Knowledge of how the legal system works, and of how one should best interact with it, should be covered in civics through schools, youth organizations, and legal information organizations.
People spreading false information on how to interact with the legal system work against this, and sometimes cause actual harm when their advice is followed.
Harm is caused when aggrieved individuals’ access to justice is delayed, particularly when they suffer ongoing costs prior to and during litigation, Aside from litigants contesting with nutters, the entire system is slowed down slightly, which also costs.
It has become a problem in Canada to the degree that lawyers and notaries have been encouraged to learn to recognize this sort of nutter and develop strategies to deal with them. Near the start of the thread, the Alberta Meads decision was referenced. I encourage anyone interested in the issue to read it.
That’s a much more succint way to put it. And in a way not so much “create” as “go looking for anything that sounds like the technicality that will get me off”.
As to their pulling up arcane and often anachronistic legal interpretations, on the recent posts there has been a hint of something I’ve observed in SC’s. Much in the way of some religious Fundamentalists who believe they are restoring some “real, original” form
of the religion that got “corrupted” by Establishment clerics, by allegedly looking at the text of some scripture and claiming they can tell the real meaning and that it overrides centuries of theological scholarship, they believe they are restoring the “real” regime of Natural Right that has been corrupted by the Political Establishment, by looking at some old legal texts and decreeing they can tell their real meaning and it overrides centuries of case and statute law.
Agreed. And the common theme is that “the people” are sovereign. Of course, they/we are sovereign. We can elect representatives or change the Constitution according to the prescribed rules. One of those rules are the “conventions” that can be formed for amending the Constitution.
However, somewhere this gets skewed into “the people=me and my seven friends” and “convention=me and my seven friends meeting in my mother’s basement.”
They take a general text, read it, and then “comprehend” it to mean, absolutely and without question, what they say it means. It is really a very interesting psychological case study.
I still remember that back around 2001 a moon hoaxer told me in this board that in a decade all school children would be educated on the why it was a myth that humans landed on the moon. More than 10 years later there was no change in the history books about Neil and Buzz leaving footprints there.
Well, if we look at Aristotle’s Four Causes, we could posit that
Slavery was the Final Cause,
Sovereignty was the Formal Cause
Fort Sumter was the Efficient Cause
and
the various declarations of secession were the Material Causes.
Of course, any declaration that slavery was not the final and primary cause are simply efforts to re-write history to support some odd, personal goal that have no bearings on reality.
The states were sovereign nations, by law. The federal government denied this, as it denied existing slavery as the cause of their refusing secession.
But the proof is plain, and you’ve forfeited your counter. We’re done here.
Point of fact: the court has ruled that the 5th Amendment is an active defense, i.e. one must affirmatively proclaim that they are exercising their 5th Amendment right to remain silent. So you can’t just say nothing, since that constitutes omission; you have to affirmatively state words to the effect of “I assert my right to remain silent under the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution.”
Or you can ask for a lawyer, which is even better since then they can’t ask you any more questions once arrested.
You wrote " they couldn’t even agree amongst themselves if these American entities, as a whole, represented new nation(s) or not," which is absolute garbage from square 1: they were ALWAYS separate nations, everything else was delegated.
Since your entire argument hinges on that, it’s a wash too.
The People of each state will once again consent to their government, by having the power to overrule it by popular vote-- just like they did in 1787-9.
Thus currently, they do *not *consent to their government, which is thus a covert oligarchy.
Voting for middlemen, and nothing more than that, is not consent; it’s an ultimatum.
What a ridiculous assertion you just made here. You seem oblivious to the fact that Britain was at war with its rebellious American colonies for 8 years, during which time they did not - of course - recognize the sovereignty of said colonies. Meanwhile, France, Spain, and the Netherlands all recognized the independence of the Thirteen Colonies long before the Treaty of Paris was signed.
And again, you completely ignore the significance of unorganized territory which was recognized internationally as US territory for years or decades before individual states were carved out of said territory.
