See, everybody? I told you she wouldn’t believe the original declarations by the seceding states!
I wonder: When the seceding states say, in writing, ‘We are seceding to preserve the institution of slavery,’ what part of that does SarahWitch not understand?
I already have, your inability to comprehend them is irrelevant.
in your mind. Not in reality. Otherwise you would have done so, and you have not. As proven by your ad hominem rhetoric.
Enjoy your little temper tantrum? Apparently you missed the the label This Thread, it’s a debate. Not a cult. You must be in the wrong room.
Good morning, Sunshine! Welcome back to the debate.
Regards
Muffin
that’s nice.
And irrelevant. The American states did, and perhaps you missed the fact that this is what we’re talking about. Once they recognized sovereignty, of another state, That’s All She Wrote; since that was the deal-- each state was a Sovereign Nation wholly owned and ruled as prospective people; its membership in the Union was purely voluntary just like the European Union.
The problem here is that you only have a passing knowledge of what you’re talking about, so you are just parroting dogma and spouting drivel to support your narrative. Like everyone else.
you would know about dumbass posts.
Get to the fucking punchline of your long winded set-up, will you. What is it that you propose be done with this so-called farce of the “United” States?
We’re all experts by now.
I’m curious too. Let’s say we buy the setup-What’s the payoff?
Perhaps you missed the above exchange. You must have, given this:
This is a warning for failure to follow a moderator’s instructions.
Given your short stint I’ve made an effort to use kid gloves here. With your seeming refusal to follow the rules of the forum that approach isn’t working so I am going to suspend you for 3 days. If you care to return, please remember when communicating in this forum a certain level of civility is required.
[/moderating]
Darn, Bone. We were just getting to the punchline.
Trying not to pile on, since ref Bone just above she’s now in time-out, but I tried that approach near the top of page 5.
And was briskly told that I didn’t understand.
Not irrelevant at all, actually. You were the one who asserted, “National sovereignty derives from the people of the nation-state in question, by virtue of the natural rights endowed equally to them by their Supreme creator-- not by title to real estate.” This was in response to eschereal noting that all states other than the original Thirteen Colonies were established by the US federal government.
I was drawing attention to the inconsistency of your argument, noting that those European states did not give a toss about the “natural rights” of Pennsylvania farmers or Connecticut fishermen, and yet you cite them as authorities from which the sovereignty of your colonial “nation-states” were recognized. Not only did they care solely about the “real estate” in question, they couldn’t even agree amongst themselves if these American entities, as a whole, represented new nation(s) or not (especially Britain vis-a-vis France, Spain, and the Netherlands, between 1776 and 1783).
For your theory to be correct, these same external actors (i.e. other nation-states) would not have recognized or respected US claims to authority over vast swathes of unorganized territory (e.g., Northwest Territory, Louisiana Purchase, Oregon Territory, Mexican Cession, etc.) prior to such lands being subdivided and parceled out as individual American states. This is a process which took decades, in some cases. While the territory was unorganized, other nations recognized it as US territory, regardless of the absence of Michigan or Oklahoma or what-have-you.
Is this supposed to be in English?
Now that that’s over (for now, anyway) I’d like to get back to the OP.
A lot of people have made fun of the SCs for believing in magic words and secret laws that can get you out of trouble. But they exist. The secret part is relative, of course. We all know them: “Am I free to go?” “I do not consent to a search.” “I am invoking my right to remain silent.” “I would like to speak to an attorney.”
The fact that these magic formulae are so widely known as to be the opposite of secret is likely to be cold comfort to someone just sentenced to 20 years because he let a cop search his drug-filled car, thinking he had no choice. And that happens all the time. Our legal system really does rely to a very great degree on criminals not knowing or not excercising their legal rights.
These words will protect you from a great deal of legal trouble, even if you are actually breaking the law, but they have to be said in the right way, to the right people, at the right time in order to work. Answer, “Do you know how fast you were going?” with one of them, and you invite more trouble. Stay silent without invoking your right to do so, and it CAN be held against you.
So someone gets busted for a crime (or knows someone who does) because they don’t know their rights, and they think, “Holy shit! I’d better learn these rights I have and the special words I have to say to invoke them!” An internet search will reveal the truth about how to deal with cops, and plenty of real lawyers to help you for a fee, but it will also get you plenty of people making confident and grandiose claims and asking far less money than a lawyer to tell you the REAL secret phrases even the lawyers won’t tell you about. It’s no wonder many people get snookered. To someone without basic knowledge of our legal system, the claims of CS gurus are just too plausible.
The above also gives a plausible answer to “Why doesn’t the government legislate away these secret loopholes?” It would be the same reasons we don’t legislate away the right to refuse consent to a search without probable cause, even though police would have to let a lot of people go if everyone knew about and invoked that right.
If we all pretty much know them then your examples are irrelevant and should play no part in this discussion, in my opinion.
I don’t understand your objection. The fact that we know them doesn’t make them irrelevant if they help explain the thinking of SCs.
Sovereign Citizens have heard of people being released due to “technicalities” and so they endeavour to create technicalities.