As I was “bobbing for apples” (reading Supreme Court case law) today, I found:
which declares in part,
“. . . . Well was it said by a learned judge, that such freedom would be a mockery: nay, worse, it would be aggravated slavery and complicated misery! It is admitted, that the state has a right to the service of its citizens.”
I like leaping to conclusions based on minimal evidence and maximum intuition. The previous sentence from the Supreme Court inspired the following “leap” (which is not evidence of anything other than my overly-active imagination): Judging from the Court’s remarks, it appears that “citizens” of the State (of the Union) may be fiduciaries of the State who can be called by the “State”/beneficiary to provide various services and held liable if they fail to provide those services.
But, at the same time, I’m convinced by Article 1 Section 2 of The Constitution of The State of Texas (“All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit.”) that the “people” of the same State of the Union are its beneficiaries and endowed with certain rights that entitle them to service from their State/fiduciary.
The seeming contraction (between being a beneficiary and fiduciary) might be explained as follows: We may sometimes act as one of the People (beneficiaries) and at other times act as a “citizen” (fiduciary). Depending on the capacity in which we choose to act, we may be either beneficiaries of the State with rights, or fiduciaries of the State with obligations and liabilities. In one transaction, we might choose to act as one of the “people-beneficiaries” in the next transaction, we might choose to act as a “citizen-fiduciary”. In the next transaction, we might choose again to act as one of the “people-beneficiaries”.
This “leap” is somewhat confusing–but it’s not much more confusing than the 14th Amendment which declares in part, 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.” Thus, the 14th Amendment recognizes two forms of “citizenship”: one within the singular “United States” (provided that you’re born there and subject to its jurisdiction); the other within a State of the Union. (Believe it or not, I’m not the sole source of confusion when it comes to dealing with the “law”.)
In any case, my conclusion (that “people” act as beneficiaries while “citizens” act as fiduciaries) implies that it might be wise to claim at all times to be one of the “people” of your State of the Union rather than a “citizen”/fiduciary of “this state” and/or of “citizen”/fiduciary of the singular “United States”.
The Supreme Court continued:
“. . . . The state wants the services of its citizens, to fight its battles on the land and ocean, to cultivate its fields, to enlarge its industry, to promote its prosperity, to signalize its fame. It does not want a heartless, purposeless, mindless being—but half a man—a worse than slave; it wants a citizen, with all his worth and all his energies of body, mind and soul.”
The Supreme Court has implicitly defined a “citizen” of one of the States of the Union be a whole “man”. More, that a whole “man” (and also the “citizen” of a State of the Union) must have: 1) a body; 2) a mind ; and 3) a soul.
The presence of a “body” is evidenced by physical mass.
The presence of a “mind” is probably evidenced by an expression of intent or will
The presence of a “soul” cannot be proved, but must be accepted if a claim is made under one’s freedom of religion.
Is it possible that, while a “citizen” of a State of the Union must have a soul, that a “citizen of the United States” does not? Insofar as I’ve reported frequently on laws by which our government has defined us to be animals, it may be that as “animals,” we are presumed to be without a “soul” and thus, incapable of being one of the People or even “citizens” of a State of the Union? (Of course, without “souls” we could still be fiduciaries to the United States.)
It’s a leap, but it’s still conceivable that a “citizen” of a State of the Union is deemed to have: 1) a body; 2) a mind; and 3) a soul–while a “citizen of the United States” is deemed to have only 1) a body; and 2) a mind–but no soul. This conjecture sounds at little nutty–at first. But the more I think about it, the more possible it seems.
In any case, all this suggests that part of your identification and/or claims of political status, you might be wise to expressly declare under oath that you have: 1) a body; 2) a mind; and 3) a soul.
And where’s the harm if you make that claim? Maybe my conjecture (that citizens of a State have a soul while citizens of the United States do not) is absurd. OK–so what? How can it hurt for you to claim to have a body, mind and soul? Maybe it doesn’t help you, but if it can’t hurt, where’s the harm. And–in the improbable event that my conjecture turns out to be roughly correct–by claiming to have body, mind and soul just might provide you with some huge advantages.
If we have a “soul,” we probably can’t be an animal. The claim of having a “soul” should probably be supported by Bible verses (if any) that indicate that a fundamental difference between man and animals is that mankind have souls while animals do not. It may be that Genesis 1:26-28 differentiates between man and animals by declaring man alone to be “made in God’s image” (and thus sharing some characteristic with God that the animals do not possess) that the mysterious “image of God” might be the endowment of a soul that’s at least similar to the “soul” of God.
If so, the God-given, “unalienable Rights” declared in the “Declaration of Independence” may be attributes of our souls. Perhaps, in order to make an effective claim on those “unalienable Rights,” we might first each have to expressly claim to have a “soul“.
Again, my conjecture is based on flimsy of support: nothing but a few lines taken out of context from a Supreme Court decision–and my personal “gut”. Take it all with salt.
But let me know what you think. Do the concepts expressed in this post resonate with your “gut,” too? Do you have evidence to support or refute my conjecture?
Your knowledge and input could be crucial to determining the validity of what might be a very important concept.