Sketter Posted February 13, 2009 Report Posted February 13, 2009 (edited) This is a good read. One states what "should" in theory, and the other states what "is" in practice. And then some in between stuff. In respects to the illegal immigrants, i would like to know what each party's solution(s) are. Edited February 13, 2009 by Sketter Quote
Tigron-X Posted February 14, 2009 Report Posted February 14, 2009 (edited) Edited February 14, 2009 by Tigron-X Quote
Tigron-X Posted March 2, 2009 Report Posted March 2, 2009 Ok here goes and as a note, this will be my last post in this topic because Tigron is literally talking in circles. If you find that I'm repeating myself, then you're not grasping what I'm saying. WHO ENFORCES THE DAMN TREATY!? If an immigrant makes a treaty with the U.S., who, besides the U.S. can enforce that treaty!?!?!? Assuming that a given treaty has been dishonored: the injured party has the right to seek remedy for any and all damages incurred. Obviously the parties involved are the ones who would seek to "enforce" a treaty that has been dishonored. Whether or not the given treaty is "enforced" successfully may be contingent on which party has the better military prowess should diplomacy fail. Again, a magistrate/the proper courts are a member of a GOVERNMENT/GOVERNING BODY!!! Again, If you don't understand that concept, there is no point to continue this conversation. I understand that concept very well. No one here is arguing that but you! You assume, for whatever reason, that because a group of people got together and created a governing body, that this so-called governing body automatically has jurisdiction over everyone. When in fact, this so-called governing body only has jurisdiction over members of the governing body, who are typically classified as citizens, unless consent is gained from the "foreign" individual (or alien). If consent is not gained, then the so-called governing body does not have jurisdiction over the individual. The individual is a sovereign; a freeman on the land; a sui juris. Should the so-called governing body decide to move against such an individual, it would be an act of aggression. The individual would be under duress. Elaborate on martial law rule According to Title 4 USC the proper way to display a flag indoors is to hang it on the wall. However, when you walk into any court room in this country, neither is the flag displayed on the wall nor is it the flag of the united States. It is a military flag of the corporate United States. This is evident by the gold brim. A flag signifies jurisdiction. As it is a military flag, then what you have is a military tribunal; not to be confused with court-martial. Savvy? You seriously are either deliberately being annoying, or the thickest man on the face of the planet. I will elaborate on this one more time. To become a LEGAL, thus LAWFUL immigrant in the United States, you must enter the country through the proper governmental channels (VISA, Green Card, ect.). If you avoid those channels and enter the United States, then according to the governing body that oversees the United States along with each individual State Government, you are an illegal and unlawful immigrant. Simply because you dislike the United States government does not mean they have any less authority to establish law than any other government. Also: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis Again, If you don't understand that concept, there is no point to continue this conversation. Let me put it to you this way: In order for one to become a corporate US citizen, which is what you're talking about, then one has to go through such governmental channels. By doing so, one becomes a 14th Amendment citizen. Such citizens are 2nd class citizen. They're not a freeman-on-the-land; a sovereign; a sui juris. He/She is a lower being which is tagged (i.e. numbered), classified, and tracked for the benefit of 1st class citizens. Savvy? No matter what you try to say, driving a car is a privilege, not a right. You've bought into the lies very well. Now, let's check what the law says: Spoiler! --Click here to view--"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135. "The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163. So we can see that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be rightfully deprived of his Liberty. So where does the misconception that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege come from? Spoiler! --Click here to view--"...For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; and other cases too numerous to mention. The distinction must be drawn between... (1) Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads, which is our Right; and... (2) Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege. Your whole concept is completely misled. First off a license does not simply imply you have restrictions, it also implies ability or capability. If you are having electrical problems, do you want some guy of the street who says "Yeah I know wires..." or do you want a certified, licensed, electrician to work on your home? I mean there are thousands of examples I could give, again: If you don't understand that concept, there is no point to continue this conversation. First off, who said a license restricts someone? I certainly did not. I stated a license grants one permission to act in a certain capacity. Scroll up for youself. Secondly, you're confusing a certifacte with a license. Two different legal documents. Maybe this conversation would be a lot less difficult for you if you actually took the time to read what I was saying. Maybe you have a reading disability? What about it? No government/governing body, no matter how large or small will be perfect. Governments are run by men, men make mistakes/can be corrupt/can be good/can be swayed/have opinions Ect. I know you are jaded because of the bad run in you've had with the law, but you are taking one personal experience and projecting that onto the other 303 million Americans. There is obviously no debating this with you because you have it in your head that the American government is a corrupt dynasty that is simply out to make money and enslave it's people. People like you are just as bad as people who blindly support the government. Instead of being so quick to judge, why don't you try thinking for a change? Let me spell it out for you here as well. You grasp that government cannot be perfect because man if fallible. I share this understanding as well. But the step you haven't taken yet (i.e. what you haven't yet realized) is that there is remedy. That's what the due process of law provides. And for the record, you **think** I'm jaded. Don't presume to know my state of mind Furthermore, I have stated there are 2 governments; the de jure and the de facto. I have the knowledge to distinguish the two. You don't. And what exactly am I projecting on 303 million people? What is Law?Please stop talking in circles, you are simply trying to bury your lack of an argument in a theoretical mess. If this information is too much for you, I'll understand if you don't want to continue. This information is hard to grasp because it forces you to take everything you've been taught and question it. For example, go read the preamble to the United States Constitution. There are various capitonyms. What do all those words actually mean? How about "Attorney at Law?" How is an attorney "at" Law? What does that mean? Interesting. Simply because you feel that a man in debt is not prosperous, it is so? Most Americans become indebted the second they buy a house. Normally prior to that for things such as a car, credit cards, student loans, ect. Now lets dissect them. Credit cards? I feel they're useless as a whole, but for people who have the money to support it, they can be beneficial. Going into debt over a car. Well reliable transportation is imperative to just about any job in the world. So a man who has $2000 when his car dies could either buy a $2000 car and keep fixing it, or go into debt for a brand new car. Not a bad idea to get reliable transportation. Now a house. A man can choose to rent a house all of his life, and then 30 years down the road be debt free yet house free, and still pays to rent that house until he dies at . Or a man can go into debt for a house and in 30 years, he owns that house. The other option is to find the tiniest place to live you can, live a frugal as you possibly can and in 30 years outright buy the house. I'd rather be in debt for 20-30 years and live comfortably than the latter. Debt can be a bad thing, but simply because it can be bad does not make it always bad. Let me put it this way: When your expenses exceed your assets, then I don't think you're prosperous. Now, you might be working towards prosperity. However, until you're the creditor and not the debtor, then I don't believe you're prosperous. Now, I'm not going to go into detail on those examples you brought up because if you take a closer look at the transactions you'll realize that there typically is a lack of equal consideration when one assummes such loans or lines of credit. How is governing by force tyranny? Tyranny is governing with EXCESSIVE force. As you stated, you will always need people to keep the peace and to keep the peace they will need to use force. I think that is as simple as it gets. If you don't understand that concept, there is no point to continue this conversation. Your question is too ambiguous for me to give a proper response. I would say tyranny is the abuse of power. The question though is who is the governing force? i.e. Who is master; who is servent? You know it's cute to argue your own version of meanings. Law is enforced by an authority. If a law is not enforced, it is not effectively a law. If the law states that the speed limit is 55mph, yet no police enforced it, in effect, the law is not a law. Note: I said in EFFECT, the law, by legal definition is still a law, I am arguing reality, not theory. As stated at the beginning of this post, this is my last post in this topic. If you continue to post please do not pose any further questions to me as I will not reply. I have implicitly stated many items that should not that hard to grasp unless you are deliberately arguing against them for the sake of trying to create a shoddy argument. That's right. It's not law. It's statute. A statute is a rule of society that has the force of law. However, it is not law. under the pretense of collecting a debt owed to the United States. That is in a list of definitions under general provisions to be used solely in Title 28, Part IV, chapter 176 - FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE. If you interpret the whole context it appears that the United States can be defined as a federal corporation, agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States, for the purpose of chapter 176. No where does it state that beyond chapter 176 the United States government is a federal corporation, which is most likely why you're having such trouble finding evidence to support that. Act of 1871 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collI...&recNum=454 Enjoy Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.