RSS

Category Archives: “The State” vs. “this state”

Chisholm vs Georgia and Wong Kim Ark on Individual Sovereignty—Which Decision is more Believable?


[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

This is an odd article.  It started out as a quick reply to a comment posted by “Roger” on my blog and grew into something far more substantial.  I expected to write one or two hundred words.  I wrote over five thousand.

It’s as if I started out intending to take a trip to the 7-11 to pick up some milk and wound up in Singapor.  I was diverted.  It’s not the journey I’d planned and expected, but it was kinda interesting, just the same.

The article starts with a conflict over the concept of individual sovereignty as viewed by the Supreme Court in the Chisholm vs Georgia case of A.D. 1793 and the Wong Kim Ark case of A.D. 1898:

.

Roger’s Comment

@Toland

Wong Kim Ark, quoting State v. Manuel: The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people…

Exactly, and the members of this sovereign “collective body of the people” are what Chisholm v. Georgia calls “sovereigns” (plural) “without subjects”, by virtue of their being “joint tenants in the sovereignty”.

Read the rest of this entry »

 
 

Tags: , , ,

A Great (Good?) Debate? II


[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

Yesterday, I published Part I of this “Great Debate” between Colin and myself at https://adask.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/a-great-good-debate/

Here’s Part II:

 

Adask (original comment)

This distinction may be important since, so far as I know, it’s logically impossible to prove a negative statement. For example, I can’t actually prove that I’m not in Washington DC right now.

So, if I were to base some line of courtroom defense on my claim that I’m [not] in Washington, DC, technically, I may not be able to prove that negative statement. Therefore my claim might be dismissed by the court.

 

Colin’s reply:

Yes you can. If you prove that you’re currently in New York, or Atlanta, or Dallas, or San Francisco, or any place that’s geographically outside of the borders of Washington, DC, then you’ve proven that you aren’t in Washington, DC. Because there’s no secret definition of “Washington DC” that somehow includes the rest of the country.

I assume you meant “not” in DC, based on your previous writing, so I added it—let me know if I’m wrong.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , ,

A Great (Good?) Debate?


[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

A man named “Colin” has recently taken an interest in this blog.  He’s reportedly graduated from one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, was briefly licensed to practice law, but has dropped out of the profession.

He is generally critical of the ideas and conclusions that I promote on this blog. The result has been a kind of “great debate” between Colin and myself and many of this blogs readers.  His comments are intelligent and articulate and have added enormous interest to the blog.  

Here’s an except from one of his recent comments. His comment was much longer.  But I need some sleep, so I’ll have to reply to the remainder of his comments later today.

The following begins with one of my earlier remarks in a previous comment, followed by a question from Colin, followed by my current comment:

Read the rest of this entry »

 

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: , , ,

Protecting the “States” against Invasion


It all depends on the PLACE.  It all depends on WHERE. [courtesy Google Images]

It all depends on the PLACE. It all depends on WHERE.
[courtesy Google Images]

If you’ve followed this blog for a year or more, you should be aware that I subscribe to the hypothesis that the government has chosen to treat the “states of the United States” (like “Texas,” “Illinois” and “Florida”) as territories rather than States of the Union (“states of The United States of America”) like “The State of Texas,” “The State of Illinois,” and “The State of Florida”.  (You can see a list of articles dealing with this theory at: https://adask.wordpress.com/category/the-state-vs-this-state/)

If this hypothesis is true, it’s important because under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of The Constitution of the United States, the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the territories.  Within a “territory of the United States,” the Congress is the sovereign and can do anything they like.  They have unlimited powers in the territories.  The people of the territories have virtually no rights that they might be absolutely able to enforce other then those currently allowed by Congress.

Within the States of the Union, the people are sovereign and Congress has only those limited powers described in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

So, it makes a big difference whether you are presumed to act and “appear” within the jurisdiction of a territory like “Texas,” “STATE OF TEXAS,” or TX” or if you’re presumed to act and live within the jurisdiction of a State of the Union like “The State of Texas”.  In the first instance, you are a subject without any rights that you can count on.  In the second instance, you are a sovereign with a multitude of unalienable Rights granted you by the God of the Bible and beyond denial by the government of that State of the Union.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Tuesday Night Radio: Cops, Race (really!)


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.

 

Tags:

“Postitive” law for all? “Non-positive” law only for Territories?


[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

It’s my understanding that about half of the “Titles” in the United States Code (USC) are each described as “positive” law.  About half of those Titles are not identified as “positive” law, but, so far as I know, they are not given a distinctive description although it’s usually called “non-positive” law..

Perhaps it would be fair to say that the titles of the USC can be expressly described as either “law” or “positive law”.   If that were true, then, whenever some officer, official or employee of what passes for federal government said “It’s the LAW!,” they might actually mean that whatever authority they’re referring to in the USC was something other thanpositive law”.   If that were true, then what would the government’s reaction be to claims where people said “It’s the positive law”?

It’s also my understanding that Title 26 (which deals with income taxes) of the USC is not identified as “positive law”.

Read the rest of this entry »

 
35 Comments

Posted by on September 10, 2014 in "The State" vs. "this state", IRS, Venue

 

Tags: ,