Is there any legitimacy to the Sovereign Citizen argument?

Great Debates
201

False. He claimed that the states declared independence from Great Britain as a single nation.

In reality, meanwhile, the Declaration of Independence did not declare the states to be a single nation, but several, in the Declaration of Independence:

So each state was individually declared as a sovereign nation to itself, and they mutually recognized each other as such And they likewise secured this status as their express intention, under Article II of the Articles of Confederation in 1781:

However, this was still simply a declared status that was mutually recognized among the states, which were still officially colonies of Great Britain at that point under international law.
Each state only became an official sovereign nation under international law, when recognized by Great Britain and other nations of Europe, in the the 1783 Treaty of Paris:

And this made them officially into sovereign nations.
Accordingly, the American states remain separate nations, by law; the People of the state remain the supreme rulers thereof— as Madison writes, “derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves… The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition (The Virginia Report).”
So the registered voters in each state, can overrule any legal by on Earth by popular vote in state convention— just like the UK could overrule the EU in Brexit, and as the Peoples of each state did in 1787-9

202

You’re obviously not obligated to respond to me at all, of course. But I would like to have a dialogue with you, as I find that dialogue is a good way to be exposed to different opinions and points of view I otherwise wouldn’t consider. And, you did say in this thread that:

“So only the CSA had the correct legal argument: i.e. that each state is a separate nation-state unto itself, but supremely ruled by its respective People (i.e. its citizen-voters).”

and I’d like to explore that, because from what I know of the CSA, it didn’t act as if each state was a separate nation-state unto itself, but instead, it acted like and presented itself as a single nation, albeit one made of states that had seceded from the US, and who were, at the time they seceded, sovereign. So I’d like to see what evidence you have that the CSA actually believed that each state within the CSA was a separate nation-state.

203

I don’t see that in the passages you quoted. Can you point out which sections you are interpreting to mean such, and provide the rationale?

204

I’d like to look at this interesting theory from a totally different angle. I’m not interested at all in the history of the formation of the USA, nor in the CSA as an experiment of a different set of rules or a different reading of the same rules or whatever folks want to assert it all meant back then.

If I understand her **Sarah **says the people are sovereign and back in the late 1700s they delegated some of their authority to the States who in turn delegated some of that authority to the United States. OK, let’s take that at face value and see where it takes us.

The States *could *decide collectively to uninvent the Unites States and return to being 50 truly separate states in the international sense of the word “state”. Lets say they unanimously decide to do this and all rest of the world decides to just sit back and watch this experiment. No worries about China invading (or simply buying) poor defenseless North Carolina.

I’m not interested in any quibbling about practicalities here. We’re having a discussion about the theory and I’m trying to peel Sarah’s onion as cleanly as I can so we can see what’s inside. She thinks she knows what’s in there but so far she’s been unsuccessful in explaining it so we can understand it. Maybe this will help.
OK, now we’ve got a State. Let’s say Georgia, but any of the 50 will do as well since they’re all equal before the UN. They no longer have a government over them, but they’re still not sovereign. Why not? Because the people are sovereign. Or at least I think that’s what Sarah said.

So what legally has Georgia or Ohio or Hawaii gained by this move? How is the operation of law and society at the state level different? Is their current constitution still in effect? If not, what replaces it? Do they still have legislatures, judges, and a chief executive usually called a “Governor”?

And what does this change for the people of Georgia or Ohio or Hawaii? How does the life of an ordinary citizen change? The State still exists. It collects taxes, passes law, operates police and prisons, operates parks, highways, welfare schemes, and all the rest of the physical, economic, and legal infrastructure of a 21st Century State in the international sense of the word “state”.

So what’s different now? And what does this difference do for us as individual human beings? How are we better off in this different world?

I’m signing off for the night; sleep well all.

205

*snip. But there are judges over the individual States. The US Supreme Court may decide that a law passed by, say, North Carolina, is in violation of the Constitution and void. This was determined in 1803, not by Abraham Lincoln.

Further, citing James Madison is not a winning argument. We know that Jefferson and Madison advocated for nullification and interposition. That belief lost. If you believe that nullification and interposition *should have *won, then that is a theory and not the fact that you keep claiming it is.

I agree that the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, for example, make excellent points, but no union of states could ever survive if a single state could nullify national laws. As much as I admire Jefferson, his ideas would have collapsed on their own weight.

Are you seriously coming in here and saying that everyone else is wrong and that your beliefs are, not only right, but objective fact?

206

That’s unfortunate; it’s plain English.

Right where it says "these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States,*they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”

That defines sovereign nation-states, and nothing else.

And furthermore, this was retained in 1781, and officially recognized under the 1783 Treaty of Paris under International Law.
I don’t know what part of “free, sovereign and independent states” you don’t understand.

207

And this should be expected, since the Articles of Confederation demonstrated that a loose alliance of independent States was too ineffectual to deal with nationwide problems. The constitution is the result of the desire to fix the problems with such a weak federal government; it was the convention’s original mandate. By the time of the civil war, the success of federal preeminence had already been demonstrated, and there is no reason to expect the Confederacy to deviate. After all, their only real beef with the US concerned slavery.

208

Equivocating between the state’s People (as in “WE the People”), and its government. As I’ve explained, latter was third in command; the former, FIRST.

No, just supporting evidence; the winning argument was the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

Because the Constitution was an act of Nullification and interposition by each state’s People against their respective governments. And by the way you keep equivocating, you haven’t even read my arguments.

See “equivocating,” above. Each state was a separate nation-state supremely owned by its respective* People.*
And remains, by law.

209

How do you think the constitution was ratified?? [Hint: It wasn’t a popular referendum]

210

The South lost because they were dumb.

211

No, they made that quite clear in the CSA Constitution, that no CSA state had the right to limit slavery.

They also considered putting the right to secede from the CSA in the CSA Constitution but it was not put in as it was* too dangerous of an idea*, per my cite. Where’s *your *cite?
Dixie Betrayed: How The South Really Lost The Civil War, by David J. Eicher
On February 5 [1863], the Senate heard a proposed amendment to the Confederate Constitution that would allow an aggrieved state to secede from the Confederacy. “It shall do so in peace,” read the proposal, “but shall be entitled to its pro rata share of property and be liable for its pro rata share of public debt to be determined by negotiation.” The idea was referred to the Judicial Committee. Two days later senators failed to recommend the amendment, and the whole thing was dropped as a dangerous idea."

212

If you want to write fiction, this isn’t the place for it. It was about one thing, and ONLY one thing: national sovereignty.
That’s was the CSA states’ sole legal basis for secession, and the federal government’s legal basis for* invasion*; that is a simple fact, and if you deny this you are simply wrong.

Everything else is irrelevant.

Accordingly, the South was correct in its assertion, while the federal government was 100%* wrong*. There was never a single nation-state called “The Union,” as Lincoln claimed.
EVER.
The Constitution was ratified by 13 sovereign nation-states, not one; and they didn’t unite as a single nation-state, as revisionists claim.
You can deny history, but you can’t change what happened; it just makes you the worse.

213

That is true, under the articles of Confederation, each State was a semi- autonomous nation.

However, once they ratified the US Constitution, that ended.
*
Texas v. White* made that clear, in case Grant v Lee did not.

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

214

A cite doesn’t make you right. Obviously, a sovereign nation-state don’t* need* a written right to secede.
Ignorance of that fact, is what caused the whole mess in the first place.

However nation-statehood was only secondary, to the primary issue of freedom through consent of the governed– i.e. true democracy-- which was only enabled by each state being a separate nation-state, supremely ruled by its respective People.
Once this was lost, all power defaulted to the singular federal oligarchy-- ala the Levithan Juggernaut .

Perhaps some are delusional enough to believe the pagan dogma that the the Constitution would magically “limit” this, but such people clearly also believed that the bible limited the Church during the Middle Ages-- i.e. pure idolatry, which only brought the Inquisitions.
Equality *requires *that the People be their own supreme rulers, above their government-- not vice-versa, since then this equates to illuminati-goverment… regardless of how these supreme rulers are selected; elections are just a shell-game to deceive the ignorant. And that’s why we live under a single regime with only Totalitarian democracy.

215

That’s where the self-reflexivity of sovereign citizens comes into play.

SarahWitch’s argumentum ad auctoritas in her claim to be the premier expert on American law in support of her assertion of ultimate state sovereignity over federal sovereignity is just a variation on the sovereign citizens’ assertions of ultimate individual sovereignty. They just make shit up, shout it out loudly under pretense of authority, and some folks buy into the nonsense, and in turn also start shouting it out with pretense of authority, et hoc genus omne . . . .

216

I invite you to consider primary sources. Slavery was the prime reason for secession.

This is fucking hilarious. Newsflash:The confederate traitors lost. Secession is illegal. The United States is one nation.

217

Correct. But those people in each, through their representatives in government, allow themselves to be governed in accordance with state law.

Additionally, in 1787, those people in each state, along with the people from the other states agreed (through their representatives at the Constitutional Convention) to allow themselves to be governed by the national government, surrendering a limited portion of their sovereignty to those representatives of the national government in accordance with the rules laid out in the Constitution.

The State of North Carolina, for example, may not declare war against Canada. The people in North Carolina, through their representatives at the Constitutional Convention, surrendered that portion of their sovereignty to the national Congress, a body in which the people of North Carolina and the people of other states, votes for representatives who decide whether or not to declare war on Canada.

You opine that now, in 2017, the people of North Carolina can reclaim that power and all others. That is an unsupported assertion.

218

This is Great Debates. It is customary here to respond to a cite with a better cite. If you have none, then you have no argument.

I can not be “ignorant” of something which is purely your opinion, and not in any way shape or form a “fact”.

219

It’s quite simple: to consent to government, a People must be able to OVERRULE it.
Otherwise they are by definition its slaves.

220

No it isn’t.

Yes I do.

Yes you can.