both the federal and state governments!


 *Do you notice that EVER being enforced a lot?*

----------


## Printo

The organic laws of the United States of America are included in the U.S. Code. These documents include the United States Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, and the U.S. Constitution. These documents comprise the very first part of the United States Code, wherein lies the collected statutes of the United States.

----------


## AbuHatem

> *Do you notice that EVER being enforced a lot?*


Yeahhh... I know.  I actually just read a book on the history of the Due Process clause.  It is interesting.  When they first interpreted it people did not want to apply the Bill of Rights to the states (incorporation), so for instance each state had the right to transgress your life, liberty and happiness if it did not go against it's state constitution.  I don't like that, even though I am 99% in all other cases for states' rights.

Anyway, the Supreme Court then did some judicial activism here and there and applied like 75% of the Bill of Rights to the states but they still haven't all gotten there!

----------


## Chester Copperpot

Wow, I didnt know this.. Im going to have to look at the Declaration in a whole new light now... I didnt know it was considered law.

----------


## slothman

If it is law than can someone point me to a USC chapter for it?

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Napolitano said the Declaration of Independence was codified in the law by congress and signed by the President not long after our government started.   Today if you read the millions and millions of laws on the books, the Declaration of Independence according to Napalitano is there.  It's the law.  SO... 
> 
> When the government stops recognizing natural rights, it is the duty of the people to alter or abolish it.  
> 
> Is it then legal to follow the law?  To alter or abolish the government?  What does that mean?  How would a person go about doing that?


The Declaration of Independence is our formal divorce decree from the tyranny of Britain while the Constitution is our formal marriage decree to a new form of government.  So, to properly interpret the Constitution, one needs to juxtapose it to the Declaration of Independence.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> If it is law than can someone point me to a USC chapter for it?


It isn't a law.  It is a Civil-Purpose.  Courts are divided up into legal and civil cases.  The traditions of legal precedence determines legal cases while the self-evident and unalienable rights determine Civil-Purpose.  It was our Founding Fathers wish that the people control the legal precedence of tyranny, the long standing traditions that persecute us, with the greater power of the self-evident and unalienable Civil-Purpose.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Well, I handn't heard that, but if you look at the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment it guarantees the rights to life, liberty, and property protected by both the federal and state governments!


Except that the 14th Amendment wasn't ratified.

----------


## demolama

the DoI also solidifies the founding principles that the states agreed upon.  They agreed that rights were derived from nature and not government.  People who argue that rights are not natural are going against the beliefs of the founders and thus going against the foundation of American society

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> the DoI also solidifies the founding principles that the states agreed upon.  They agreed that rights were derived from nature and not government.  People who argue that rights are not natural are going against the beliefs of the founders and thus going against the foundation of American society


QFT! 

Even this guy approves! ->:bunchies:

----------


## mediahasyou

Legal?  No, the ones in power decide what's legal.

----------


## RonPaulNewbee

> It isn't a law.  It is a Civil-Purpose.  Courts are divided up into legal and civil cases.  The traditions of legal precedence determines legal cases while the self-evident and unalienable rights determine Civil-Purpose.  It was our Founding Fathers wish that the people control the legal precedence of tyranny, the long standing traditions that persecute us, with the greater power of the self-evident and unalienable Civil-Purpose.


Thanks for explaining! Actual learning going on in RPF!

----------


## Matt Collins

> It isn't a law.  It is a Civil-Purpose.  Courts are divided up into legal and civil cases.  The traditions of legal precedence determines legal cases while the self-evident and unalienable rights determine Civil-Purpose.  It was our Founding Fathers wish that the people control the legal precedence of tyranny, the long standing traditions that persecute us, with the greater power of the self-evident and unalienable Civil-Purpose.


Can you link to more information on this?

----------


## LittleLightShining

> Napolitano said the Declaration of Independence was codified in the law by congress and signed by the President not long after our government started.   Today if you read the millions and millions of laws on the books, the Declaration of Independence according to Napalitano is there.  It's the law.  SO... 
> 
> When the government stops recognizing natural rights, it is the duty of the people to alter or abolish it.  
> 
> Is it then legal to follow the law?  To alter or abolish the government?  What does that mean?  How would a person go about doing that?


If you haven't already, I highly recommend looking into and becoming involved with the We The People Foundation and We The People Continental Congress (NOT Constitutional Convention).

----------


## stilltrying

Acts, Statutes, Codes, and Regulations are NOT law. They are merely corporate policy. Let me ask do you have a SS #? If so you are a voluntary corporate USG citizen (employee/agent) and involuntary servitude does not apply to you as you voluntarily signed up to be a government agent. Get yourself a Dune & Bradstreat account (name not right for copyright reasons) and look up these government names and you will find that the US Government is a corporation much the same as your all caps name ascribed to you at Birth on your bonded $$$ birth certificate. The truth of the matter is much deeper than is discussed on this forum.

For it to be law there has to be an injured party, injured property, or a signed contract between 2 humans for those 2 humans. Notice I did not say corporation or a person as a person in Blacks law dictionary is a corporation as well.

Youtoob Winston Shrout

File a UCC-1 form and copyright your name that is a good start at getting truly free.

----------


## stilltrying

Dont contract with the courts, dont contract with the police. Once you do you give them jurisdiction over you. Dont believe me watch this, he is not contracting with judge judy which is why the court dismissed the case.


YouTube - Stoned on judge judy.

She is trying to get a security interest in getting his SS# and he will not contract with her by giving it to her. What does she have to offer for getting his SS#.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Acts, Statutes, Codes, and Regulations are NOT law. They are merely corporate policy. Let me ask do you have a SS #? If so you are a voluntary corporate USG citizen (employee/agent) and involuntary servitude does not apply to you as you voluntarily signed up to be a government agent. Get yourself a Dune & Bradstreat account (name not right for copyright reasons) and look up these government names and you will find that the US Government is a corporation much the same as your all caps name ascribed to you at Birth on your bonded $$$ birth certificate. The truth of the matter is much deeper than is discussed on this forum.
> 
> For it to be law there has to be an injured party, injured property, or a signed contract between 2 humans for those 2 humans. Notice I did not say corporation or a person as a person in Blacks law dictionary is a corporation as well.


Link?

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Dont contract with the courts, dont contract with the police. Once you do you give them jurisdiction over you. Dont believe me watch this, he is not contracting with judge judy which is why the court dismissed the case.
> 
> 
> YouTube - Stoned on judge judy.
> 
> She is trying to get a security interest in getting his SS# and he will not contract with her by giving it to her. What does she have to offer for getting his SS#.


i think that guy was putting on an act.. once he is told to dismiss he goes right out all calmly drinking his water.

i have serious doubts about the veracity of the whole govt corp. birth cert in caps ucc-1 thing...

Ive read alot about it long time ago, but there seem to be a lot of holes in the logic

----------


## Alawn

> i have serious doubts about the veracity of the whole govt corp. birth cert in caps ucc-1 thing...
> 
> Ive read alot about it long time ago, but there seem to be a lot of holes in the logic


Well it is completely insane and not based on any facts at all.  It is just stupid misunderstandings repeated on the internet that for some reason a lot of people believe and refuse to do even a little bit of research to figure how incredibly historically and legally false it is.

----------


## stilltrying

> Well it is completely insane and not based on any facts at all.  It is just stupid misunderstandings repeated on the internet that for some reason a lot of people believe and refuse to do even a little bit of research to figure how incredibly historically and legally false it is.


lets start simple. are you saying that your birth certificate is not bonded??? are you saying that a judge is not bonded and every other person that swears an oath to a govt job that they perform? are you saying that you are obligated and must have a drivers license to travel in a car? are you saying that you are obligated to have a social security number? are you saying that you are obligated to sign up for selective services when you turn 18? ate you saying that the UCC is not valid? why would they have the UCC 1 form for? if so then you are not free at all but are merely a slave and think like a slave.

i could go on and on. when my knowledge about these processes has reached a solid understanding i will fill you in on anything that may occur. but for now keep looking for leaders to represent you when you could do it yourself.

----------


## Alawn

> It isn't a law.  It is a Civil-Purpose.  Courts are divided up into legal and civil cases.  The traditions of legal precedence determines legal cases while the self-evident and unalienable rights determine Civil-Purpose.  It was our Founding Fathers wish that the people control the legal precedence of tyranny, the long standing traditions that persecute us, with the greater power of the self-evident and unalienable Civil-Purpose.


Wrong.  Stop spreading this crap about legal vs civil law.  It just isn't true.  That is not how law is divided.  Look up any basic law book and you will see this (not the garbage on the internet).  There used to be 3 types of major courts: criminal courts, courts of law, and courts of equity.  Everyone knows what criminal is.  Legal and equity were both lawsuits from one person against another but the remedy was different.  It you sued for money then you went to a court of law.  If you sued to enforce an action you went to a court of equity.  That is why the 7th A only applies to cases where you sue for money.  You don't have a right to a jury trial if you sue to force someone to stop doing something but you do if you sue someone to recover damages for the harm the person did.  Eventually in the US the courts of law and equity were merged into civil courts.  The same rules apply but you don't have to go to a different court.  We now have criminal courts and civil courts.

A lot of the confusion people have is based on other countries using the same words to mean other things.  There are two major types of legal systems a country can have.  You either have one or the other.  Common law or civil law.  England and former English territories have common law and most other countries have civil law.  In common law jurisdictions (the US) the courts can make law and the decisions are binding on subsequent cases.  In civil law jurisdictions the law is based exclusively on written laws/codes and the decisions of courts are not binding and courts can't make rules/new law.

----------


## Alawn

> lets start simple. are you saying that your birth certificate is not bonded??? are you saying that a judge is not bonded and every other person that swears an oath to a govt job that they perform? are you saying that you are obligated and must have a drivers license to travel in a car? are you saying that you are obligated to have a social security number? are you saying that you are obligated to sign up for selective services when you turn 18? ate you saying that the UCC is not valid? why would they have the UCC 1 form for? if so then you are not free at all but are merely a slave and think like a slave.
> 
> i could go on and on. when my knowledge about these processes has reached a solid understanding i will fill you in on anything that may occur. but for now keep looking for leaders to represent you when you could do it yourself.


I am saying that the all caps thing is completely baseless and not true garbage made up by people who don't understand anything about the law and is spread on the internet.  All caps were used because back in the day when you had to hand write everything you couldn't easily bold or italicize words.  They wrote things in all caps to make it stand out so the names of the parties would stand out without having to look that closely.

I am saying the UCC crap is really really insane.  That isn't even close to what the UCC is.  UCC stands for universal commercial code.  FIrst of all it only applies to the sale of goods.  If it is a service or anything other than the sale of goods it does not apply.  Also seriously how hard is it for these people just to look up in a couple minutes what it is.  Basically some people were annoyed that the laws were so different in each state.  A bunch or people got together and wrote down what the laws concerning t he sale of goods should be based on what was popular in most states.  This was completely non binding and just what they thought it should be.  They then went to each state and tried to convince the legislatures to enact that set of laws.  If the state legislatures passed it then it became the law there, if not then it didn't.  Most states passed it so now the laws are fairly uniform.  Maybe it is kind of dumb to try to make the laws in each state uniform but it did not take away people's rights or put people under crazy contracts with the government or effect anything other than the sale of goods, or any of the other crap crazy people on the internet say. 

You can't copyright your name.  Asking someone a question doesn't give them a security interest in your name or your social security number.  People are making up tons and tons of crazy contracts with the government that never happened.

The Judge Judy court isn't even a real court.  It is actually only arbitration made to look like court for TV.  That is why she asked stupid questions and threw out the case when he wouldn't answer.

I realize you people mean well and are basing what you say on what someone else told you but it just isn't true.

----------


## stilltrying

Alawn

You are about protecting the state. How come the social security has it all over their site on how to get a social security number but not on how to rescind it just as easily. How come you cannot have your birth certificate? You only get a copy. It is in fact bonded paper that it is printed on and has value, a huge value. Why cant I rescind all US citizen rights and not declare myself a state citizen. We have been left in the dark, on accident, I dont think so, on purpose, in my opinion definitely yes. Why. Someone has something to gain. You go on to say that the UCC is really really insane. Yes it is, why, designed to keep you in the dark. There are only laws of commerce. How does CPS have any right to do half of what they do. If you are free then they could not come and kidnap children for no reason whatsoever without first a court appearance. Lots of garbage on the internet you say. How do you know have you tried an accepted for value on any bill? Do you know that the UCC mandates that those who create the liability have to provide for a remedy? Have you filed a notice of understanding? Have you filed a claim of right? Have you posted a notice with a notice? You accept the paradigm you are in. You believe what is told to you because you accept  or give people power over you and are comfortable with it I guess or else you wouldnt defend it like you do. How come courts have established that the public road system is there for all freely, not with a license, liscense plate, registration, etc...

What is submit an application? To bend to anothers will and to beg. Quite peculiar cause it seems like that is the case when you do these things. YOU are shading the truth.

I dare you to watch Winston Shrout and tell me that he is nuts and does not or has not used any of what he is talking about in court cases.

----------

