Is there any legitimacy to the Sovereign Citizen argument?

[SarahWitch]

@Dissonance

Wow. The depth of your knowledge on American law is truly astounding. You’re saying courts can decide willy-nilly whenever they want that the Bill of Rights applies? If the courts says they don’t, then they don’t? There aren’t any, say, precedents in the law?

I’m not saying it’s a good thing. But you can’t have an oligarchy without tyranny; that’s the whole point I’m trying to make here, in explaining how the Lincoln government established imperial oligarchy over international democracy; and this is what Madison and Jefferson *both *warned about in Resolutions.
But you seem to want it both ways, i.e. a benevolent dictatorship that isn’t the final judge of its own powers.
And that’s where your argument comes full-circle… as a circular argument.

[Czarcasm]

@SarahWitch

That’s good, because like you I’m not trying to be.

Would you mind trying to be a better debater, by providing cites for some of your more outlandish claims? WHY do you call yourself the premier expert on American law, for instance? What training have you had?

[Czarcasm]

@SarahWitch

I’m not saying it’s a good thing. But you can’t have an oligarchy without tyranny; that’s the whole point I’m trying to make here, in explaining how the Lincoln government established imperial oligarchy over international democracy; and this is what Madison and Jefferson *both *warned about in Resolutions.
But you seem to want it both ways, i.e. a benevolent dictatorship that isn’t the final judge of its own powers.
And that’s where your argument comes full-circle… as a circular argument.

Since no one here has made such an argument except you, I’d say you are the one in that circle.

[Dissonance]

@Czarcasm

Since no one here has made such an argument except you, I’d say you are the one in that circle.

Indeed, I made no argument, I questioned the one put forth by** [del]Jesus Christ[/del] SarahWitch**.

[Czarcasm]

@Dissonance

Indeed, I made no argument, I questioned the one put forth by** [del]Jesus Christ[/del] SarahWitch**.

Sorry about that-it was addressed to her, and your post slipped in between the two.

[RickJay]

@SarahWitch

When the court says. They are their own power.

Wow, that is so very much the wrong answer. If you were an expert on law, you’d know stuff like that.

Proactive invocation of the Fifth Amendment is NOT needed in some circumstances, and, according to the courts, may be in others. To use a really, really obvious example, you do not need to speak aloud the words that you’re invoking your Fifth Amendment right to not testify at your own trial.

Who was it who said you were the premier legal expert?

[Human_Action]

@SarahWitch

Causes of secession are irrelevant, for sovereign nation-states; since the right is absolute and unconditional.

Did the states enjoy this right under the Articles of Confederation, or only the Constitution?

[eschereal]

@SarahWitch

BWAHAHAHA you’re funny.

Seriously. You made an outlandish claim to being the premier expert on law. You have not demonstrated this in any way. Your arguments have been essentially destroyed, no matter how much you say otherwise. You are extremely scant on cites to back up the bullshit that you are vainly striving to spread. So tell us how we can discover support for your claim to this premier expertise, because the nonsense you have to offer is not doing the trick.

(And, quite frankly, if there is some above-all-others legal expert, about which I have my doubts, it seems unlikely that such a person would be declaring it outright – really smart people understand the importance of humility.)

[Johnny_L.A]

@eschereal

(… really smart people understand the importance of humility.)

You’ll note that I have not made any boasts.

[eschereal]

@Johnny_L.A

You’ll note that I have not made any boasts.

Yes you have. You say you fly a helicopter. If that is not boasting, what the fuck is?

[Johnny_L.A]

@eschereal

Yes you have. You say you fly a helicopter. If that is not boasting, what the fuck is?

Merely a fact.

Anyway, pilots are exempt.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Oh good, Sarah’s back. Resolved: the Confederacy lost because they were dumb.

[GIGObuster]

@GIGObuster

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.

@SarahWitch

Nice strawman. But each state is a sovereign nation, by law; I’ve proved it, and you’ve acquiesced to that proof.
Checkmate.

I don’t think you play chess either.

To begin with your illegal [chess] move of an argument here: that was not a straw man, read it again: I never said that you did say that, only that your argument does sound like the moon hoax one because as I noted you will not be able to point at historians or academics of renown making the points you made about the confederacy or the sovereign citizens either.

Second, you did omit what I posted later so as to make your complaint about the alleged straw man to be mildly effective:

@GIGObuster

It is true that efforts have been made to hide or deny the history of what took place with the south and its rebellion, and no. No hay the piña. (there is none of the pineapple kind, meaning: impossible) Slavery remains the reason why they decided to be “sovereign” and there is no effort afoot to ignore that big reason in academic circles.

So you made an illegal argument to get your “checkmate”. The point I made stands, you are the one that can not point at good support for your ideas. Since you need to go back on your move, you still need to point at the sources that support your view in academic circles or just forfeit the [del]chess game[/del] discussion.

[SarahWitch]

@Human_Action

Did the states enjoy this right under the Articles of Confederation, or only the Constitution?

Considering that every state did secede from the Articles of Confederation, they definitely had it there. As James Madison explained in Federalist No. 40:

Instead of reporting a plan requiring the confirmation OF THE LEGISLATURES OF ALL THE STATES, they have reported a plan which is to be confirmed by the PEOPLE, and may be carried into effect by NINE STATES ONLY. It is worthy of remark that this objection, though the most plausible, has been the least urged in the publications which have swarmed against the convention. The forbearance can only have proceeded from an irresistible conviction of the absurdity of subjecting the fate of twelve States to the perverseness or corruption of a thirteenth; from the example of inflexible opposition given by a MAJORITY of one sixtieth of the people of America to a measure approved and called for by the voice of twelve States, comprising fifty-nine sixtieths of the people an example still fresh in the memory and indignation of every citizen who has felt for the wounded honor and prosperity of his country. As this objection, therefore, has been in a manner waived by those who have criticised the powers of the convention, I dismiss it without further observation.

Today, however, the legal community claims that the states lost this right via the Constitution, claiming that it united them as a single nation-state; however as I mentioned, this argument fails because the Constitution does not do so EXPRESSLY.

[SarahWitch]

@GIGObuster

I don’t think you play chess either. :)To begin with your illegal [chess] move of an argument here: that was not a straw man, read it again: I never said that you did say that, only that your argument does sound like the moon hoax one because as I noted you will not be able to point at historians or academics of renown making the points you made about the confederacy or the sovereign citizens either.

Okay, so you’re saying it wasn’t a strawman fallacy, but an appeal to authority and popularity fallacy against the facts.

I’m not seeing how it helps you.

[SarahWitch]

@Bryan_Ekers

Oh good, Sarah’s back. Resolved: the Confederacy lost because they were dumb.

Lost what? It’s a question of law. So either confine your arguments to that, or you forfeit.

[Johnny_L.A]

@SarahWitch

Lost what? It’s a question of law. So either confine your arguments to that, or you forfeit.

You keep saying that, but you don’t provide proof.

In fact, In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional. That’s the law.

.

[SarahWitch]

@eschereal

Seriously. You made an outlandish claim to being the premier expert on law. You have not demonstrated this in any way. Your arguments have been essentially destroyed, no matter how much you say otherwise. You are extremely scant on cites to back up the bullshit that you are vainly striving to spread. So tell us how we can discover support for your claim to this premier expertise, because the nonsense you have to offer is not doing the trick.

(And, quite frankly, if there is some above-all-others legal expert, about which I have my doubts, it seems unlikely that such a person would be declaring it outright – really smart people understand the importance of humility.)

“He Who Knows And Knows That He Knows Is A Wise Man - Follow Him;
He Who Knows Not And Knows Not That He Knows Not Is A Fool - Shun Him”
― Confucius, The Analects

[Johnny_L.A]

@SarahWitch

“He Who Knows And Knows That He Knows Is A Wise Man - Follow Him;

But you don’t know. That’s what everyone has been trying to show you.

[SarahWitch]

@Johnny_L.A

You keep saying that, but you don’t provide proof.

In fact, In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional. That’s the law.

.

Not over sovereign nation-states; and the Constitution is not a national document, whatever the Supreme Court may say.