RSS

State-licensed Marriages–or “Marriage Relationships”?

24 May

Marriage Relationship Cake Topper "I now pronounce you Batman and Cat-wife" [courtesy Google Images]

Marriage Relationship Cake Topper
“I now pronounce you Batman and Cat-wife”
[courtesy Google Images]

A man named “John” heard me talking on a recent radio show about my divorce in A.D. 1983.  He contacted me by email to discuss his own, current divorce predicament and see if I could offer any insights.  Here’s my response:

 

Hi John,

Marriage and divorce were a primary focus of my life in the 1980s and early 1990s. My A.D. 1983 divorce nearly killed me.  Really.  I lost everything but my pulse.  Put me in a depression that lasted five years.  Three years going to bottom; two more years coming back up to a point where I could fake being normal.  I never really got over it.  But I learned to accept it, live with it.  I don’t think about much today.

My point is that divorce issues are no longer fresh in my mind and I no longer have much to say about it.

I will say this:  After my divorce in A.D. 1983, I began to study the relevant law intently, obsessively.  I learned a lot, but I never learned enough.

However, I knew a man in the 1990s who also went through divorce and studied that affliction in greater depth then I had.  Never actually met the man.  Corresponded by letters and some phone calls.  I haven’t talked to him in 20 years.  I don’t recall his name.  But his research indicated that the modern “marriage” is not a Godly “marriage” wherein one man and one woman become one flesh.  In other words, a Godly marriage includes only two earthly entities:  you and your spouse (one man and one woman) that become “one flesh” that was realnot a fiction.

My friend’s research indicated that a modern, state-licensed “marriage” is not Godly because it includes three earthly entities:  each of the two spouses and the state.  If that research was correct, when you and your wife took out a state license to get “married,” you didn’t get a real, Godly, two-party “marriage” that should last “til death do we part”–you got a three-party “marriage relationship“.

When you take the “marriage license,” you don’t get a real, Godly “marriage” (Holy Wedlock) you get a “marriage relationship“.

All relationships are legal fictions.

It’s a maxim of law that “a fiction can do no harm.”

Being a legal fiction, a marriage relationship can be terminated at any time by any party to that relationship who simply claims to be somehow harmed by the relationship/fiction.

Result?  No-fault divorces.   If any party to a marriage relationship (legal fiction) simply says “this is no fun,” the relationship between the spouses can be legally dissolved.

It’s not necessary that one of the other parties cause the harm.  The maxim of law is a “fiction can do no harm”.  If the fiction–the marriage relationship, itself, (but not necessarily the other spouse) causes any perceived harm, the fiction can be terminated if any party demands termination.  If any party to the “marriage relationship” simply tires of being supposedly “married,” the “marriage relationship” can be terminated.

More, because the modern, licensed, three-party relationship includes the “state,” it’s like a triangle with you at one vertex, your spouse at the second vertex, and the state at the third vertex.  This hypothetical triangle has three “line segments”  connecting the three vertices.  When you get a divorce, the line segment between you and your spouse is broken, but the two line segments between you and the state and your spouse and the state remain intact and the “state” continues to have standing to exert power and control over you and over your former spouse.

The man I knew in the 1990s actually sued to be divorced from the “state”.  I don’t know what happened to him.  I heard that a judge told him privately that he was right, but I don’t know that he ever successfully “divorced” the “state”.

Incidentally, homosexuals are entitled to the same phony-baloney licensed “marriage relationship” as the rest of us received if they take out a state-issued marriage (relationship) license.  That’s why the homosexual march to get the right to be “married” (actually, to enter into a “marriage relationship”) has been virtually unstoppable.  The queers aren’t getting a real, Godly marriage–but, then, neither are the heterosexuals.  The queers are every bit as entitled to pretend they’re “married” as the rest of us.

In fact, some animal-lovers are already “barking” for the right to “marry” their pets.  You watch and see.  It’s just a matter of time before the state grants “animal-lovers” the right to enter in a state-licensed “marriage (relationship) license” to shack up with their dogs or cats.  Polygamy is another “marriage relationship” that will probably soon be “legal” in “this state”.

The “marriage (relationship) license” is probably the legal foundation for homosexual, inter-species, and polygamist “marriage relationships”.  None of these “relationships” will ever be recognized by God as “real” but if you got the money to pay for a license, those “marriage relationships” will probably be recognized by the this state.

None of these state-licensed “marriage relationships”  are real.  All are legal fictions.  Fictions are lies.  In your reading of the Bible, you must’ve seen who is the “father of all lies”.  The homosexuals will never “be married in the eyes of God,” but they are absolutely entitled to engage in the same legal fictions “in this state” as the heterosexuals.

If my friend’s research and conclusions were generally valid (and I still believe they were), when I thought I was “married” to my wife, I was only engaged in a fictional, pretend “marriage relationship”.  I was essentially licensed by the state to “shack up” with my “girl friend”.  But, while I thought the “marriage” was real, it was apparently only afiction.

It was like me dressing up like Batman and my wife dressing up like Catwoman.  The state licensed us to play “Batman and Catwoman”.  But, because our little “game” was based on a fictional, three-party “marriagerelationship,” it could do no harm.  Therefore, whenever my spouse got bored with playing “Catwoman,” she could quit the game and move on to play “Wonderwoman” with someone else–or all by herself, if that’s what she wanted to do.

You can judge for yourself whether my friend’s research seems to “fit” the facts your alleged “marriage relationship” and subsequent divorce.

If my friend’s research was right, by taking a state-issued marriage license you and your spouse may have never been truly “married” in the first place–you may have been just “playing house”.

I can’t say that despite your marriage license, that you and your spouse weren’t married in the eyes of God.   WhetherGod ignored your “marriage (relationship) license” and recognized you and your spouse as truly “married” and “one flesh” (not a fiction) is unknown to me.  Maybe He makes exceptions for people’s ignorance so long as they are well-intentioned.

But it certainly appears that the third party to your marriage relationship–the “state“–never recognized you and your spouse as really “married” in the sense of Holy Wedlock.  The state only recognized you and your spouse as engaged in a three-party “marriage relationship”–a legal fiction, a lie, that could be terminated any time your spouse decided to quit “playing” Catwoman and demanded her right to instead play Wonderwoman.

Your “marriage relationship” was actually a “menage a trois“– in modern terms, a “threesome”. You, your wife and the state.  Every time you lay down at night with your wife, the state was also there in bed with you:  silent, unseen, unnoticed but watching for the moment when your spouse decided to quit the game so she could play “Wonderwoman”–or you decided to quit playing Batman so you could play “Superman” with somebody else.

.

•  Incidentally, if the previous analysis is roughly correct, what would be the status of childrenborn into a fictional, marriage relationship?  Would they all be deemed to be “illegitimate“?  If your parents took out a state-issued “marriage (relationship) license,” and you were born as a product of that “relationship,” are youdeemed by government to be “legitimate” or “illegitimate”?  Insofar as you use your state-issued Birth Certificate, does that use authorize the state to presume you were born “illegitimate” (outside Holy Wedlock)?

What about me?  If my parents took out a state-issued “marriage (relationship) license,” before I was born, am I deemed to be legitimate or illegitimate?

Historically, questions of legitimacy could determine whether a child could grow up with or without certain rights such as the right to inherit his parent’s estate.  If the child was legitimate, he could inherit.  If he was not legitimate, he might not be able to inherit.

If I understand correctly, somewhere in the 1930s or 1940s, the government declared that birth certificates would no longer indicate if the child was born “legitimate” (to parents who were “married” in “two-become-one-flesh” Holy Wedlock)–or “illegitimate” (born to parents who had “shacked up” one night, but weren’t actually married in Holy Wedlock).

It was argued that by eliminating the legitimacy/illegitimacy item on the birth certificate, the government was sparing the illegitimate children from the “stain” of embarrassment and lost rights.

But I wonder.

If you get a state-issued marriage (relationship) license, do you and your spouse have only a fictional “marriage relationship”?  Does that mean that you and your spouse did not enter into “Holy Wedlock”?  Does it follow that allchildren of a state-licensed “marriage relationships” are deemed “illegitimate” and subject to a loss of rights?   Insofar as the vast majority of children are now born to parents who took out a state marriage (relationship) license, does the state presume that anyone who has a state-issued birth certificate is “illegitimate” and therefore of a diminished legal stature?

If you’re born to parents who were not truly “married” (Holy Wedlock, only two earthly parties), when your parents die, do you have standing at law to inherit?  Or, being illegitimate, do you only (at best) have standing in equity to inherit your parents’ estates?   If your standing to inherit is only in equity, does that allow the state (or its BFFs, the licensed attorneys) to steal part of your parents’ estates?

Thanks to state-issued marriage (relationship) licenses, does the state presume itself to be the “guardian” of all children who issue from that “marriage relationship”?

If the offspring of “marriage relationships” are deemed illegitimate as children, do they remain “illegitimate” as adults?  If so, can the state presume itself, its courts and its lawyers to even act in the capacity of “guardians” for adults?  Does this presumed capacity as “guardian” allow the state to commit acts and exert powers against the “adults” that the adults regard as wrongful or unconstitutional?

Could it be that–when the state declared that it would no longer identify children as being born “legitimate” or “illegitimate” on their birth certificates–the real purpose was not to protect the minority of illegitimate children from subsequent shame or loss of rights, but rather to conceal from the vast majority of children that (thanks to their parents’ state-licensed, marriage relationships) that they were all now presumed to be illegitimate (born into a legal fiction rather than Holy Wedlock) and therefore with less rights than they might otherwise have had?

Do you follow what I’m saying?

Could it be that the state stopped identifying “illegitimate” children on the state-issued birth certificates because doing so would ultimately reveal that all of the children of state-licensed “marriage relationships” would be deemed to beillegitimate?  Could it be that the loss of the legitimate/illegitimate info on the state-issued birth certificate was not intended to protect the illegitimate minority, but instead to help conceal the state’s scheme deprive the vast majority of people of some of their rights?

Inquiring minds wanna know.

.

•  The previous comments are virtually all speculation.  Take ’em all with salt.  They might be more or less true.  They might be completely false.  But, true or false, those comments are at least intriguing.  Plus, true or false, that’s about all I know or suspect about modern marriage relationships.

God bless you and yours.

Al

 

 
99 Comments

Posted by on May 24, 2015 in Marriage/Divorce

 

Tags: ,

99 responses to “State-licensed Marriages–or “Marriage Relationships”?

  1. Ted D. Roofer

    May 24, 2015 at 10:19 PM

    You had a picture posted sometime back of a Dog laying on top of a stone grave marker. It made me cry when I saw it & I will never forget it. I do not think of myself as sissy or prissy. You too have shed some heart wrenching sorrowful tears. Yeshua was MASCULINE & STRONG yet, he wept too.
    Nothing can be said that helps anyone really hurting, nothing that I know of anyway.The following is not of much help, now, either but I’ll send it anyway, or, try to.

    And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
    Revelation 21:4

     
  2. Cathy Baldwin

    May 25, 2015 at 2:56 AM

    If I my ask was your initial trauma centered on emotional pain due to having strong love feelings for your wife that were now reciprocated not? Was there a sad and sorrowful grieving for the actual person or for the structure of marriage and security of a life shared. In other words did you have very strong emotional feelings of love with a loss of the object of your love or more a generalized grief for the loss of the paradigm of marriage? The longest lasting ties are ‘soul ties’, very interesting to see their meaning. Soul ties seem to be a great problem in our sexually free society. There is a serious reason God warns strongly about extramarital relationships, combining physically is also combining soul and soul, the seat of our emotions. I think it can be spiritual also. Now the concept of the law and was the marriage ‘real’ is interesting but was the legal issue as important as the soul tie and do you feel you are free from this tie?

     
    • Adask

      May 25, 2015 at 10:31 AM

      The “soul tie” was to my children. After the divorce, my ex- wouldn’t let me see the kids. I had a court order from the divorce court entitling me to see the kids twice a month. She wouldn’t let me see them. Neither the cops nor the sheriff’s department would enforce the court order. They told me I needed another court order. I couldn’t understand why I needed another court order if I already had one that that no one would enforce. The sheriff’s department was looking for me so it could seize some of my property to pay my ex-‘s attorney fees. I left for Dallas thinking I’d be able to fly the kids in every couple of months. My ex- refused to let the kids visit.

      15 years after the divorce, my ex- told me that the reason she would let me see the kids was that she knew I loved the kids, she knew I was a good father, and she knew that she and her attorney had railroaded me in the divorce court. She was scared to death that if she let me see the kids, I’d grab them, move them to some other state and disappear.

       
      • Ted D. Roofer

        May 25, 2015 at 1:26 PM

        Do you ever see your children now, or, communicate with them in some way? I do not know how they can not hold you in high esteem, i.e., if they know what you are doing & have tried to do for SO LONG. Anyway, if you know how I can find that article you wrote with the picture of the Dog laying on the Marble Stone Grave marker, I will be most grateful.I have isolated myself from people. I don’t know how to not trust them & apparently they know this & take advantage of me. Once in a while somebody will stop by that needs something & IF at all possible I will fill their need or as best as I can. Some people hate dogs & cats. They say an only good dog/cat is a dead dog or cat. These animals are the ONLY “friends” I have EVER had that have not betrayed me. They ARE my true blue LOYAL friends. I try to be the same way to them too. Takes all kinds to make a world tho.

         
      • Adask

        May 25, 2015 at 4:20 PM

        When I began my “crusade” back in A.D. 1983, I also thought that, one day, my kids would recognize that I was working at least 60 hours a week (in addition to a regular job), screaming into my computer, and trying to learn enough law to reverse the injustice that both I and they had suffered. But, in the end, I failed to learn enough law to change things, and my kids came to hate me simply because I wasn’t there.

        They were right. I didn’t realize until after the damage was done and it was too late to change the past, that my job as a Dad is not to play “young hero”. It’s to show up for dinner. I didn’t. The last time I saw any of my kids was 14 years ago. It’s not as if we are adversaries. We are strangers. In their eyes, I’m like some some distant relative that they may have heard about, but haven’t (recently) met. I could show up at their doors some day, but what would be the point? There is no affection between us. That’s not a choice. It’s just the way the world works. If you want the love of someone you love, you’ve got to be there.

        I wasn’t. And I couldn’t be. I didn’t make much money in the year my ex- filed for divorce. We were living in El Paso (a third-world city) where the average income at the time was $5,000/year. I earned $5,200. The divorce court judge ruled that I should pay $400/month, $4,800 per year, in child support. Do the math. It was impossible to pay that obligation.

        My wife refused to let me see my kids. I couldn’t pay the child support. I was scared that I’d be jailed for failure to pay child support. I used to go to the post office to pick up my mail at odd, night-time hours, thinking that the cops might’ve staked out my post office box. Eventually, I realized that I was not on “America’s Most Wanted”. My photo was not to be found in the Post Office billboard.

        Eventually, I realized that no one was looking for me. Nobody gave a damn. I could do all the “bad” that I wanted and nobody would care. But God help me, if I did that which was right: see my kids. Thanks to the court order, my ex- could do whatever wrong (prevent me from seeing the kids) she wanted. I could also do whatever wrong I wanted (don’t pay child support). But I was prevented by law from sitting down to dinner each night with my kids.

        Being prevented by law from doing that which you know is right, is the cruelest form or oppression any government can devise. I can rob banks, commit murder, steal cars and nobody much cares. But, back then, I could go to jail if I had dinner with my kids.

        I wonder how many readers can understand the incredible cruelty of that injustice.

        Of course, back then, the injustice drove me into depression, but I didn’t really understand what was happening until years later, when it was too late to make much of a difference. I kept hoping and hoping, working obsessively to understand. But nothing I did worked.

        Today, I understand the consequences. Back then, I only understood the causes. I tried to change the (past) causes without realizing that, as a practical matter, I could only alter the future consequences by changing my “present” behavior.

        I was wrong. I wasn’t wrong in the sense that I was evil. I was wrong in the sense of people who wind up in concentration camps because they were too ignorant, too trusting to avoid being caught.

        And here I am–32 years later–still driven by that original injustice. Nobody, least of all my kids, really understands what I’m doing or why. I don’t mind. Once upon a time, I thought everyone was “good enough” to be appalled by any injustice and the world would rise up to correct the horrendous injustice I’d suffered. Today, I know better. I don’t expect anyone to even take notice of the injustice I and my kids suffered. They have enough of their own injustices to deal with.

        I don’t mind. I will keep on doing whatever it is I’m doing until the Good LORD pulls the plug on my life.

        I don’t mind what’s happened to me. In some regards, I died back in A.D. 1983. But, I know that, if I hadn’t been subjected to that original injustice, I’d never have published a magazine, hosted radio programs, appeared on 60 Minutes, or written articles on this blog. And I know, that some small number of people have benefited from my efforts over the past 30 years. It may not be many who’ve found some help in my writings, but I know that some have. That please me. More, I think it’s what the Good LORD wanted me to do.

        In a very strange and almost inexplicable way, I have been singularly blessed by the injustice I suffered. Thanks to that injustice, I’ve been driven “kicking and screaming” back to God. Thanks to that injustice, I know that God is real. I found Him, or He found me and I am grateful.

        But if this is really the job the Good LORD called me to do, I just don’t understand why my kid’s lives had to be ruined. Surely, there must’ve been some way that I could be driven to make my small contribution over the past 30 years without wrecking my kids’ lives–right?

        But, actually, maybe not. Truth is, I’m lazy. If I weren’t goaded every day by the injustice I’ve suffered and then learned to see, I’d probably be gone to see a movie today, or be watching TV, or maybe having a beer or twelve with my friends at some bar. But,instead, here I am, poking around on this blog. Why? Because I once suffered a huge injustice, and the resultant rage is still with me, just an inch or two below the surface. That injustice has become my battery, my energy pack.

        If my kids were here, I’d being watching a basketball game and broiling some steaks on a grill. I wouldn’t be writing, I wouldn’t learning. I wouldn’t screaming.

        I don’t think about it much. I don’t dwell on it (unless I happen to react to comment like that of “Ted D. Roofer”). But, the memory of that original injustice is still with me, still as much a part of me as the spring in switchblade. I am to some degree empowered by my inability to forget that injustice.

        And so, here I am, trying to rebalance the scales. I can’t say I’ve had much success, but I’ve had a little. I can’t say that I ever expect to truly “rebalance” the scales. But that’s not really my job. That’s the Good LORD’s job. But it is my job (and yours, too, if you care to hear the calling) to at least try to rebalance the scales–even if you know that you can’t possibly succeed in this life.

         
      • Kelly (dejure)

        May 25, 2015 at 10:34 PM

        I was one of the semi-lucky ones. After figuring out justice was a purchased thing and I could not afford it, I started learning law. Like most, I bought into a lot of stupid, silver bullet, patriot stuff. Then I started doing it their way. Then I started wining.

        My son’s remain ignorant creatures who rely on word of mouth from the one “allowed” to be there to influence them. I did win custody of my daughter and had ten wonderful years with her.

        All that aside, thirty years of law has taught me it really is Satan’s system. However, you can win a battle here and a battle there, but fighting everyone else’s battles will benefit them and leave you destitute. Still, there is satisfaction in putting bullies in their places, however they may be clothed.

        If I was to change anything, it would be to have gone to more of an offensive approach, rather than defending against every case that came along. For example, in Washington, we still have the initiative process. Using it. I would strive to:

        – Compel prosecutors and attorneys general to prosecute public agents to recoup losses the people bear for judgements;

        – Improved public disclosure laws so courts and judges were placed under public scrutiny;

        -. . . . . .

         
  3. Kelly (dejure)

    May 25, 2015 at 2:58 AM

    It has been nearly thirty years since I did an in depth study on marriage and men’s laws regarding. From it, I learned:

    1) The laws changed to reflect the mother is presumed the parent and, based on that, the child could never be a bastard.

    2) Licenses remain what they are – a permission to do what, otherwise, would be illegal. For example, State of (fill in the blank) asserts it is unlawful/illegal to operate a vehicle without a license, to operate a business without a license and so forth.

    NOTE: The latter implies we must have state permission to feed cloth and shelter ourselves and our families absent permission from the state to work for ourselves and our families. Of course, if we wish to work for someone else, there is the religiously parroted assertion we must look to the District of Columbia for permission by way of application for a Social Security Number, though no such law exists.

    3) Until the sixties, violating the driving laws was a crime. Even operating a business without a permission can result in criminal charges. However, those charges usually end up in fines, so are more easily passed as something less, and called infractions.

    Many acts commonly associated with marriage were considered crimes, absent the marriage.

    4) In my country, The State of Washington, my right to exercise and establish religion is protected.

    5) Regarding the aforementioned right, I believe in God, the creator (the one to whom Jesus prayed, handed back the keys to the kingdom of God, and at whose right hand he sits), and that he ordained marriage. The Washington Constitution protects that right.

    Because my right(s) regarding the foregoing are protected and cannot be legislated away, neither WA nor The State of Washington may or can interfere with my right to marry consistent with God’s laws. As such, the state, which is nothing more than my representative government, cannot make illegal the act of marriage.

    6) What we call a marriage by way of marriage license might better be described as a legislative union, a state sanctioned union or other.

    7) A quick dig into Black’s Fourth Edition Law Dictionary for the term marriage directs you to miscegenation, which is intermarrying between races.

    Back in the day, marrying between races was more than frowned on. It was prohibited. However, that problem was solved with the advent of the marriage license. By way of it, a fellow was granted permission to do what, otherwise, was illegal (refer to “2,” above.

    8) The U.S. recognizes common law marriages, as do some states.

    9) Do enough reading on marriage and it becomes obvious, though the practice has been around for more than a few hundred years, merely shacking up is not a marriage.

    Advent of the marriage license schemes aside, marriage required rituals to establish and intent to hold ones selves out to be married.

    In the end, merely that someone applied for a marriage license, in the course of marrying, does not invalidate a marriage.

     
    • Ted D. Roofer

      May 25, 2015 at 3:17 PM

      Kelly,
      @ 8) The U.S. recognizes common law marriages, as do some states.
      TRUE. But we had better STAY in the States that DO, for the marriage to be/stay recognized.

       
      • Kelly (dejure)

        May 25, 2015 at 4:14 PM

        I witnessed that of which you speak regarding a couple who moved to Washington from Colorado. Usually, it takes moving up the courts to get the black robed priests to get a state to honor another state’s decisions, just as the one state wants the other to honor its child support, visitation and other rulings.

        I know DSHS of Washington, which you might as well call a federal agency, will recognize marriages not supported by a license.

        “But we had better STAY in the States that DO, for the marriage to be/stay recognized.”

         
    • Ted D. Roofer

      May 25, 2015 at 7:24 PM

      Sometimes a question can be asked & the question is understood as salt being poured on the wound, but it can also mean the question is asked because somebody hopes things have changed for the better & it would be uplifting to hear something to that effect. Who cares enough to even ask? They are the ones more highly thought of.
      @ > I wonder how many readers can understand the incredible cruelty of that injustice.
      I think we both will agree that nobody but YOU & the Good LORD understand it like you & He does.I could tell you how much or little I understand the injustice but you would not allow what I say to be posted if I told you how much I understand the injustice & what I would like to do about. It’s incredibibly barbaric but I believe in certain situations, fight fire with fire

       
    • Colin

      May 26, 2015 at 2:42 PM

      7) A quick dig into Black’s Fourth Edition Law Dictionary for the term marriage directs you to miscegenation, which is intermarrying between races.

      Back in the day, marrying between races was more than frowned on. It was prohibited. However, that problem was solved with the advent of the marriage license. By way of it, a fellow was granted permission to do what, otherwise, was illegal (refer to “2,” above.

      No. Loving v. Virginia ended the unconstitutional practice of banning miscegenation. Marriage licenses predate that case.

       
      • Gene

        June 7, 2015 at 5:49 AM

        The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Lovings’ convictions in a unanimous decision (dated June 12, 1967), dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia’s argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race—and providing identical penalties to white and black violators—could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

        Chief Justice Earl Warren’s opinion for the unanimous court held that:

        Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the HEART of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under OUR Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. (Caps are my emphasis)

        The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy: ( NO !!! IT IS TO ELIMINATE THE WHITE & BLACK RACES)

        There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.

        Associate Justice Potter Stewart filed a brief concurring opinion. He reiterated his opinion from McLaughlin v. Florida that “it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor.”

        OUR CONSTITUTION???

         
    • Colin

      May 26, 2015 at 2:43 PM

      Sorry, I think I left this response under the wrong comment:

      7) A quick dig into Black’s Fourth Edition Law Dictionary for the term marriage directs you to miscegenation, which is intermarrying between races.

      Back in the day, marrying between races was more than frowned on. It was prohibited. However, that problem was solved with the advent of the marriage license. By way of it, a fellow was granted permission to do what, otherwise, was illegal (refer to “2,” above.

      No. Loving v. Virginia ended the unconstitutional practice of banning miscegenation. Marriage licenses predate that case.

       
      • dejure

        May 26, 2015 at 3:06 PM

        If accurate, thanks for the update. My information was, as indicated, from about twenty and thirty years back. For the most part, we had only law libraries. What Net access there was offered only resources like Wests, which was, and remains, far out of budget for most.

        A quick look at the case shows it to be a 1967 case. As you indicated, marriage licenses existed long before that. Of course, most of us were aware of that, since we were around long before that time.

        Nothing in the case seemed to discredit what I learned back then – that marriage licenses came into existence to allow the illegal act. If you have more than what you gave, it would be helpful.

        ___________________________
        “No. Loving v. Virginia ended the unconstitutional practice of banning miscegenation. Marriage licenses predate that case.”

         
      • Colin

        May 26, 2015 at 3:13 PM

        Licenses do generally permit people to do what would be unlawful otherwise (like drive on public roads), but marriage licenses are a kind of exception. It’s not illegal to hold yourself out as married without a license in any state, as far as I know. Even without a license you can live with someone, have a religious wedding, tell people you’re married, etc. I could be wrong–family law is not my thing–but that’s my understanding.

        A marriage license serves as a record of the wedding and proof of your marital status. It allows you to demonstrate that you’re married in the eyes of the law, but just about everywhere you can also do that by proving you’re common-law married.

        So for example, married couples get at least one legal benefit: they can file their income returns jointly, as a married couple. A marriage license in and of itself doesn’t permit you to do that, it just serves as proof of your married status. It’s that status that gives you the right to file jointly.

        So today, I’d say a license is more a question of documentation and evidence than permission. You don’t need the government’s permission to get married. I don’t know if that’s what marriage licenses were originally for; I don’t know anything about their history.

         
      • dejure

        May 26, 2015 at 3:29 PM

        We don’t need a license to buy something. Even something as significant as a house. Instead, we file papers with the auditor. As such, I believe there is more to a license than most are aware.

        When you obtain a drivers license, you waive rights. For example, obtaining a license carries with it “implied consent.” That implied consent relates to a presumption you waived rights otherwise protected by, in my state, article one, sections seven and nine of the Washington Constitution, which are similar to the fourth and fifth amendments to the federal constitution.

        I suspect (and it is only a suspicion, not documented fact) marriage licenses are much like SSN’s – not required, but people claim they are.

        Nothing in law precludes our filing a marriage certificate with a county recorder.

        Case law (again, stretching back through memory) well establishes that one cannot be harmed by a marriage not done in accordance with law. For example, and more specifically, if one believed he or she was being married by an individuals empowered by the state, “rather than merely empowered by his or her god/God,” the fact the preacher was not, for example, a 501 c type preacher would not work to do the person harm and they could continue as if married pursuant to men’s laws.
        ____________________________________
        “Licenses do generally permit people to do what would be unlawful otherwise (like drive on public roads), but marriage licenses are a kind of exception. It’s not illegal to hold yourself out as married without a license in any state, as far as I know. Even without a license you can live with someone, have a religious wedding, tell people you’re married, etc. I could be wrong–family law is not my thing–but that’s my understanding.

        A marriage license serves as a record of the wedding and proof of your marital status. It allows you to demonstrate that you’re married in the eyes of the law, but just about everywhere you can also do that by proving you’re common-law married.

        So for example, married couples get at least one legal benefit: they can file their income returns jointly, as a married couple. A marriage license in and of itself doesn’t permit you to do that, it just serves as proof of your married status. It’s that status that gives you the right to file jointly.

        So today, I’d say a license is more a question of documentation and evidence than permission. You don’t need the government’s permission to get married. I don’t know if that’s what marriage licenses were originally for; I don’t know anything about their history.”

         
      • Colin

        May 26, 2015 at 3:35 PM

        For example, obtaining a license carries with it “implied consent.”

        Consent to what?

        I suspect (and it is only a suspicion, not documented fact) marriage licenses are much like SSN’s – not required, but people claim they are.

        They claim it because it’s the law. There’s a detailed explanation here: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#SSN

        It is actually required to have a SSN for filing tax returns.

        Case law (again, stretching back through memory) well establishes that one cannot be harmed by a marriage not done in accordance with law.

        Sorry, I don’t really understand the point you’re making.

         
      • dejure

        May 26, 2015 at 3:52 PM

        I worked two grand jury indictments initiated by the IRS. In both instances, the grand jury refused to indict the man, though he had made millions [over the course of years] in his business.

        The man refused a SSN. Of course, he also refused to file tax returns.

        In the feet-high documents of the case, it was well established the U.S. is foreign to the several, individual states, and he could not be compelled to go to the foreign jurisdiction conditional to feeding and clothing himself and his family, as long as he did not enter into interstate commerce.

        I maintain nothing in law requires a state citizen to go to the federal government and obtain an federal identifier, as a condition of working in their state, regardless of the interpretations and assertions found on a given Internet page.

        As with everything, a bit of elaboration can change everything.

         
      • dejure

        May 26, 2015 at 3:58 PM

        By the way, there are several instances of people applying for a SSN for the stated, sole purpose of obtaining a drivers license and such, and being refused.

        Many thought the law interpreted to mean you MUST have an SSN to open a bank account. In truth, the law allows people to sue for the denial, as long as they are not making interest on the account (and at today’s rates, why would they care).

        By the way, I opened such an account, as have others I know and have known.

        Another example of incorrect presumptions would be ZIP codes. The Domestic Mail Manual states, clearly, they are voluntary.

         
      • Colin

        May 26, 2015 at 4:44 PM

        The man refused a SSN. Of course, he also refused to file tax returns.

        Relying on anecdotal evidence is pretty iffy, especially when weighed against the specific cases cited at sources like the TP FAQ. For example, you may or may not have understood exactly what the grand jury did. (Were you privy to their deliberations?) Even if they did refuse to act, it doesn’t excuse an offender from the requirement to pay back taxes–and the refusal to do so is subject to entirely separate penalties.

        I maintain nothing in law requires a state citizen to go to the federal government and obtain an federal identifier, as a condition of working in their state, regardless of the interpretations and assertions found on a given Internet page.

        You can maintain whatever you like, but the law is the law. The cited reference is an argument, not the law itself. It points to specific provisions of the statutes, as well as specific cases, setting out the requirements of the law.

        You seem to be of the opinion that the federal government can only tax interstate commerce. This is an understandable mistake, but it’s still a mistake. The federal government’s power to regulate is limited to interstate commerce and a few other federal concerns, pursuant to Article I Section 8. Its power to tax is separate, and not limited to interstate commerce. (See the same section, plus the Sixteenth Amendment.) The federal government can tax things that aren’t in interstate commerce, including income.

        The idea that the federal government’s taxing authority is limited to interstate commerce is so wrong that it always loses when considered in court. I’m going to predict that you can’t cite a single specific case in which that argument prevailed.

         
      • palani

        May 28, 2015 at 6:32 AM

        @ Colin “Licenses do generally permit people to do what would be unlawful otherwise ”
        A state operated enterprise like a 501(c)(3) church requires a state issued license to join two people in marriage. The two people may apply for the license but the illegal activity without it is on the part of the PREACHER. It is a source of amusement to me that people think that THEIR activity is what is licensed when it is the preacher who has been given this ‘special’ privilege.

        In the same manner … a drivers license handed to a state trooper gives him permission to not bring you in under arrest. The trooper is the one who has the privilege the same as the preacher in the case of the marriage license… YOU aren’t the one being given the privilege … the state actor is.

         
      • Colin

        May 28, 2015 at 8:58 AM

        More imaginary law. You could check the requirements, of course, but why do that when you can make it up? It’s easier to look like an expert if you don’t constrain yourself to the facts, after all.

        Laws vary from state to state, but I’ve never heard of anywhere that requires an officiant to be part of a 501(c)3. No government license is necessary to officiate anywhere that I know of.

        In Texas, for example, any “person who is an officer of a religious organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony” can do it lawfully. No license or 501(c)3 requirement.

         
      • palani

        May 28, 2015 at 2:27 PM

        @ Colin “More imaginary law. You could check the requirements, of course, but why do that when you can make it up?” You practice colorable law yet I am the one making up facts? I just about busted a gut laughing at that one.

        “It’s easier to look like an expert if you don’t constrain yourself to the facts, after all.” There are no facts. Facts are evil deeds and I know of none.

        “I’ve never heard of anywhere that requires an officiant to be part of a 501(c)3” Whoever said that there is such a requirement. The 501(c)(3) is offered as a benefit and applied for. Have you ever approached a preacher about officiating at a marriage without protecting him with a license for the same? Try it sometime and let me know the result.

        ““person who is an officer of a religious organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony” can do it lawfully. No license” Well, not for the minister but for the two whose ceremony he is officiating for. I presume English is not a 2nd language to you but your comments make you appear pretty dense.

         
      • Colin

        May 28, 2015 at 2:41 PM

        There are no facts. Facts are evil deeds and I know of none.

        You do seem curiously unacquainted with them.

        Have you ever approached a preacher about officiating at a marriage without protecting him with a license for the same? Try it sometime and let me know the result. . . .” Well, not for the minister but for the two whose ceremony he is officiating for. I presume English is not a 2nd language to you but your comments make you appear pretty dense.

        More make ’em ups. No, an officiant doesn’t need to be “protected” by a license. A couple and minister can have whatever ceremony they like—the minister won’t get in trouble, whether or not the couple is licensed. The license helps formalize the marriage and makes it easier to claim marital benefits, like allowing the couple to file their tax returns jointly, but isn’t a prerequisite to having a ceremony.

        If I’m wrong, please look up some law or those “evil deeds” other men call facts. I know it’s boring, Palani, especially compared to the fantasies that you can spin off at the drop of a hat. But if you care about truth—do you care about truth?—at some point it’s worth making a serious attempt to educate yourself before pretending you know what you’re talking about.

         
      • palani

        May 28, 2015 at 3:38 PM

        @ Colin “You do seem curiously unacquainted with them.” Thank you. I do try to avoid knowing any evil deeds. When I report them to (in)competent authority it seems I am the one who becomes damaged.

        @ Colin ” like allowing the couple to file their tax returns jointly” … Yes. That is truly the heart of the matter isn’t it? To magically convert two individuals into one is a legal fiction that the taxing authority really likes to prey upon.

        @ Colin “it’s worth making a serious attempt to educate yourself before pretending you know what you’re talking about.” Seriously? You hear voices? … because I haven’t spoken a single word. I am told the plea would be nihil dicit in such a case.

         
    • Ted

      June 2, 2015 at 5:15 PM

      dejure,
      @ >”that marriage licenses came into existence to allow the illegal act. If you have more than what you gave, it would be helpful.”
      dejure, I probably missed something, as I am convinced you are extremely well learned in “Law.”
      Please do not feel slighted, offended, etc., by me sending the following info. You are more than likely already aware of what it says but I don’t know this for certain.
      Marriage License Truth – Macquirelatory.com
      macquirelatory.com/Marriage%20License%20Truth.htm – 21k – Cached – Similar pages
      The word license is derived from the Latin word Licentious, which means lacking restraint … Miscegenation laws, were laws that banned interracial marriage and

       
  4. Morris Sherlin

    May 25, 2015 at 8:23 AM

    I do not think this is the case as we are commanded as Christians to obey the law of the land as long as it does NOT conflict with God’s law. I am certain the Bible would address this if it were so as God would want HIS people to know the correct avenue for marriage. Marriage is a spiritual thing for the “born-again” and not a state thing, so I disagree with your analogy from one side anyway. NOW what the govco. may try and do concerning marriage is a different thought altogether.

     
    • Ted D. Roofer

      May 25, 2015 at 7:57 PM

      Morris Sherlin,
      @ “Marriage is a spiritual thing for the “born-again” and not a state thing,……………………”

      Whoever is “born-again” neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven
      Mark 12:25; Matthew 22:30

      Jesus, was born. He died. He was “born again” after he died, but he was born the 2nd time as a Spirit being, & not a flesh, blood, & bone being.The FIRST BORN of many brethren to come.
      Romans 8:29, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren………………………

       
    • Spade Koolie

      June 11, 2015 at 5:19 AM

      Morris Sherlin,
      @ I do not think…………………….”
      Most people don’t. They just think they do. :-) D
      Courtesy of, D.B.Cooper. A friend & supporter of, palani. :-) D

       
  5. Peg-Powers

    May 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM

    Sometimes we live our life NEVER asking ourself this particular question. (The scripture declares “love others AS you love yourself”. Folks, there is “happiness” in that command! However, we never seem to put that into practice; we fail to properly value our SELF; we fail to notice that little word “AS”.)

    The Question is: WHAT do I WANT to do to make ME HAPPY?

    Dealing with that question alone (with God’s help) saved ME after a 4-year Gut-Wrenching divorce from an unfaithful husband of 19 years!

     
    • Ted D. Roofer

      May 25, 2015 at 12:01 PM

      Peg-Powers
      @ The Question is: WHAT do I WANT to do to make ME HAPPY?

      My question IS, e.g., What can I do today to make Peg-Powers Happy. As far as this, love your neighbor AS yourself, IF I did this, I would not have any love at all for my neighbor, at least that I am aware of. In my first comment, I should have said that Dog was Grieving for his Master. REAL LOVE to me is, an outgoing concern & caring for others. I TRY to think more about other people & less of me. Takes all kinds to make a world tho.

       
  6. Peg-Powers

    May 25, 2015 at 6:57 PM

    Can’t be done. period. IF you don’t first understand and accept your own value you cannot value others in honesty and truth….in Godly relationships. It becomes a “phony self-perpetrating” temporary situation. What you are admitting is that you do NOT believe God loves you and gave His Son in your place for FULL redemption. Get there my friend. And your life will become a victorious abundant situation. You then can walk as a true SON of the Living God, through Christ our Lord.

     
    • Ted D. Roofer

      May 25, 2015 at 7:32 PM

      @ Can’t be done. period. IF you don’t first understand and accept your own value you cannot value others in honesty and truth….in Godly relationships. It becomes a “phony self-perpetrating” temporary situation.
      What is one man’s meat is another woman’s poison. Anyway, our only hope said that of himself, he could do nothing. So tell him what you told me.

       
  7. Peg-Powers

    May 25, 2015 at 8:06 PM

    Christ made full payment for our full redemption, rebirth and sonship. I find confidence and victory and happiness in that. Sorry you don’t get it. The road before us will be paved with Praise and Victory……for those who dare to believe in the promises and in the POWER of the shed blood of the spotless Lamb who now sits on the Right Hand of God the Father!

     
    • Ted D.Roofer aka, Red D.Herring aka Rabbit Trail Leader

      May 27, 2015 at 2:35 AM

      Peg-Powers
      @ > “Christ made full payment for our full redemption, rebirth and sonship. I find confidence and victory and happiness in that. Sorry you don’t get it. The road before us will be paved with Praise and Victory……for those who dare to believe in the promises and in the POWER of the shed blood of the spotless Lamb who now sits on the Right Hand of God the Father!”

      For the whole house of Ahab shall perish: and I will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall,……………………………………” 2nd Kings 9:8

      And it was so, as she rode on the ass, that she came down by the covert of the hill, and, behold, David and his men came down against her; and she met them. 21 Now David had said, Surely in vain have I kept all that this fellow hath in the wilderness, so that nothing was missed of all that pertained unto him: and he hath requited me evil for good. 22 So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. 1st Samuel 25:20-22
      Peg, this tells me that whosoever pisseth against the wall is in a pissing contest that’s all. Sorry you don’t get it.

      @ The road before us will be paved with Praise and Victory.”
      Peg, True love travels on a Gravel Road. 1st Ted 4:4

       
    • Spade Koolie

      June 11, 2015 at 5:31 AM

      Peg-Powers,
      @ Christ made full payment for our full redemption, rebirth and sonship.
      The question now is, What part do we play? Anything we must do? IF you say, just believe & have faith, be specific as to what this really means. Anybody can say just believe & have faith.

       
  8. Colin

    May 26, 2015 at 3:02 PM

    Alfred,

    Your questions are based on an extremely basic misunderstanding of the law. I know you pride yourself on the work you’ve done to understand the American legal system, but if you don’t get this, you truly don’t understand the first thing about the First Amendment. Please consider taking an actual class on the law—your imagination is not a good substitute for studying how law really works.

    If you get a state-issued marriage (relationship) license, do you and your spouse have only a fictional “marriage relationship”?

    It depends on what you mean by “fictional.” The question that really matters is whether the marriage is legal. That’s what’s going to determine whether it has any effect on the spouses’ rights.

    Does that mean that you and your spouse did not enter into “Holy Wedlock”?

    The government doesn’t care. It can’t consider whether a marriage is “holy wedlock,” because that would be a religious determination that the government can’t make. It would violate the First Amendment for the government to start considering whether any particular marriage is “holy” or not. This should be extremely obvious.

    Does it follow that allchildren of a state-licensed “marriage relationships” are deemed “illegitimate” and subject to a loss of rights?

    No. As with many of the fantasies thrown about here, there’s no evidence for it and lots of evidence against it. People born within civil wedlock don’t lose their rights. People who are “deemed illegitimate” don’t lose their rights, except possibly a right to inherit (which their parents can fix anyway by just putting the kid in the will).

    Insofar as the vast majority of children are now born to parents who took out a state marriage (relationship) license, does the state presume that anyone who has a state-issued birth certificate is “illegitimate” and therefore of a diminished legal stature?

    No. Obviously. First, being “illegitimate” isn’t a “diminished legal stature” in any way except whether the child stands to inherit from parents who die without a will. (If I remember right, in most states illegitimate kids in that case can still inherit, but only after legitimate children. But I haven’t studied or thought about this since school, so grain of salt and all.)

    Second, you could actually look around to see if children born to parents with a lawful civil marriage actually suffer any legal disability. They don’t.

    Third, the question is logically incoherent. Nothing about a state marriage license would make the children born of that union illegitimate. It’s like wondering whether having left-handed parents would make a kid illegitimate: the answer is not just “no,” but, “what the heck are you talking about?”

    If you’re born to parents who were not truly “married” (Holy Wedlock, only two earthly parties), when your parents die, do you have standing at law to inherit?

    The government doesn’t know or care whether any particular marriage is “holy.” It can’t consider that question, because of the First Amendment. (Even if it could, why would it care?) The religious status of any union is completely irrelevant to the children’s standing to inherit.

    Thanks to state-issued marriage (relationship) licenses, does the state presume itself to be the “guardian” of all children who issue from that “marriage relationship”?

    No, and again, obviously no. Is the state actually acting as a guardian for all kids issuing from licensed marriages? No. (You could test this by looking to see if there’s any difference between how legitimate and illegitimate kids are treated in court, or by the government.) Is there any law to that effect? No. Is there any other evidence to support this conjecture? No. Does it proceed logically from any principle of law? No.

    Does this presumed capacity as “guardian” allow the state to commit acts and exert powers against the “adults” that the adults regard as wrongful or unconstitutional?

    No.

    Could it be that–when the state declared that it would no longer identify children as being born “legitimate” or “illegitimate” on their birth certificates–the real purpose was not to protect the minority of illegitimate children from subsequent shame or loss of rights, but rather to conceal from the vast majority of children that (thanks to their parents’ state-licensed, marriage relationships) that they were all now presumed to be illegitimate (born into a legal fiction rather than Holy Wedlock) and therefore with less rights than they might otherwise have had?

    No. Alfred, I get that you enjoy conjecturing wild and wooly things about the law, and this one is totally harmless. But consider the process you follow to determine whether your ideas are well-founded or not. If your understanding of the law (particularly the First Amendment) isn’t sufficient to make you sit up and say, “Oh, hey, this doesn’t make sense,” then it’s not sufficient enough for you to make an educated determination as to whether the Man or Other Animals argument, or the fringed flag argument, or anything else you’ve touted here might also be true.

    I’m so sorry to hear about the tough road you walked with regards to your kids. I hope you’re able to reconcile with them one day. And I hope they know at the very least that their dad is a heck of an interesting guy.

     
    • dejure

      May 26, 2015 at 3:39 PM

      When considering marriage and children, and without getting into whether seeking permission from the state waives an otherwise protected right, parens patrie (the state is the presumed parent) remains a real concern for many.

      ============================
      Thanks to state-issued marriage (relationship) licenses, does the state presume itself to be the “guardian” of all children who issue from that “marriage relationship”?

      No, and again, obviously no. Is the state actually acting as a guardian for all kids issuing from licensed marriages? No. (You could test this by looking to see if there’s any difference between how legitimate and illegitimate kids are treated in court, or by the government.) Is there any law to that effect? No. Is there any other evidence to support this conjecture? No. Does it proceed logically from any principle of law? No.
      =============================

       
      • Colin

        May 26, 2015 at 4:28 PM

        Those who are worried about it should pause to consider whether it is applicable to them at all, lest they worry over nothing.

         
    • Ted D.Roofer

      June 1, 2015 at 8:25 AM

      Colin, Have you ever thought about being a fiction writer? Fiction writing is GREAT, You can make up almost anything. Anyway, I believe that Gay marriage should be between a man and a woman.

       
  9. dejure

    May 26, 2015 at 4:06 PM

    I’m so easily sidetracked. I thought I had made it clear, about implied consent because I talked about protections from my state constitution that were similar to the fourth and fifth amendments to the federal constitution.

    In WAshington, you can find the codification of the Driving Code at chapter 46.20 RCW. I do not remember the specific subsection, probably around 160 or 260, but it talks about implied consent. Unfortunately, it does not make any clear distinction of what is implied, aside from saying you must waive your right against self incrimination and give information that can be used against you, or your license will be revoked for a year.

    Several case sites state we cannot be compelled to waive a right as a condition of exercising another right, or even a privilege. However, as is, sadly, the case with OUR [representative] government, you must be belligerent in holding your rights.

    Some years ago, I contacted the DOL to inform them I would not waive even one right to apply for or obtain a drivers license. DOL asked the A.G. to weigh in on the matter. I still have his response – he told DOL they were on their own.

    Simply put, I don’t think he wanted that can of worms opened in a public court.

     
    • Colin

      May 26, 2015 at 4:32 PM

      Unfortunately, it does not make any clear distinction of what is implied, aside from saying you must waive your right against self incrimination and give information that can be used against you, or your license will be revoked for a year.

      Haven’t read the particular thing you’re referencing, but this sounds like a waiver of your right against self incrimination with respect to the information you put on the form. That is, the government could use your application to prove that you live at 1234 Whatever Street, even if you tried to resist testifying to that fact. A driver’s license does not waive fourth or fifth amendment protections generally; you can see that from the constant stream of court cases and legal theory regarding search and seizure doctrine. It would be totally unnecessary to determine whether a drug dog’s barking constitutes probable cause, for example, if getting a driver’s license waived your 4th Amendment rights.

      If you’re concerned about waiver, I’d first stop to figure out what exactly is being waived.

       
      • dejure

        May 26, 2015 at 6:49 PM

        Colin, what would you call compelling one to give evidence to be used against yourself if not a compelled waiver of the right against self incrimination.

        Just for reference, Washington protects rights similar to the fourth and fifth amendments and other states do as well. While many cite the federal protections, we actually have stronger protections under our state constitutions.

        That aside, take some time to read a few driving codes, such as from your state and others. You’ll find implied consent in most, if not all, state driving codes. You’ll also find the term is not defined, just as in Washington. I know, when I broached the matter, including inquiring as to establishing I did not waive rights, the A.G. and DOL dropped any and future matters like hot potatoes.

        Even agencies have assenting and dissenting opinions that can be cited in future actions and to control outcomes of administrative cases that make to the courts. As such, agency actions are not mere anecdotal evidence.

        Even if a license only compelled waiver of a single right, it remains a compelled waiver conditional to getting a license, but which conflicts with established law, saying we cannot be compelled to waive a right conditional of exercising another.

        Done

        As stated, the state law and its codification state you must give evidence to be used to determine if you’ve committed a criminal act or you, without even the benefit of an administrative hearing, lose your license for a year.

         
      • Colin

        May 26, 2015 at 7:45 PM

        Colin, what would you call compelling one to give evidence to be used against yourself if not a compelled waiver of the right against self incrimination.

        It depends. Whether something is self incrimination or not is a relatively common question that courts deal with, so there’s a lot of guidance on the subject. Understanding it requires studying it, not just making assumptions. For example, something is only “self incrimination” if it actually incriminates you, meaning that it tends to lead to a criminal sanction. Something that puts you at risk of a civil penalty only isn’t self incrimination. So you could actually be compelled to provide evidence against yourself if the government immunized you against the criminal penalty (or if what you did wasn’t a crime), even if they just turned around and used that information against you in a civil suit.

        Without knowing how the evidence would be used against you (or even what that evidence might be) it’s not possible to say whether or not it falls under the Fifth Amendment.

        That aside, take some time to read a few driving codes, such as from your state and others. You’ll find implied consent in most, if not all, state driving codes. You’ll also find the term is not defined, just as in Washington.

        Can you give an example? “Implied consent” doesn’t really mean anything if there’s no way to tell what it’s consent for. It’s not just blanket consent for whatever. So again, I can’t really tell what you’re focusing on here.

        I know, when I broached the matter, including inquiring as to establishing I did not waive rights, the A.G. and DOL dropped any and future matters like hot potatoes.

        Based on your previous version of that story, the AG just declined to issue an opinion. That is not at all uncommon. Every state’s AG has a set of rules that determine when they may, must, and can’t answer questions. Without knowing why the AG declined to provide an opinion, there isn’t much information there. (Please be careful about assuming that the absence of information is evidence of your preferred version of events.)

        Even if a license only compelled waiver of a single right, it remains a compelled waiver conditional to getting a license, but which conflicts with established law, saying we cannot be compelled to waive a right conditional of exercising another.

        I think you’re saying that it’s unlawful to force you to waive some right in order to get a driver’s license, and/or unlawful to force you to get a driver’s license in order to operate a motor vehicle. Do I understand your argument correctly here? I’m not sure that operating a motor vehicle without a license is actually a right, and I definitely don’t understand what right you think you’re being compelled to waive. Can you be more specific?

        As stated, the state law and its codification state you must give evidence to be used to determine if you’ve committed a criminal act or you, without even the benefit of an administrative hearing, lose your license for a year.

        I don’t know anything about your state’s motor vehicle laws (or even mine, really), but losing your license for a year doesn’t sound like a criminal sanction to me. And if it’s not, you don’t have an applicable Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. The “crim” in “incrimination” is construed rather strictly. But like I said, it’s not something I know a lot about. Are you talking about a criminal penalty?

         
      • dejure

        May 26, 2015 at 8:08 PM

        Oh for crying out loud.

        “Without knowing how the evidence would be used against you (or even what that evidence might be) it’s not possible to say whether or not it falls under the Fifth Amendment. “

         
      • Colin

        May 26, 2015 at 8:39 PM

        Oh for crying out loud.

        “Without knowing how the evidence would be used against you (or even what that evidence might be) it’s not possible to say whether or not it falls under the Fifth Amendment. “

        I’m sorry, but law is actually, truthfully, really and honestly more complicated than just going with your intuition. I gave one classic example already: your privilege against self-incrimination is not a privilege against giving any information, ever. It does not apply if you don’t face criminal penalties as a consequence of the disclosure. So the government can compel you to provide information under lots of circumstances. There’s even a famous, although I think not very common, tactic of selective immunization. If the government thinks A and B conspired together to commit a crime, they can’t force either to testify to it because of the Fifth Amendment. But if they immunize A, giving her complete immunity to any criminal prosecution that might result from her testimony, she no longer has a Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify.

        Another example would be passwords. Can the government compel you to provide a password, when it would unlock a computer with evidence that could be used to convict you? I don’t know the answer to that question. I know what my intuition says, but my intuition is not the law. If I wanted to answer the question, I’d have to actually research it.

        One of the points I struggle to make here is that law is not something that you just feel your way through. It’s a product of legislation and history, and it’s available in books and online. The rights you’re talking about have been scrutinized, defined, delineated and explored for literally centuries. If you want to really understand how they work, sooner or later you have to start asking hard questions in order to figure it out.

        So for example, if you can’t articulate how the material subject to disclosure might tend to incriminate you, you’d be unable to assert an effective Fifth Amendment privilege.

        For an example of an analysis of how the Fifth Amendment works, see this post. (The blogger, Popehat, is a well-respected private attorney working to defend individual liberty.) Notice how he frames his discussion: he states the question he’s analyzing, cites specific authority on that question, then analyzes how those authorities apply to the particular question at hand. He’s not just gutting it out and assuming his conclusion: he’s going through the logic step-by-step.

         
  10. dejure

    May 26, 2015 at 6:51 PM

    Colin, re “Those who are worried about it should pause to consider whether it is applicable to them at all, lest they worry over nothing,” you’re going to have to elaborate on that one.

    Either people have kids or they don’t. They probably wouldn’t have to think long on it to figure it out.

     
  11. dejure

    May 27, 2015 at 12:16 AM

    Colin, you presume much and, as with anyone else, not all of it is right.

    Law is, much of the time, something you do feel your way through. At least to a degree. That is the stuff of which legal arguments are made. Knowing codes, statutes, rules and regulations are critical, but so is imagination.

    Standing before a judge, whether a case about public records laws, an IRS matter, a land or any other matter, how the case goes depends on what you say on your feet. I had a judge rule against me three times in a trial, and overturn each one of his rulings based on my responses.

    While most my cases were won at the administrative level, they did require what is called gut instinct.

    The fourth and fifth amendments DO extend to civil matters. For example, anytime something could be used against you in a criminal matter, you are not obligated to disclose it. A key to understanding this are the words “could be, ” as in “might.”

    As rule, you do not get “do overs.” You reserve your rights at the onset, or forfeit them. An example is jurisdiction of a court. Merely appearing in court to challenge a motion can grant it. Annotated court rules (e.g., West’s) make clear you must appear specially, for the purpose of challenging jurisdiction, or it is presumed granted. That is, you must reserve your rights in the course of challenging jurisdiction, or lose some of them.

    For reference, I’ve used the “I can’t disclose information because I don’t know how you are going to use it” argument argument more than once. It is, in law, a valid argument, if anything beyond simple identification and your address is being demanded of you.

    If a cop stops you and asks to see your license, you have the right to ask him it it’s a civil or criminal matter. Of course, he will say it’s civil. From your post, it appears you would agree. However, it is also fair to ask the cop if he believes it would be illegal for you to drive without a license. We know he is going to say yes. Clearly, then, it could be said it was not a civil stop and he was looking for evidence of a crime. However, just as with cops rummaging through public records for high power usage to find criminal activities, a cop cannot step over certain lines looking for evidence a crime took place. He/She can only investigate a crime he/she knows took place, which, of course, does not include mere word of mouth.

    From the foregoing, the line is so blurred error must, as law establishes, be on the side of the people, or the public could never win against its own representative government.

    Rights protected by the fourth and fifth amendments or state constitutional equivalents even extend to administrative actions. For this reason, case law findings establish that mere agents of various agencies are, for purposes of liberty and other rights, police. As such, the information they may demand is, for the most part, innocuous, such as your identity, but you do not have to disclose, for example, why you were at a given place or anything else that MIGHT be used against you. Of course, it is no less for a cop.

    I’m fully expect you’ll argue nearly any point I’ve made. Years ago I belonged to a group of judges and attorneys who came together to share ideas and knowledge. One fellow used to challenge me at nearly every point I made. He, especially, showed disdain for my insistence at using constitutional law protections. It was comical to watch his reaction when a Supreme Court decision came down stressing the duty of attorneys to reach to those protections, even in family court.

    You can choose to believe what you want. However, if you ever find yourself representing others, you would do them a grave disservice holding fast to some of your beliefs.

    _________________________
    Colin, saying “and/or unlawful to force you to get a driver’s license in order to operate a motor vehicle” is adding words to my post. Please don’t.
    ________________________

    A note in response to your comment about your presumption of anecdotal evidence and the IRS cases I, earlier, mentioned: The Supreme Court accepted our Writ of Certiori, as one of thirteen they accepted yearly. They found in my client’s favor, as against the IRS. I doubt the judges of that court would call their decision anecdotal.

    _________________________
    I wont beat a dead horse anymore, but part with the suggestion you take time to learn the difference between privileges and liberty rights. In essence, privileges are granted and liberty rights are protected. No constitution granted any right to a citizen of one of the countries known a state. A constitution is, as it has been said so many times, chains that bind government.

    __________________________
    We may do any act not proscribed, while government may only do those acts prescribed.

     
    • Colin

      May 27, 2015 at 2:34 AM

      Colin, you presume much and, as with anyone else, not all of it is right.

      Yes, I do, and no, it isn’t. I don’t know you or your thoughts, so I wind up making a lot of assumptions driving the conversation forward. I appreciate your correcting me whenever I’m wrong.

      Law is, much of the time, something you do feel your way through. At least to a degree. That is the stuff of which legal arguments are made. Knowing codes, statutes, rules and regulations are critical, but so is imagination.

      Imagination is a great tool. But it’s not a substitute for knowing the law. An unimaginative but informed argument will beat an ignorant but creative one every single time. Unfortunately many people, especially those who are searching for ways to invalidate laws they don’t like, start with a conclusion they imagine to be true and then let their imagination fill in all the reasons why it is true.

      Look at the difference between the arguments I linked to (at the TP FAQ and Popehat) and those made on sovereigntist and tax protester blogs about social security, income taxes, gold-fringed flags, etc. You’ll see a huge difference in the rigor of the logic and the detail of the supporting evidence. A wonderfully creative legal argument that challenges conventional wisdom never cites any actual evidence is probably wrong. Especially if someone is claiming their theory will win in court, but can’t find any examples of when it or a theory like it has won.

      In other words, I don’t mean that people shouldn’t be imaginative, but rather that they shouldn’t—as many posters here do—assume that imagination is the same thing as actual knowledge. Especially because actual knowledge is so easy to get now! Coursera has free online law classes taught by excellent professors. Free! I think the reason so few people are willing to invest their time in a class like that, even the people who talk a lot about how much blood, sweat, and tears they’ve invested in learning the law, is that actual knowledge is a threat to their imagination. As long as they don’t know any better, they can keep pretending their pet theory is true. I don’t know whether you fit in that category or not, because I’m not sure I understand your theories.

      The fourth and fifth amendments DO extend to civil matters. For example, anytime something could be used against you in a criminal matter, you are not obligated to disclose it. A key to understanding this are the words “could be, ” as in “might.”

      You misunderstand me, but I think you understand the basic point. Those protections do apply in civil matters. I haven’t said otherwise. The Fifth Amendment only applies if the testimony could be used against you in criminal proceedings, whether you’re asserting those protections in a civil or criminal proceeding. That’s why I’m wondering what kind of disclosure might be problematic on a driver’s license application—what could possibly incriminate you on that? (I don’t want actual details about you, I’m just wondering in general.)

      As rule, you do not get “do overs.” You reserve your rights at the onset, or forfeit them. An example is jurisdiction of a court.

      This isn’t always true. Some rights can be waived, some can’t, and some can be waived and then asserted anyway. In fact, one example of an exception is the Fifth Amendment. You can waive your right to plead the fifth, then assert it in another proceeding. There’s no reservation necessary. Court jurisdiction can also be an exception. You can always assert the lack of subject matter jurisdiction—the right to make that objection or argument can’t be waived, and needn’t be reserved. You’re thinking of personal jurisdiction. Parties do need to challenge PJ up front, and as you say can waive the objection if they don’t.

      If a cop stops you and asks to see your license, you have the right to ask him it it’s a civil or criminal matter. Of course, he will say it’s civil. From your post, it appears you would agree.

      I have no idea if it’s a civil or criminal matter. It depends on why he stopped you.

      However, it is also fair to ask the cop if he believes it would be illegal for you to drive without a license. We know he is going to say yes. Clearly, then, it could be said it was not a civil stop and he was looking for evidence of a crime.

      This is an error. Something can be illegal without being a crime. For example, say there’s a law that requires kids to be in school on weekdays. If a kid skips, he’s doing something illegal, but it’s not a crime. There’s no criminal offense of being truant (at least in my state, as far as I know.)

      Also, you’re assuming that the cop knew you were driving without a license when he stopped you. How would he know that?

      And third, why does it matter? It sounds like you’re thinking about probable cause, but I’m not sure.

      He/She can only investigate a crime he/she knows took place…

      That’s not true at all. LEOs can, for example, conduct searches on safety grounds or upon probable cause during exigent circumstances.

      I’m fully expect you’ll argue nearly any point I’ve made. Years ago I belonged to a group of judges and attorneys who came together to share ideas and knowledge. One fellow used to challenge me at nearly every point I made. He, especially, showed disdain for my insistence at using constitutional law protections. It was comical to watch his reaction when a Supreme Court decision came down stressing the duty of attorneys to reach to those protections, even in family court.

      I do like to argue! I don’t disdain you, though. I like to argue. And you’re interesting.

      A note in response to your comment about your presumption of anecdotal evidence and the IRS cases I, earlier, mentioned: The Supreme Court accepted our Writ of Certiori, as one of thirteen they accepted yearly. They found in my client’s favor, as against the IRS. I doubt the judges of that court would call their decision anecdotal.

      I don’t quite understand. Do you mean the federal Supreme Court? And do you mean they granted you certiorari? If so, congratulations! That’s an achievement in and of itself. But the SCt grants a lot more than 13 certs per year, so I’m a little confused—maybe you’re talking about a state supreme court.

      What was the issue in the case?

      Colin, saying “and/or unlawful to force you to get a driver’s license in order to operate a motor vehicle” is adding words to my post. Please don’t.

      I don’t want to! I’m trying to understand your argument, which is why I said “I think you’re saying…” and asked you to correct me. So, once again, I think this is basically your argument:

      1. The government wants certain information from me on my driver’s license application.
      2. I have a Fifth Amendment right to refuse to disclose that information.
      3. The government can’t refuse to give me a driver’s license just because I exercised my Fifth Amendment right, because that would be asking me to waive one right (the fifth) in order to exercise another (getting a driver’s license).

      Is that accurate?

       
      • Adask

        May 27, 2015 at 1:12 PM

        The idea that anyone knows all the law is absurd. There is too much law for anyone to know and understand in its entirety.

        The idea that anyone can “know” even specific laws is improbable.

        If the law were “fixed” (as if written on stone tablets), it might be possible to “know” it–or at least some of it.

        But if the “the law” was fixed and could be reliably known, why do we have appellate courts? Don’t the judges at the trial court levels “know the law”? Isn’t it true that, being judges they must “know” the law and therefore never make a mistake? If the trial court judges all know the law, it should be impossible for them to make a mistake and we can therefore presume that if they’re reversed on appeal, their error was not accidental, not based on ignorance, but instead evidence of criminal intent to disobey the laws they are obligated to enforce. Instead of being reversed on appeal, judges don’t obey and enforce the fixed, “known” law should be indicted and imprisoned as common felons.

        (If judges were jailed every time they were reversed, I’ll bet that the law would become a lot less ambiguous and uncertain.)

        On the other hand, if you’re willing to concede that even the trial court judges don’t “know the law,” then how can you advise the great unwashed that they must “learn the law”?

        At the Supreme Court level, if the nine justices routinely ruled 9 to 0 that a particular “law” clearly carries just one particular meaning, I’d agree that, no matter how difficult it may be to learn, it’s at least possible to “know” the law.

        But, given that the nine justices routinely rule 5 to 4 on the meaning of a particular law, that proves that in many cases even the 4-justice minority (44%) of the SUPREME COURT don’t “know the law”. Insofar as trial court judges are sometime over-ruled and thereby shown to not “know the law,” and up to 44% of the Supreme Court don’t even “know the law” in specific cases, why would anyone think or recommend that ordinary American can or should “know the law”?

        Collin, you talk about the “law” as if it were as fixed as Einstein’s E-MC2 formula or Euclidean geometry, but that’s just not the case. The law is a crapshoot. It’s an alley fight. It’s like an octagon struggle in the MMA. Down and dirty. Anyone can win. The only way the law is “fixed” is if the judge takes a bribe.

        The “law” is more of a probability or recommendation than a fixed, established, reliable fact. The outcome of many court cases can be predicted on a statistical basis, but in any case, anyone can win, anyone can lose–regardless of whatever the “law” (of probability) may seem to say.

        The “law” isn’t fixed or reliable. It’s always uncertain. With the right defendant, right attorney,right jury, some results may be more likely than others, but any result is possible.

        People who can’t embrace and even enjoy the uncertainty don’t belong in court (or in the MMA). People who want certainty in law must settle cases out of court. People who are able to take their chances with uncertainty can litigate.

        As for imagination, it may be the most powerful force in the courtroom. In a world where the law is truly not “fixed,” imagination can inspire a jury or a judge to view the “law” in a particular way and rule in favor of an imaginative litigant. Once the inherent uncertainty and ambiguity of most law can be shown to the jurors and judge, imagination can take over and the jury can rule not on what the law is (in a fixed sense) but on what the should be in an ideal, or political or even biased sense.

        Most lawsuits are fairly predictable in terms of what will be argued, what precedents will be relied on and what the verdict will be. Such lawsuits are tedious and plentiful.

        But American jurisprudence is dotted with, and determined by, cases that are now deemed to be “landmark” decisions. Those landmark decisions are the result of some imaginative litigant, lawyer or judge who argued that a law meant (or should mean) something entirely different than had previously been supposed (and supposed with great certainty).

        Every one of those landmark cases were based on imagination moreso than fixed law. In every landmark case, some litigant’s imagination triumphed over the judicial system’s presumptions of “fixed law”.

        Insofar as you respect or rely on any “landmark” case, you also implicitly respect the power of imagination in the American judicial system.

        In the end, it’s good to try to “know the law” even though the “law” can’t be “known” with much certainty. But if the law can’t be absolutely known, it can be imagined. Imagination rules.

        You make it a habit to ridicule the “man or other animals” (MOOA) defense I used to stop the Texas Attorney Generals case against myself and six other defendants. You like to point out that “any first year law student could see that that MOOA defense couldn’t possibly work.”

        But you should correct that claim to read that “any UNIMAGINATIVE first-year law student could see why that MOOA defense couldn’t possibly work”. It may be true that the unimaginative drudges in law school or the bar can, at most, see only “fixed law”. But I didn’t win that case with “fixed law”. I won it with the grace of our Father YHWH ha Elohiym–and with imagination.

        I had sufficient intelligence to imagine what the law meant or could mean. I had a sufficient capacity to communicate my “vision” of the law to a jury. And I had the great, good fortune to have a judge in that case who had sufficient intelligence and imagination to see that I might be right. Rather than take a chance on testing my imagined version of the law in court (and perhaps create a “landmark” decision), the Attorney General simply dropped the case.

        After spending nearly $500,000 and six years on the case, the Attorney General was stopped by some pro se’s imagination. That’s a hard perspective for anyone without imagination to accept, but that’s what happened.

        I didn’t “out-litigate” the Attorney General’s Office. I couldn’t. They’re pro’s. I’m, at best, an amateur. They could’ve easily out-litigated me. They could’ve crushed me (and the other six defendants) like a tin can. But they couldn’t out-imagine me. My imagination gave them something they’d never seen before. I came at them from a direction they’d couldn’t defend against. They had no boilerplate documents from their computer to defeat me. I imagined something they’d never before seen, couldn’t imagine, and didn’t know how to defeat. So they folded their tent and beat feet.

        Imagination rules. You can’t be silly with your imagination. But if a litigant’s imagination is plausible, it can make those who think they “know the law” blink.

         
      • Colin

        May 27, 2015 at 2:04 PM

        The idea that anyone knows all the law is absurd. There is too much law for anyone to know and understand in its entirety.

        No one needs to know all the law. You study the law that’s relevant to the issue in front of you. Even specialists in certain kinds of law, like free speech or contracts, study the applicable laws when presented with a new issue or case. They don’t imagine what the law might be—they study what the law actually is.

        The idea that anyone can “know” even specific laws is improbable.

        Why? You read it, you read treatises and articles about it, and you read cases applying it. Sometimes it’s very hard. For example, I once had a case where the issue was whether scienter was an element of a particular Delaware securities law. No court in our jurisdiction had ever considered the issue, so we had to make a serious, complex argument for why our interpretation was right. Sometimes it’s very, very, very, very easy, like whether gold-fringed flags have any legal significance.

        If you aren’t taking those steps—reading the law, reading treatises about the law, reading cases applying the law—then you aren’t even trying to know specific laws, so how could you know how easy or difficult it is?

        But if the “the law” was fixed and could be reliably known, why do we have appellate courts?

        For the hard questions, and for when lower courts make mistakes, and for when it’s time for a change in how the law is interpreted. For example, when the Supreme Court decided that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. Alfred, one of those free law classes would go a long way towards helping you understand issues like what appellate courts are for. If these questions are interesting to you, why not invest a few hours in learning the answers? It’s less fun than imagining them, but it’s also more meaningful.

        But, given that the nine justices routinely rule 5 to 4 on the meaning of a particular law, that proves that in many cases even the 4-justice minority (44%) of the SUPREME COURT don’t “know the law”.

        This is a basic error in logic. The fact that there is uncertainty about some law does not mean there is uncertainty about all law. The questions typically discussed here, such as whether the gold-fringed flag is legally significant, are not the kind of questions that produce divided courts. They are questions on which all courts everywhere agree.

        Even on the harder questions of law, knowing the law means understanding the various possible interpretations, what the facts supporting each interpretation are, and which is probably right. It’s worth putting some effort into educating yourself even, and especially, on the hard issues. But Alfred, you haven’t come close to the hard issues. Things like flag fringes and MOOA and whether the government cares about the religious orthodoxy of marriages are not at all ambiguous. They are very easy questions.

        The law is a crapshoot. It’s an alley fight. It’s like an octagon struggle in the MMA. Down and dirty. Anyone can win. The only way the law is “fixed” is if the judge takes a bribe.

        No. If you file a motion declaring yourself the Emperor of America and announcing the case dismissed, you will lose. If you file a motion declaring that the court lacks jurisdiction because of the flag’s fringes, you will lose. If you file a motion seeking dismissal under California procedural law, but in a Texas court, you will lose. You’re taking the fact that some questions are difficult and assuming, with no evidence or logical support, that all questions are difficult.

        Even the hard questions aren’t “an alley fight.” If you follow serious legal thinkers, like the Volokh blog or SCOTUSBlog, you’ll see that people who are educated—not necessarily lawyers, just people who treat legal questions like serious things to be analyzed—can usually predict outcomes and how courts will decide. Because it’s a question of logic and reason for the most part, not bribery and random chance. But again, you aren’t asking hard questions. Your questions are very easy to answer: the gold-fringed flag is meaningless. MOOA is not an argument that will ever win in court, because it assumes the government is using a particular definition that they aren’t, and can’t, using in fact. The government doesn’t and can’t make determinations about whether a marriage is holy or not. These are incredibly simple and easy questions to analyze.

        But American jurisprudence is dotted with, and determined by, cases that are now deemed to be “landmark” decisions. Those landmark decisions are the result of some imaginative litigant, lawyer or judge who argued that a law meant (or should mean) something entirely different than had previously been supposed (and supposed with great certainty).

        In each one of those cases, the prevailing litigants—no matter how imaginative—didn’t just argue from their imagination. They read the law. They read the applicable cases. They read relevant treatises. From a position of knowledge, rather than fantasy, they made logical arguments about what was true and whether and how the law should change.

        Take Kent Hovind’s case! All the fanciful goofy arguments lost, and lost hard. The prevailing argument was logical and well-informed. It proceeded from an accurate and educated understanding of the law, not some nonsense about the flag’s fringes or the UCC. Imagination may be useful in a court case, but it’s powerless without a logical argument based in actual fact.

        But you should correct that claim to read that “any UNIMAGINATIVE first-year law student could see why that MOOA defense couldn’t possibly work”.

        No matter how imaginative a person is, if they know the first thing about the law or logic they could see that MOOA doesn’t work. MOOA assumes that the government is defining “animal” in a particular way, but you are the only person using that particular definition. The government not only doesn’t try to define “animal” as “not made in God’s image,” it can’t assert that definition—it would be a First Amendment violation. It’s basic, simple logic Alfred: if a judge ever had to rule on a MOOA argument, he’d say, “What’s the evidence that the government is using this one, peculiar, very specific and very unusual definition of “animal,” rather than the one in the dictionary or one that is actually relevant to the law at hand?” You have none, so the motion fails. Even if you could answer that question, it wouldn’t invalidate all the laws—the court would just say, “the government may not presume that Alfred is not made in God’s image.” And the result would be no change whatsoever to the applicability of any law, because no law relies on the assumption that you aren’t made in God’s image.

        Rather than take a chance on testing my imagined version of the law in court (and perhaps create a “landmark” decision), the Attorney General simply dropped the case. After spending nearly $500,000 and six years on the case, the Attorney General was stopped by some pro se’s imagination. That’s a hard perspective for anyone without imagination to accept, but that’s what happened.

        No, Alfred. It’s what you imagine happened. You don’t know what actually happened. No one said, “We’re dropping the case because we’re afraid of MOOA.” There’s no document showing what their decision was based on. And there are many, many, many other more logical and probable reasons why they’d drop the case—such as someone in AG’s office saying, “Why are we wasting money suing these guys?” Or the AG’s office needing to deploy lawyers from that case to a more important one. Or someone getting sick or retiring and needing to reduce their workload. I don’t know what happened any more than you do, but each of those are more likely than your imagined scenario. We know that, at the very least, because you can’t answer the basic problems I’ve pointed out in the MOOA argument. And if you can’t answer them, then how could the courts have been afraid of it? They’d see the same flaws (and probably more besides), and you’d lose on the merits for the same reasons you can’t shore up the argument here. It’s just plain wrong.

        Again, basic flaws in the MOOA argument: it insists that the government use a particular definition then complain about the use of that definition. For MOOA to make sense, you’d have to establish that the government is actually taking the position that you aren’t made in God’s image, and they don’t do that. They don’t care. It’s a secular government, it takes no position whatsoever on whether you’re made in God’s image. No court is going to assume they’re using your definition of “animal” when there are other, more logical, and more constitutionally sound definitions that make much more sense (like “living thing that isn’t a vegetable”, for example).

         
      • Henry

        May 27, 2015 at 4:57 PM

        Some questions about the law are difficult and have uncertain answers, therefore all questions about the law are difficult and have uncertain answers.

        Some uses of gold fringe on the American flag are military, therefore all uses of gold fringe on the American flag are military.

        Some definitions of “animal” make “man or other animals” unconstitutional, therefore all definitions of “animal” make “man or other animals” unconstitutional.

        Etc.

         
      • Jethro!

        May 27, 2015 at 11:04 PM

        “Take Kent Hovind’s case! All the fanciful goofy arguments lost, and lost hard. The prevailing argument was logical and well-informed. It proceeded from an accurate and educated understanding of the law,…”
        Except in Hovind’s case, not a single man came forward and claimed that Kent caused him harm, injury or loss. The prevailing “logical and well-informed” argument was that a man should be imprisoned for harming no other man. This “accurate and educated understanding of the law” is effectively a game of playing make-believe; and in the make-believe world, the rules can change whenever the rule maker wants. That’s not law – it’s perversion.

        “The government not only doesn’t try to define ‘animal’ as ‘not made in God’s image,’ it can’t assert that definition—it would be a First Amendment violation.”
        1) “It” can’t assert anything. It has no mouth.
        2) It’s not a 1st Amend. violation if you AGREE with the definition.

        “It’s basic, simple logic Alfred: if a judge ever had to rule on a MOOA argument, he’d say, ‘What’s the evidence that the government is using this one, peculiar, very specific and very unusual definition of ‘animal,”
        The definition of “animal” as a creature in contradistinction to man is “unusual”? Good lord. Your mind is more warped than I thought.

        “‘the government may not presume that Alfred is not made in God’s image.’ And the result would be no change whatsoever to the applicability of any law, because no law relies on the assumption that you aren’t made in God’s image.”
        Except then God’s law kicks in. You sure you want to go there? (I don’t think you can).

        “No, Alfred. It’s what you imagine happened. You don’t know what actually happened. No one said, ‘We’re dropping the case because we’re afraid of MOOA.’ There’s no document showing what their decision was based on.”
        That’s not the way these victories goes. They go to great lengths to conceal when a non-lawyer whoops “the government” (lest the other peons start getting ideas.) I know because I have personally witnessed these victories then watched how they are covered up up.

        “It’s a secular government, it takes no position whatsoever on whether you’re made in God’s image.”
        Sorry, but there’s no such thing as a secular government. All laws are based upon religious propositions, so all governments are religious in nature. (Unless “secularism” is a religion). The only matter is… WHOSE religion will predominate those laws?

         
      • Ted D.Roofer

        May 30, 2015 at 10:05 AM

        Colin,
        @ > “I try not to engage trolls generally. I find it’s the best way to deal with them; “discrediting” them is pointless, since they aren’t credible to begin with. And they’re boring, because they won’t have a real conversation with you–they just change the subject to keep the attention on themselves.”
        ok, so you like to discredit “non trolls”. I don’t think that’s FAIR. You make me feel so unnecessary.

         
  12. Cathy Baldwin

    May 27, 2015 at 3:23 AM

    I am so sorry you had the life changing and painful loss in your life, Alfred. It was a profound thing to simply read about and very solemn. It seems hard to imagine the coping with profound emotional pain and the extent of the experiences that reach into the years and affect such long periods of our lives. It seems there are things like this in lives that are really explained as ‘biblical’. Your sharing with such honesty of your divorce experience was very deep. I felt a sense of unfairness and sorrow in reading your story, most especially the children involvement. God Bless You. xxx Love cathy

     
  13. Adask

    May 27, 2015 at 1:30 PM

    Thank you for your understanding, sympathy and blessing. But in retrospect, I see that much of my trouble was of my own making. Not so much in relation to my ex-, but rather in relation to the Good LORD.

    I really didn’t have any relationship with the Good LORD when my divorce took place. I paid lip-service to God, but that was as far as it went. I was uncommonly strong, intelligent and good-looking. I could handle things on my own. I didn’t object to God, but I didn’t really need Him.

    In the aftermath of my divorce, I came to find Him or recognize Him as he found me. I look back at my “tribulations” and today I view them as evidence of God trying to get my attention. I was trying to fight the judicial system rather than serve the Good LORD. The Good LORD let me try to fight the system but I never succeeded in the least measure until after I “got the message” and became a servant rather than a warrior.

    I’ll tell you something true: If the Good LORD calls you, you might just as well take the call because He will keep calling at all hours, day and night, until you do.

    In retrospect, I think that most of my trouble was based on my early refusal or inability to recognize God’s “call”. Once I took that “call,” my life did not become perfect, but I began to understand what was happening and accept and even enjoy much of what I regard as my “calling”.

    My life is still imperfect. I can’t imagine that many people would want my life. But I would have no other–and that may be my primary blessing. I like what I’m doing. I like being a servant. (Mostly.)

     
    • Ted D.Roofer

      May 28, 2015 at 9:08 PM

      How Many Federal Laws Are There? No One Knows. | Kowal …
      http://www.kowal.com/?q=How-Many-Federal-Laws-Are-There%3F – 19k – Cached – Similar pages
      Feb 7, 2013 … No one knows how many laws there are in the United States. Apparently, no one can count that high. They’ve been accumulating, of course, ..

       
      • palani

        May 29, 2015 at 8:59 AM

        @ D. B. Cooper “No one knows how many laws there are in the United States.”

        The Federal period ended in 1812 …. defeat by the British. There are no Federal laws in the United States after it has been conquered. The invader gets to call them NATIONAL laws now. He can even write the original 13th amendment from the history books.

         
  14. henry

    May 28, 2015 at 12:45 AM

    A license is a grant from a competent authority to do what would otherwise be unlawful, a trespass, or a tort. A contract is an agreement between parties. Is marriage a contract or a license? When did the states start issuing a license? Were the marriages before that date deemed to be invalid? Is is possible to enter into a marriage contract today without getting a marriage license? I posed these questions to people 20 years ago. I know several of the people that I spoke to later got married without a license. They are still married today.

    As you point out that a marriage license has three parties: the two getting married and the corporate state that issued the license. Back in the day, men married women. They promised to love, care for, and be faithful to her for the rest of their lives. The role of the state in this contract is to ensure that all parties knowingly entered the contract (age of consent) and what to do when one or both parties wish to terminate the contract. If the state is a party to the marriage, the woman is supported by the state. I believe that the state does not want men in the marriage and will do what it takes to help the woman to request that her duties of the marriage to be terminated but the man’s duties be maintained.

    As to illegitimacy, who decides? Those holding the American principle (governments are instituted to secure the unalienable rights of each man and woman) would declare the corporate state to be illegitimate. The corporate state has acted as if the Constitution is illegitimate. Why would you care if our servants thought that contracts that you entered with others were illegitimate?

    If two people have a marriage contract but no license do the no-fault divorce laws apply to them?

    If two people of the same sex enter into a marriage contract, why would I have anything to say about it?

    If a grownup wants to marry a child, at some age, the child cannot give consent. If a grownup has sex with a person who is not old enough to give consent then the grownup would be raping the child.

    An animal cannot give consent to enter into any contract so it cannot enter into a marriage contract. If a person wants to have sex with an animal that they own, I would hope that there are public health laws to restrict this but I don’t know what they are.

    Can a marriage contract have more than two parties? I’m not sure.

    Any reference to religion to help define these issues is troublesome. Could the government decide that a Jew could not marry a gentile? A Baptist marry a Lutheran? A Democrat marry a Republican? If the government uses a religious text to assist it in determining these issues then those who are not of the same faith would have a case against the state. If the governments are instituted to secure your rights then, unless someone else claims that you are violating their rights, the government should enforce your contracts.

     
  15. Ted D.Roofer

    May 28, 2015 at 3:20 AM

    henry,
    @ > “A license is a grant from a competent authority to do what would otherwise be unlawful, a trespass, or a tort.”
    Wow !!! A Competent Authority?!?! I hate to think where we would be if there were any incompetent authorities especially with the power they have. :-) D

     
    • henry

      May 28, 2015 at 3:21 PM

      I could sell you a license to hunt but since I do not have the authority to issue such licenses, I am not a competent authority in this matter. If I owned a game reserve, I could sell you a license to hunt elephants on my game preserve.

      What authority does the government have in issuing marriage licenses? If people accept what the government does then they have the authority.

       
      • Ted D.Roofer

        May 30, 2015 at 9:46 AM

        henry,
        @ > I could sell you a license to hunt but since I do not have the authority to issue such licenses, I am not a competent authority in this matter.
        That’s alright. I am not interested in buying the license anyway. BUT!! I like yer werk. I liked those questions you asked a long time ago too. Those questions you posed for others to ponder. I had umm saved, but, somehow, everything I save gets lost. Can’t figger it out. Don’t know how to go back on this blog & find umm either. Could you, maybe, help me out there? Thanks

         
  16. Toland

    May 28, 2015 at 3:38 AM

    This looks interesting and perhaps probatory.

    California Government Code

    § 100.

    (a) The sovereignty of the state resides in the people thereof, and all writs and processes shall issue in their name.

    (b) The style of all process shall be “The People of the State of California,” and all prosecutions shall be conducted in their name and by their authority.

     
    • Spade Koolie

      June 11, 2015 at 5:09 AM

      Toland,
      @ (b) The style of all process shall be “The People of the State of California,” and all prosecutions shall be conducted in their name and by their authority.
      What if it was written, “in the name and by the authority thereof”? This means the SAME thing doesn’t it ?

       
  17. Ted D.Roofer

    May 28, 2015 at 8:48 PM

    Toland,
    California Government Code

    § 100.

    (a) The sovereignty of the state resides in the people thereof, and all writs and processes shall issue in their name.

    (b) The style of all process shall be “The People of the State of California,” and all prosecutions shall be conducted in their name and by their authority.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Yes, but for some unknown reason(s) the powers that be say this is written for historical purposes only & for History Buffs. Then again, they will say anything IF you are alone & they KNOW no one is backing you. I have seen attorneys & Judges foaming at the mouth with their eyes wide open in a way I cannot explain, jerking, & making strange gestures that to me were demonic. I have seen “odd looking people” <? of an olive green like color in the courtrooms doing everything in unison like programmed robots. The only way anyone would believe this is they would have to experience this & I will not wish that upon anyone. dejure hit the nail on the head when he said it is a system of Satan. IT IS !!!

     
  18. Adask

    May 28, 2015 at 9:09 PM

    The question about “state” sovereignty is this: In what capacity are the people sovereign? As individual men and women–or as a collective? In both capacities, the “sovereignty of the state resides in the people”. But in the first capacity (where individual men and woman are each sovereign), the people have unalienable Rights. In the second capacity (as a collective) the individual men and women may have some privileges (associated with their duties) but no God-given, unalienable Rights.

     
    • henry

      May 28, 2015 at 11:10 PM

      America is the land of the free and home of the brave where you can’t fight city hall. There is an obvious conflict in this statement (the government is your servant and your master) but most people hold both ideas in their head without seeing the conflict. The powers that be use this conflict to impose their will. Only in exposing and clarifying the conflict can wake the American people from their dis-empowered hypnotic state. The conflict is similar to that of Hal in 2001 a space odyssey. Hal (the intelligent computer) is given the task to keep the humans alive and complete the mission. When it determines that there is a conflict, it goes insane. Look at the American people. The insanity that you see comes from this conflict.

       
  19. Roger

    May 28, 2015 at 11:44 PM

    No one has ever been individually sovereign in this country.

    The concept of individual sovereignty is proper to the European feudalism that certain influences wish to re-establish globally, but it is completely foreign to the de jure American system which has only ever acknowledged the collective sovereignty of the people.

    ‘…the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution. It is remarkable that in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights, and their own proper sovereignty, and conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, “We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution.” Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a constitution…’

    – Chisholm v. Georgia, Chief Justice John Jay, in the majority, 1793

    As the legal dictionaries make clear (assuming we’re using standard definitions of words here), an essential attribute of “sovereignty” is law-making power. But nowhere in this country’s history has any individual’s power to make law ever been recognized. In fact, this power was explicitly rejected by the Founders.

    Fortunately, this absence of individual sovereignty has nothing whatsoever to do the people’s God-given unalienable rights. There is no inconsistency between the recognition of God-given unalienable rights for the individual and collective sovereignty for the people. Since having God-given unalienable rights does not imply one is individually sovereign, the lack of individual sovereignty is no obstacle to the recognition of one’s God-given unalienable rights.

    Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition:

    SOVEREIGNTY. The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived… The power to do everything in a state without accountability – to make laws, to execute and to apply them, to impose and collect taxes and levy contributions, to make war or peace, to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like.

     
    • Adask

      May 29, 2015 at 1:47 AM

      You cited the following excerpt from Chisholm vs. Georgia to prove that the people have never been deemed individual sovereigns:

      ‘…the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution. It is remarkable that in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights, and their own proper sovereignty, and conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, “We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution.” Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a constitution…’

      – Chisholm v. Georgia, Chief Justice John Jay, in the majority, 1793

      You highlighted the words “collective and national” to prove your point, but you neglected to focus on “the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country”. The word “sovereigns” is plural. How do you square “sovereigns” (plural) with your claim that the the people have never been deemed individual sovereigns?

       
      • Ted D.Roofer

        May 29, 2015 at 3:38 PM

        IF we KNOW WHY and HOW the Train is off the track, this does not put the Train back on the Track. We have to work with what we have whether we like it or not.

         
      • Roger

        May 29, 2015 at 7:22 PM

        The people are sovereigns (plural) by virtue of their being “joint tenants in the sovereignty”, as Justice Jay puts it elsewhere in the same opinion. Yet the phrase “the sovereignty” is clearly singular – that is, collective.

        In the American system, no one has ever made law in his individually capacity. Rather, the people are the law makers (plural) – that is, the sovereigns (plural) – in their collective capacity.

         
      • Adask

        May 29, 2015 at 10:24 PM

        It’s true that they were sovereigns (plural)–meaning a collection, assembly or even assocation composed of some some number of individual sovereigns–who acted in their “collective capacity”. But that capacity–especially at the time of Chisholm vs Georgia–did not create a singular, sovereign “collective” in the modern sense of a noun used by Communism, socialism, democracy and similar collectivist philosophies.

        In the phrase “in their collective capacity,” the word collective is used as an adjective, not a noun. According to Webster’s A.D. 1828 dictionary, at the time of Chisholm vs. Georgia the term “collective” existed only as an adjective or adverb, but not as a noun.

        You seem to be using modern definitions to supply the meaning for words that are two centuries old. That’s not a reliable method to discover meanings or truths.

         
      • Henry

        May 29, 2015 at 8:27 PM

        @Roger

        This term “joint tenancy” is interesting because it has a precise meaning, and no doubt Justice Jay chose his words carefully.

        Since you like Black’s Law: “Joint tenants have one and the same interest, accruing by one and the same conveyance, commencing at one and the same time, and held by one and the same undivided possession.”

        Joint tenancy means collective possession. The interest held by joint tenants is not exercisable in their individual capacity. This term has had this meaning since medieval times.

         
      • Adask

        May 29, 2015 at 10:04 PM

        “joint tenancy” has a “precise meaning”?

        Izzat so? Do you know that for a fact, or are you just making it up?

        “precise meaning” WHEN? We have 9 editions of Black’s law dictionary–an average of one new edition every 14 years. The reason for 9 editions is not only that new words are added and archaic words might be eliminated, but also because the meanings of words change over time. More, it’s relatively rare for any word in any edition of Black’s to have a single and “precise” definition. I’ll bet that at least 95% of the words defined by Black’s have multiple definitions.

        You might be interested to know that the A.D. 1828 Websters (written about 40 years after the Constitution was adopted) defines “collective” as an adjective and also as an adverb, but does not define “collective” as a noun. Thus, according to Webster, there was no singular “collective” to be a singular sovereign back in the days of the American Revolution. There’s a good chance that the concept of a “collective” as a noun was coined by Karl Marx somewhere around the time of our Civil War.

        I doubt that you can find a definition single “Joint tenancy” that has any clear association with a “collective” as a noun from the era when the Constitution was first adopted and Chisholm vs. Georgia was first decided.

        If you look up “joint tenancy” in Black’s 9th, you’ll find, “See TENANCY.” That’s all.

        Go to “Tenancy” and you’ll find “Joint Tenancy” which has a fairly complex definition at does not include or imply the noun “collective”.

        Curiously, Black’s 9th defines several terms that include two or more words–one of which is “collective”–but does not define the single word “collective” as a noun.

        Where did you find your “precise definition” of “collective” from the era of Chisholm vs. Georgia–in a fortune cookie?

        Pending your production of the “precise definition” of “collective” as a noun from the Chisholm vs. Georgia, I’m going to presume that you be dumb, OK?

        No doubt that Justice Jay chose his words carefully. But, so far, I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that the word “collective” as a noun was available for him to choose.

        I’m a little surprised that Colin, who seems to delight in telling people who at least consider (and sometimes believe) some of the concepts on this blog never seems to get around to criticizing the trolls who sometimes visit this blog. It’s almost as if Colin has an agenda to simply criticize this blog rather than seek to find some truth. I.e., Colin should’ve seen instantly that your references to a “precise definition” for “joint tenancy” that implicated a “collective” as a noun was flawed. Maybe that was just an accidental oversight, maybe Colin’s not as smart as some suppose, maybe Colin has an agenda to discredit this blog but not any of its trolls. We shall see.

         
      • Roger

        May 29, 2015 at 8:49 PM

        Henry,

        It looks like you’re importing the idea of “exercising an interest” from your dealings in finance. This phrase has a somewhat different meaning in this context.

        I agree with your basic point though.

         
      • Roger

        May 29, 2015 at 11:41 PM

        Al wrote > In the phrase “in their collective capacity,” the word collective is used as an adjective, not a noun.

        Of course. Has anyone in this thread been using “collective” as a noun? I don’t think so. I’ve only seen it used in contrast to “individual”, where both are adjectives.

        Chief Justice Jay again:

        “…the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution.”

        Let’s have a look-see at Webster’s 1828 edition:

        COLLECTIVE. formed by gathering; gathered into a mass, sum, or body; congregated, or aggregated.

        Even using this definition from Webster’s 1828 edition, we find Chief Justice Jay’s attribution of sovereignty to the people’s “collective” capacity to mean substantially the same thing as when we used a modern dictionary.

        But this is hardly a news flash, since nearly every essential attribute of “sovereignty” (see the above definition from Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition) has never existed on an individual basis in this country.

        Or, have you found a different definition of “sovereignty”: one that applies to the individual in the American legal system? If so, please copy-and-paste that definition here for all (especially the trolls) to see, as time permits.

         
      • Colin

        May 29, 2015 at 11:41 PM

        I’m a little surprised that Colin, who seems to delight in telling people who at least consider (and sometimes believe) some of the concepts on this blog never seems to get around to criticizing the trolls who sometimes visit this blog. It’s almost as if Colin has an agenda to simply criticize this blog rather than seek to find some truth. I.e., Colin should’ve seen instantly that your references to a “precise definition” for “joint tenancy” that implicated a “collective” as a noun was flawed. Maybe that was just an accidental oversight, maybe Colin’s not as smart as some suppose, maybe Colin has an agenda to discredit this blog but not any of its trolls. We shall see.

        I try not to engage trolls generally. I find it’s the best way to deal with them; “discrediting” them is pointless, since they aren’t credible to begin with. And they’re boring, because they won’t have a real conversation with you–they just change the subject to keep the attention on themselves.

        I’m sorry that you’ve retreated into another conspiracy theory. I don’t have any hidden agendas. I’ve explained several times why I comment here. My goal isn’t to discredit you, but irrational ideas that can hurt people. You espouse some of those ideas; perhaps your personal attachment to them makes it feel as if I’m attacking you. Consider please that if you can’t defend your ideas rationally, they might be wrong; conspiratorial fantasies (I really won that case but the court made sure no one knew about it, Colin is just here to discredit me and promote the trolls, etc.) give you an excuse not to do the hard but moral work of trying to figure out whether your notions are accurate or not. Living in a fantasy world is easy; actually engaging the real world runs the risk of proving your cherished ideas to be wrong. (Why won’t you take a class in the law, again? I think it’s because you’ll learn things you don’t want to be true; you certainly have another explanation, but I can’t figure it out.)

        To answer your current question–and I like to talk, I’ll always answer questions if you ask them and I have the time–I don’t have any special knowledge that would help. I don’t think the quote referring to joint tenancy was meant to imply that the sovereignty of the people is literally a form of joint tenancy, which is typically a doctrine that applies to real estate rather than political power. Extrapolating fine meanings from various definitions of “joint tenancy” won’t help you parse a reference that wasn’t meant to be taken so literally, I think. In essence I think you’re arguing over how many angels fit on the head of a pin.

        As for the nature of sovereignty, I think it depends on the scale of the action. Typically I don’t think individuals are sovereign when acting in a community, because the community has the power to override individual decisions for the most part. So for example, no individual person has the right to declare war on France or set fire to the town square, meaning that individuals aren’t sovereign on that level. On the other hand, there are some decisions that can only be made by the individual. To take an extreme example, someone engaged in civil disobedience is acting as their own highest authority. Does that make them sovereign? I dunno–I think it depends on how you define “sovereign.” But that’s all just my personal opinion, I’ve never studied the question of where sovereignty resides and have no particularly useful comments to add to the discussion. Which is why I didn’t add anything until my name came up.

         
      • Toland

        May 30, 2015 at 6:00 AM

        Since we’re all into dictionaries here, one more definition to deliberate over like learned gentlemen….

        Under what conditions does the following describe the individual man or woman in U.S. law? Under what conditions does it describe the collective We the People (perhaps via our elected representatives)?

        SOVEREIGN that which is preeminent among all the others. For instance, in a monarchy, the king as sovereign has near absolute power, while in a democracy, the people have the sovereign power. Blackstone, the eighteenth century legal theorist, defined sovereign power to mean “the making of laws.” In ancient England, the king’s word was law, in today’s democratic governments, the law-making function has been taken over by representative bodies such as Congress. Other incidents of sovereignty in addition to law-making power are sovereign immunity, which prohibits lawsuits against the sovereign without its permission, and eminent domain, which allows the sovereign to take private property and put it to public use.

        Barron’s Law Dictionary, 2010

         
      • Roger

        May 30, 2015 at 1:11 PM

        Toland > “Under what conditions does the following describe the individual man or woman in U.S. law?”

        None whatsoever.

        No individual man or woman in U.S. law is preeminent among all the others.

        No individual man or woman in U.S. law has the power to make laws.

        No individual man or woman in U.S. law can invoke sovereign immunity.

        No individual man or woman in U.S. law can exercise eminent domain.

        So that’s 0-for-4. Collective, as opposed to individual, sovereignty wins by a shutout in Barron’s Law Dictionary.

        How’s about we attack this conundrum from a different direction and take the “show me the law” approach?

        Who can show me the law, ANY law, where the individual man or woman is recognized as fitting ANY definition of “sovereignty” found in a legal dictionary?

        Exhibit A: a law you think recognizes individual sovereignty

        Exhibit B: a definition of sovereignty from a legal dictionary

        Let’s start there and see where it gets us.

         
      • Toland

        May 30, 2015 at 10:35 PM

        Roger –

        Consider jury nullification. The power of a jury to judge the law as well as the facts puts it literally above the law in certain respects, unlike anyone else in the courtroom.

        On the other hand, the only reason the jury is given this power of sovereignty in the first place is that the jury is assumed to represent the people at large. So, in a way, a jury is a representative body – representing the sovereign.

        Funny how the endlessly hand-wringing “false-alternative media” (as you call it) is mostly silent on this immense power of the people to effectively address the wrongs of government about which these “do-gooders” endlessly wring their hands.

         
      • Roger

        May 31, 2015 at 1:50 AM

        Interesting factoid about jury nullification. The first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court – the same John Jay quoted earlier from Chisholm v. Georgia – would explicitly inform the jurors in his trial court of their ability to nullify the law.

         
    • Ted D.Roofer

      May 30, 2015 at 10:30 AM

      Roger,
      @ >” No one has ever been individually sovereign in this country.”
      On the 60 Minute interview video with Alfred Adask, it was either the Sheriff, or, the Chief of police, I forget his capacity, anyway his Son was killed in the shootout that killed Jerry Kane & his young Son. This man, let’s say he was the Chief of police, anyway he said something that stunned me. He said, IF my Son HAD KNOWN that Jerry Kane was a Sovereign citizen, my Son would still be alive today. Now I suppose that is wide open for speculation for others to debate, but, it was very clear to me what he said. Then again we all seem to see so many things so different.

       
  20. Ted D.Roofer

    May 29, 2015 at 12:21 AM

    Roger,
    @ the people, in their collective and national capacity, and, the people’s God-given unalienable rights.”
    ok, does this also mean the people’s God-given unalienable rights only apply to people in their collective and national capacity?

     
  21. cathy

    May 29, 2015 at 1:57 AM

    Alfred, I definitely understand your understanding of how much you have gained. Actually unimaginable gain in spite of the suffering. I feel the greatest part of the gain is to see Him and His position of ‘Everything’. In that awareness is automatic knowledge of our unimaginable position of being in the Presence of the most wonderful, powerful, good and faithful Being possible, and, we know He is thinking about us for this to happen. Jesus saved me when I was 47 and with all the realizations that flood in come the understanding of how your lack of relationship with the Lord caused such unnecessary sin to rule your mind and decisions. It is very fearsome to understand. What a wonderful discussion.

     
  22. Ted D.Roofer

    May 29, 2015 at 3:24 PM

    palani,
    @ @ D. B. Cooper “No one knows how many laws there are in the United States.”
    palani it is said, To this day, no one knows his real name. I believe Roger & Henry knows. :-) D
    My next username will be, Sloopy D.Spoofer, just so you know. :-) D
    P.S. SEE. It’s not is said that matters, it’s, WHO is it? This is what matters. :-) D

     
  23. Ted D.Roofer

    May 29, 2015 at 3:27 PM

    Palani.
    It’s NOT WHAT is said that matters Sorry baut dat..

     
  24. Ted D.Roofer

    June 2, 2015 at 3:19 AM

    Jethro,
    @ > “The definition of “animal” as a creature in contradistinction to man is “unusual”? Good lord. Your mind is more warped than I thought.”
    Jethro, You are on a roll to becoming known as a troll. Remember that 12th Commandment now.D

     
  25. Ted

    June 2, 2015 at 4:54 PM

    I had Jethro’s statement UNDER Colin’s Statement, but it sure did not post that way. Somehow, Jethro’s statement got up into Colin’s statement. No sense in trying to correct it here, now, as this comment will probably not post right either.

     
    • Adask

      June 2, 2015 at 6:37 PM

      No, probably not.

       
      • Ted

        June 2, 2015 at 7:27 PM

        @ > No, probably not.
        Well, that message DID post exactly as I sent it. I have a tendency to type in my “extra” thoughts. I did not want anyone else thinking Jethro said something that he did not say. Jethro would know, but somebody else might not.

         
  26. Adask

    June 3, 2015 at 1:55 AM

    I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t know, but you can never tell, right?

     
    • Ted

      June 3, 2015 at 10:18 AM

      @ I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t know, but you can never tell, right?
      You cannot read ALL comments, & we both know that. So who knows? The shadow do. He no. :-) D

       
    • Ted

      June 3, 2015 at 10:20 AM

      ONE NEV-UHH KNOW FO SHO. SOME THINK THEY KNOW THO. :-) D

       
  27. Spade Koolie

    June 11, 2015 at 4:59 AM

    palani,
    There IS NOT ONE REPLY BUTTON for ANY of your messages. At least HERE on my end.
    Anyway, @ > To magically convert two individuals into one is a legal fiction that the taxing authority really likes to prey upon.
    AND, our PRAYING about their PREYING doesn’t seem to matter. SOoooo what do we do? Maybe Patriot One, another poster, can help resolve this dilemma.

     
    • palani

      June 13, 2015 at 6:48 AM

      @ D.B. Cooper “There IS NOT ONE REPLY BUTTON for ANY of your messages. ”
      When you reply to someone elses message you don’t get your own reply control. You just scroll up to the first reply button you find.

       
  28. Inquiring Mind

    June 11, 2015 at 10:27 PM

    Can a couple be in both a civilly licensed marriage and a common law marriage at the same time with each other? If so, can the couple declare that specific or all actions are done under one or the other?

     
    • palani

      June 13, 2015 at 6:55 AM

      @ Inquiring Mind
      There are ways to sever contractual obligations and there are ways to notify the public of their intentions. It must be this way or else the nuisance of all your contracts would follow you from birth to death.

       
      • Inquiring Mind

        June 15, 2015 at 12:04 AM

        Thanks for your reply palani.

        I was thinking that an affadavit filed with a county which recognizes common law marriage, asserting the existence of the common law marriage, and explicitly identifying that all actions are to be presumed and assumed done under the common law marriage and not the civil marriage unless explictly and intentionally stated otherwise in writing. What do you think?

         
  29. Happy Campbell

    June 27, 2015 at 2:43 AM

    Re: GAY Marriage
    Justice Scalia dissent
    “Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better”
    —————————————
    One of the best parts of any Supreme Court decision that doesn’t go the absolute farthest-right way is reading Justice Antonin Scalia’s increasingly unhinged dissenting opinions. He does not disappoint here, beginning by calling the decision a “threat to American democracy” and continuing on to offer up the important legal opinion that the stupid Supreme Court is made up of stupid Harvard and Yale graduates who aren’t from the heartland and don’t understand real Americans because they’re so stupid and radical and not-Protestant and such.

    ” Because me and my fellow Ivy-League mostly-Catholic highbrow lawyerin’ justices, to use the technical legal term for these things, suck.”
    YAYYYYYYYYYYY Justice Scalia !!! AIN’T THAT RIGHT Colin & Associates?!?

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/antonin-scalias-gay-marriage-dissent-is-dripping-with-sarcasm-2013-6#ixzz3eFGZhjM4

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s