RSS

Category Archives: Definitions

People Persons


[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

‘ll bet that I’ve been listening to debates and arguments about the meaning, nature and possible disabilities of the term “person” for 25 years.  Even after all of that commotion, the meaning and implications of the word “person” is still not precisely clear to me.

However, last night I was reading the Bill of Rights and realized that the key to understanding the constitutional concept of “persons” might be found in the Fourth Amendment to The Constitution of the United States.  That Amendment declares,

 

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

 

Note that the “people” have “persons”.  “Persons” are not “people’.  Instead, “persons” are attributes or capacities of “people”.  “People” are real and primary; “persons” are relational, derivative and/or secondary.

While it’s possible that each of the “people” has only one correlative “person,” I doubt that’s true.

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements
 

Tags: , , , ,

Noah Webster Didn’t Define “Collective” as a Noun


Noah Webster (A.D. 1758-1843) [courtesy Google Images]

Noah Webster (A.D. 1758-1843)
[courtesy Google Images]

“Toland,” one of the regular “commenters” on this blog, posted the following comment.  I replied.  Both comments appear towards the end of one of my recent articles where they’re not likely to seen by many more readers.. 

On reflection, I think this pair of comments deserve to be posted as an article to ensure that they’re seen by more readers:

.

Toland’s comment:

@Henry

Searching the internet for info on this William Blackstone you mention, a few results from this very blog turned up. Someone in November of 2013 was, like you are now, asking fellow commenters for a dictionary definition of “sovereignty” that’s consistent with supposed “individual sovereignty” in American law.

Also, like you are now, this commenter was asking the “individual sovereignty” campaign to square their notion with Blackstone’s definition of sovereignty as “the making of laws”.

Sure ’nuff this commenter in 2013 got back a combination of complete silence, attempts to change the subject, and fancy song-and-dance routines in reply – but not one responsive answer.

So we see that a conspicuous hole in the “individual sovereignty” campaign is its inability to make sense in terms of any definition of “sovereignty” found in a law dictionary.

The flaw is that fundamental, take note. Though it’s possible this is considered a problem only in the “real world”, where facts and law matter.

Read the rest of this entry »

 
24 Comments

Posted by on June 9, 2015 in Definitions, Sovereignty

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Tuesday Night Radio: Federal Gun Control Laws; more.


American Independence Hour hosted by Alfred Adask; 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Central time, Tuesday nights, on AmericanVoiceRadio.com and also on the KU band, free-to-air satellite link at Galaxy 19.  There’ll be call-ins at 1-800-596-8191.

The primary subject matter of tonight’s program can be seen in the following Word file:  150117 Gun Control Laws

 

Tags: , , ,

Tuesday Night Radio: Reading is Guessing


American Independence Hour hosted by Alfred Adask; 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Central time, Tuesday nights, on AmericanVoiceRadio.com and also on the KU band, free-to-air satellite link at Galaxy 19.  There’ll be call-ins at 1-800-596-8191.

 
8 Comments

Posted by on October 21, 2014 in American Independence Hour, Definitions, Radio

 

Tags: , ,

Reading is Guessing


Black's Law Dictionary:  Almost Every Word has Multiple Definitions [courtesy Google Images]

Black’s Law Dictionary: Almost Every Word has Multiple Definitions
[courtesy Google Images]

This is a long article.  Over 9,000 words.  It rambles in places.  I chase down rabbit trails to the right and to the left.  It includes some solid information and also some humorous anecdotes.  It’s undisciplined and in need of at least two more proof-readings. 

Nevertheless, I’ve been fooling around with this article for about two weeks, and I have to draw the line somewhere.  I have other fish to fry.  More, I believe the ideas expressed in this article may be so fundamental and so potentially powerful, that I’ve got to publish now—even if the text is not as clear as I might otherwise hope.

I think the implications of “Reading is Guessing” are important.  This may be one of the most important concepts I’ve ever presented.  I hope you’ll take time to read and consider this article.

Definitions

In the past five years, I’ve posted 23 articles that deal with “definitions” on this blog.  You can find a list of those articles here:  https://adask.wordpress.com/category/definitions/. Definitions aren’t simply useful or even important to the law, they are the essence of the law.

You can’t have law without words.  You can’t have words without definitions.  Definitions are the “sub-atomic particles” of meaning that turn a mere sound or collection of letters into a “word”.  If you want to detonate the legal equivalent of an “atomic bomb” in the courts, start tinkering with definitions.

As I pointed out in A.D. 2011, “Definitions are the Law of the Law”.

As former President Bill Clinton once observed concerning the meaning of a particular law, “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”  In other words, if you want to know what a law says . . . if you want to know what a law is . . . you must first grasp the definitions of each of even the most trivial and innocuous words used to express that law.

Read the rest of this entry »

 
31 Comments

Posted by on October 20, 2014 in Definitions, Notice

 

Tags: , , ,

21 U.S.C. § 321(a)(1): Definition of the word “State”


[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

Title 21 of the United States Code (USC) deals with “Food and Drugs”—and principally government the U.S. Food & Drug laws and F.D.A..   Section 321 (21 U.S.C. § 321) is entitled “Definitions; generally” and provides some of the primary definitions used in Title 21.

21 U.S.C. § 321 is of special importance to me because it was there that I first realized that the government food and drug laws are all based on definitions that presume that you and I to be “animals” rather than “men made in God’s image and given dominion over animals” (as per Genesis 1:26-28) and “men endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (as per the “Declaration of Independence”).  As “animals” we have no significant rights that the government is bound to recognize.  Government wants us defined as “animals” in order to render us more “manageable” by the courts and police state.

The government’s presumption that we’re only animals is evidence of genocide, treason, and spiritual warfare being committed against the American people by our own government.

Government’s predilection to degrade us to the status of “animals” isn’t a recent phenomenon.  The earliest instance I’ve been able to find is Section Six (definitions) of the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act which defined both food and drugs based on the presumption that the American people are mere animals.  The government has engaged in these acts of genocide for over a century.

So far as I know, I may be the first layman to have read the “man or other animals” (MOOA) definitions in over a century and realized what they meant on a spiritual basis.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , ,

Adask on Sovereignty II


"Prof. Adask" [courtesy Google Images]

“Prof. Adask”
[courtesy Google Images]

In my recent video presentation “Adask on Sovereignty,” I argued that the Founding Fathers created a nation where each of the people were deemed to be an individual “sovereign”.  That individual sovereignty was achieved by virtue of having received our “unalienable Rights” from God—as declared in “Declaration of Independence”. 

I supported this argument, with text from the A.D. 1793 Supreme Court case of Chisholm vs. Georgia which declared in part that after the American Revolution, the American people became “sovereigns [plural] without subjects”.

If my argument is right, We the People are individual sovereigns and the government is our public servant. If my argument is wrong, We the People are subjects and the government is our master.  The argument is important.

In the aftermath of the first article (“Adask on Sovereignty”) a number of readers disputed my argument based on the fact that the Supreme Court also described the people are “joint tenants in the sovereignty”.  According to these readers the definition(s) of “joint tenants” prove that the Supreme Court did not declare the people to be individual “sovereigns” (plural) but instead confided all sovereignty to a single “collective” of which we are each a member, but only as subjects—never as sovereigns.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,