Obama will REQUIRE community service -- PLEASE DIGG

[eskimoranger]

Your first language must not be english.
If you are born in a state. You are a citizen of that state.
If you are not born in a state, but you are an immigrant or born to U.S. parents you are a citizen of the federal government under the 14th amendment.
The United State is not a republic/democracy unto itself.
It is a republic of Republics.
The federal government is not suppose to be above all, the constitution is suppose to be above all.
The states were suppose to have equal standing with the federal government.
The constitution outlined specifically what power the federal government had... which were few... and left the rest to the states and the people of the states.
Note- not the people of the federal government.

Thanks for the clarification.

What I wanted to understand is how did John McCain's parents get their US citizenship? John got it because he was born abroad. What about his parents and grandparents? Were they all born abroad?

I mean if John McCain's parents were simply citizens of Louisiana (for example), then it would be impossible for John McCain to gain US citizenship at birth if neither of his parents got it, no matter where he is born.

Geez- we are in a lot of trouble. I just realized, most people think just like this guy, and thus, this is why we are in the shit we are in...

The reason why I think like this is very simple -- that is how things appear to be. Valid and useful information is a very good antishit medicine. Why not spread it. Otherwise most people will continue to think the way they have thought to this day.

 

[torchbearer]

Thanks for the clarification.

What I wanted to understand is how did John McCain's parents get their US citizenship? John got it because he was born abroad. What about his parents and grandparents? Were they all born abroad?

I mean if John McCain's parents were simply citizens of Louisiana (for example), then it would be impossible for John McCain to gain US citizenship at birth if neither of his parents got it, no matter where he is born.



The reason why I think like this is very simple -- that is how things appear to be. Valid and useful information is a very good antishit medicine. Why not spread it. Otherwise most people will continue to think the way they have thought to this day.

I do not know what states his parents were born in.. but the reports i have read... they were born in the states.
Thus, they were citizens of their respective states.
Because they were citizens of their states, their son was considered a citizen also, even though he was born in panama.
But he did not gain the citizenship of a state, he gained his citizenship through the 14th amendment. Which I quoted for you in an earlier post.

You keep missing the point... and I don't know how else to tell you this information.
All citizens at the time the constitution was made and this country was formed... were citizens of their state.
Those states began as independent colonies, and then became independent states in a confederacy, and then later states in a federation.
But all the people remained citizens of their states. There were no Citizens of the U.S. government.
The 14th amendment changed this.... because of the freed man.
It created a new class of citizen. A citizen of the federal government.
Not everyone was a citizen of the federal government, just those people who fit the qualifications.
It was a subclass citizenship with privileges. Not the same of those who were born in the states.
John McCain's parents were citizens of one of these united states.
John McCain is a citizen of the federal government.

Since the qualifications for running for president required you to be a natural born citizen in one of these united states. (a citizen of a state).
John McCain technically is not qualified. And this pisses off a lot of military folk when I say this... but if we are to stay true to the intent. That is the case.

Only people born in a state, and thus, a natural born citizen in these united state can become president.. John McCain does not qualify, but his parent's do.
The 14th amendment did not change the lines of the constitution that stated the qualifications for president. If it did, it would have redacted those lines into the amendment itself.
A freed slave was not allowed to run for president. And neither can any citizen of the federal government.
It is a sub-class of citizenship of privileges.
Now, if John McCain has children that are born in a state, they will be a citizen of that state and have the same rights as all others being naturally born a citizen of THESE united states.

If you don't get what I just said... i can't think of any other way to explain it to you.
(maybe try reading the above post.. substitute the word country for state if that helps you)

 

[eskimoranger]

Nice post Torchbearer.

Can I ask how long you have been in the Patriot movement, presuming that you are?


Do you know any of the key elements of a binding contract? Like being of the age of majority?

From what you are writing, as I have seen many times before, you are at the "aha" moment, until one gets seasoned and reaches a deeper understanding.

Very similar to the Tax Honesty movement, where everyone claims; Unconstitutional, No Law, etc.

Sorry, I am not involved with the Patriot movement. Never have been. I am simply interested in political history and looking for ways to understand how this "system" works. It must be very simple so all the effort goes into understanding it's simplicity. And you are right about that "aha" moment. Something new every day.

I have researched contract law quite bit but obviously not enough since this "age of majority" concept is something new. References would be much appreciated.

What I have found out using various sources over the last year, it seems that a lot of effort has been made to confuse and mislead the public about the role of government and disable the judicial branch. People do not know how to defend themselves.

As for Tax Honesty movement, I feel they are on barking up the wrong tree. They presume that the IRS is operating within the context of statutes and Constitution and can be challenged in a regular court by demanding them to show the law etc. That is not true. The IRS operates within the context of ancient Commercial Law and can truly be challenged only in a court of record (source of this information).

The end of offtopic.

 

[jcarcinogen]

www.change.gov ...since when does the government give the President-elect its own domain? How much evidence do we need to see that this is all by design?

Everyone is all of the sudden willing to back him (in general, obviously not the people here) even though he supported the Patriot Act, the FISA bill, the Banker Bailout, and so called "Net Neutrality"?! Then there is the "test" that Biden mentioned that Obama will have...

With Musharaff resigned after Bhutto was murdered and with the media drilling into our heads that Osama Bin Laden is in Pakistan, I hope "Al-Quaeda" doesn't detonate nuke in the US or something horrific. This guy, Obama, has all of the markings of a dictator and has been seemingly handed the infrastructure in the Executive Branch to be one.

Truth is stranger than fiction indeed.

 

[ghengis86]

so we're agreed that coercing 'voluntary' charity is not voluntary and although not in direct violation of 13th amendment, is not really complying as well? i.e. charity is great, but once you provide incentives for charity (sic), its no long charity. right?

 

[torchbearer]

so we're agreed that coercing 'voluntary' charity is not voluntary and although not in direct violation of 13th amendment, is not really complying as well? i.e. charity is great, but once you provide incentives for charity (sic), its no long charity. right?

Read my signature. I think we should spread the world of the American Jurisprudence.

 

[Danke]

As for Tax Honesty movement, I feel they are on barking up the wrong tree. They presume that the IRS is operating within the context of statutes and Constitution and can be challenged in a regular court by demanding them to show the law etc. That is not true. The IRS operates within the context of ancient Commercial Law and can truly be challenged only in a court of record (source of this information).

The end of offtopic.

No, the educated in the Tax Honesty Movement do not go about asking the court to show them the law.

Common Law. Do you know what that is? What venue do you find it in?

Are you ready to fight with your knowledge of Common Law?

This is really basic knowledge in the Patriot community. Unless you really understand its implication, you will find yourself in a heap of trouble and possibly in jail with that avenue. I have friends in such predicaments.

Yes, challenge jurisdiction, that is always the first course of action if you have not remedied the situation outside of court.

 

[torchbearer]

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void.
- American Jurisprudence 2nd Edition, Volume 16, Section 178

 

[Danke]

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void.
- American Jurisprudence 2nd Edition, Volume 16, Section 178

You are repeating yourself.

 

[ghengis86]

Read my signature. I think we should spread the world of the American Jurisprudence.

nice sig

edit; i'd bunchie that for sure if i could!

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

No, the educated in the Tax Honesty Movement do not go about asking the court to show them the law.

Common Law. Do you know what that is? What venue do you find it in?

Are you ready to fight with your knowledge of Common Law?

This is really basic knowledge in the Patriot community. Unless you really understand its implication, you will find yourself in a heap of trouble and possibly in jail with that avenue. I have friends in such predicaments.

Yes, challenge jurisdiction, that is always the first course of action if you have not remedied the situation outside of court.

So why isn't Common Law more popular?

CONSTITUTIONAL PREAMBLES
Constitution for the United States of America: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

1849 California Constitution: WE the people of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom: in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution--

1879 State of California Constitution: We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.


In all three constitutions (and the constitution of any real republic) the operative word is "establish." The People existed in their own individual sovereignty before the constitution was enabled. When the People "establish" a constitution, there is nothing in the word "establish" that signifies that they have yielded any of their sovereignty to the agency they have created. To interpret otherwise would convert the republic into a democracy (see Republic vs. Democracy; also see conditions of admission of California to the union). Also, see the legislated notice from the People to the government written in the California Government Codes 11120 and 54950 quoted above.

***To deprive the People of their sovereignty it is first necessary to get the People to agree to submit to the authority of the entity they have created. That is done by getting them to claim they are citizens of that entity (see Const. for the U.S.A., XIV Amendment, for the definition of a citizen of the United States.)

The words "sovereign state" are cabalistic words, not understood by the disciple of liberty, who has been instructed in our constitutional schools. It is our appropriate phrase when aplied to an absolute despotism. The idea of sovereign power in the government of a republic is incompatible with the existence and foundation of civil liberty and the rights of property. Gaines v. Buford, 31 Ky. (1 Dana) 481, 501.

 

[Danke]

So why isn't Common Law more popular?

Isn't that like asking why people keep electing incumbents, even though those incumbents voted for such things as the recent bailout?

 

[torchbearer]

You are repeating yourself.

I say its worth repeating.
You may need this section of the law library if you ever find yourself in the pirate's courtroom.

 

[torchbearer]

We don't have common law in Louisiana. Our legal system is based off of Napoleanic Law.

 

[Cinderella]

I say its worth repeating.
You may need this section of the law library if you ever find yourself in the pirate's courtroom.

can u translate ur quote for those who dont quite understand it? like me?

 

[torchbearer]

can u translate ur quote for those who dont quite understand it? like me?

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law,

Any law that is unconstitutional, even though it is passed as a law, looks like a law, and is enforced as a law.... really is not a law at all.

but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it;

The law is completely void from the day it was passed, not by the date a court decided it was unconstitutional.

an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void. - American Jurisprudence 2nd Edition, Volume 16, Section 178

restating the obvious, that in legal contemplation, an unconstitutional law was never a real law... and it should be the same as if it were never passed at all.



What is American Jurisprudence and why is it important?

American Jurisprudence (often referred to as Am. Jur. 2d) is an encyclopedia of United States law, published by Thomson West. It was originated by Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, which was subsequently acquired by the Thomson Corporation. The series is now in its second edition, launched in 1962. It is a staple of law libraries, and the current edition is over 140 volumes, updated with replacement volumes and annual pocket supplements. The discussion is based on American Law Reports, and it has extensive research references to other Thomson West publications, including sister publications Am. Jur. Trials, Am. Jur. Proof of Facts, Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, and Am. Jur. Legal Forms. Before Thomson's acquisition of West Publishing, it was a competitor to Corpus Juris Secundum. Am. Jur. is also available on Westlaw.

There is also an American Jurisprudence award given to law school students.

 

[Cinderella]

nice! thank u torch!

 

[arkana]

Hey guys, I'm no Obama fan...I'm buying guns, ammo, shipping my money overseas etc.

BUT, let's not stoop to their level...His plan DID NOT say 'require' anywhere on the website. I'm sure one day it might be required, but it doesn't say that.

Let's not put words in people's mouths like the media.

 

[torchbearer]

Hey guys, I'm no Obama fan...I'm buying guns, ammo, shipping my money overseas etc.

BUT, let's not stoop to their level...His plan DID NOT say 'require' anywhere on the website. I'm sure one day it might be required, but it doesn't say that.

Let's not put words in people's mouths like the media.

The original text I read on his "service" tab on change.gov included the word Require.
However he tries to doublespeak that.... I don't care.

 

[ghengis86]

The original text I read on his "service" tab on change.gov included the word Require.
However he tries to doublespeak that.... I don't care.

+1