"Sovereign Citizen" is an Oxymoron

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n
Quite literally. How can one be sovereign and a citizen?

Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)
"at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects"

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n
Quite literally. How can one be sovereign and a citizen?

Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)
"at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects"

A sovereign still has to have dominion over something, even if it's themselves.

Not actually trying to sound glib, but like, we live in a society man,
and shouting "I'm sovereign" doesn't stop the handcuffs from going on.

At the revolution, there was not yet an overarching system in place to oppose this mentality.

So if I'm sovereign over myself in name, but there are millions of cops who'd arrest me, and the politicians and most citizens support that, then what is it worth? It's like having your name legally changed to "King of the USA".
Doesn't do anything.


EXAMPLE: Queen Latifah has no legal authority, and is not actually a recognized Queen.

Has Mears v Mears been brought up in this thread yet?. It kinda killed the FMPTL and SC movements.

a reply to: BeTheGoddess2

No, it hasn't. Feel like giving a run-through?

a reply to: TheValeyard

Humans as currency, I thought that was a much older concept...

So all in all it's a little like "they terk our elections" but with something to it... Yeah makes sense, seems like that's the bulk of US citizens anyway...

a reply to: TheValeyard

Sorry, I thought it was more well known.

canliiconnects.org...

I know thats not the actual 360 page decision bet I do have vision issues so trying to find the decision was too much for my state.

Maybe they can go by one of the other names they are known by.

Sovereign citizens - which also go by many other names including constitutionalists, common law citizens, freemen, and non-resident aliens

BBC

a reply to: Dandandat3

The whole ponzi scam is explained in the Meads v Meads decision, you cant keep selling the same snakeoil under the same brand.

There's a way to go about doing it, but just announcing yourself as a sovereign citizen and relying on the law is NOT the way to do it.

Sure, insurance and registration laws are established to only apply to commercial vehicles per the Supreme court. The other courts don't care and have historically ruled otherwise, because...... the States need money, I guess.

There is a way however, to renounce your citizenship, be listed as a diplomat (or something to that effect) of a specific state, and requires you generally carry around a binder of signed and stamped paperwork from the court.

It offers you a lot of freedom (a lot of freedoms that are presumed to be for citizens already, but the government has stripped over the centuries) but on the flip side, there are certain protections that will no longer apply to you...

Double edged sword, if you will. And did I mention it takes months, and LOTS of paperwork and waiting periods.

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n
Imagine if millions of citizens without a criminal record withdraw their consent to be governed by criminals...
Who would be under arrest?

originally posted by: TheValeyard
a reply to: tanstaafl
A sovereign still has to have dominion over something, even if it's themselves.

Bingo! Themselves, as well as their families and their property. Gold star for you.

A state of being never before seen in history.

Not actually trying to sound glib, but like, we live in a society man,
and shouting "I'm sovereign" doesn't stop the handcuffs from going on.

I was simply pointing out the actual SOURCE for the entire concept.

ETA: oh, and to point out that you're subject/title is pure bunkum...

A bunch of morons took the concept and perverted it into crazyland, like morons often do.

Agreed.
Government leaders are selling their citizens sovereignty off to the WEF and WHO.

We are nearing the end of this 'rules based order' empire and the replacement from the East will be a social credit score type of dystopian NWO empire.

Sovereignty be damned, muh freedoms!

You will own nothing!

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

I believe the most recent term is 'domestic terrorists'

originally posted by: Dandandat3
Maybe they can go by one of the other names they are known by.

Sovereign citizens - which also go by many other names including constitutionalists, common law citizens, freemen, and non-resident aliens

BBC

I've noticed recently that there are more and more videos of them in court. I've lost track of which channel it was, but watched one recently in which a prosecutor took the time to research all the cases they like to cite. Turns out the cases were real, but what was said to be in them was not. All a hoax but the people who are sucked into it were not even smart enough to look them up and read them.

They get upset now if they are called Sovereign Citizens and even though they say the exact same things, claim they are some other ridiculous thing. How can it be there are so many people dumb enough to fall for it? I'm not buying it and I think most of them know they are spewing garbage. They just like to troll the LEOs and the courts. Idiots all.

originally posted by: Starbornsurfer
I believe the most recent term is 'domestic terrorists'

originally posted by: Dandandat3
Maybe they can go by one of the other names they are known by.

Sovereign citizens - which also go by many other names including constitutionalists, common law citizens, freemen, and non-resident aliens

BBC

Agreed; the article I linked too talks about how these "domestic terrorists" like to terrorise politicians with paper work.

Look how terror striken the police officers are in the video linked on the first page of this thread. When the guy fell out of his mom's car and went limp on the ground my heart nearly jumped out of my chest.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n
Quite literally. How can one be sovereign and a citizen?

Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)
"at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects"

Ah, Alexander Hamilton.

Lets break this down:

"at the Revolution"
Circa 1776

"the sovereignty devolved on the people"
Sovereignty from the king and the establishment of a new sovereign by "the people"

"and they are truly the sovereigns of the country"
Again, now that you're a citizen of the sovereign created in 1776, under that auspice, you are subjugated there-fore.
This part does not refer to you specifically, but the people as a "collective", ie the overarching sovereign (United States Government).

"but they are sovereigns without subjects"
Abstract. It suggests that in this new system, there are no "subjects" in the traditional sense—meaning there are no individuals who are ruled by a monarch or authoritarian government. Instead, the people are sovereign, which implies that they govern themselves collectively through a system of government and laws.

IE, Unless you renounce your citizenship of any country, you cannot call yourself sovereign because you operate under the laws and rules of a hierarchy that DOES have sovereign.

Perfect example. If you're sovereign, you cannot file for bankruptcy. Who would you file to? This is true for EVERY """TRUE""" sovereign. A sovereign country cannot file for bankruptcy, because quite literally, who would they file with? "Sovereign" is the idea of the truest sense of power and hierarchy. Now....one way a "country" could file for bankruptcy is if they've GIVEN UP their sovereignty by joining an even higher overarching hierarchy, like the IMF, WHO, WTO, ect. Again, we go back to the conversation about what a "subject" and "subjugation" is.

ETA: By the way, this case was overturned with the 11th amendment.

originally posted by: loveguy
a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n
Imagine if millions of citizens without a criminal record withdraw their consent to be governed by criminals...
Who would be under arrest?

one example the CEO is sovereign?
Homeless is sovereign enough to die in the gutter if he chooses.
And what the indigenous suffered and still today. Were they criminals because they fought like Palestine to stay put uninvaded?

It comes down to extorting lunch money with a racketeering enterprise that functions as a government *of the people but not *for the people...outside of government employee network.

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n
a reply toy: tanstaafl
Lets break this down:

No need... I made my point. The subject of this thread is nonsense. Just because morons do mornic things doesn't mean the fundamental concept isn't sound.

pquote[ETA: By the way, this case was overturned with the 11th amendment.
No, it wasn't.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n
a reply toy: tanstaafl
Lets break this down:

No need... I made my point. The subject of this thread is nonsense. Just because morons do mornic things doesn't mean the fundamental concept isn't sound.

Well you're entitled to your opinion.

The subject of this thread isn't about sovereign citizens more than its about reality vs imaginary, but the former is just as relevant to the conversation than the latter in getting people to understand the hypocrisy of the word and a breakdown there-of. This subject is essentially about the reality of the universe versus the human conceptions we make, like I said, it's a game of cowboys and indians, government is an imaginary thing.

Not many understand the grandoise conversation to be had on the deeper level, mostly going over their head. And this is not a personal slight in the least bit, because the indifferent and most of the pro-rah-rah comments don't even grasp the conversation at hand.

I don't think we (you) understand the concept of sovereign. Not whats on paper, but as the universe defines it (THAT is the debate to be had). God is a sovereign. Country is a sovereign. These things do not answer to no one. But I can only write articles to ask people to not be biased and think outside the box every so often.

As for being done? That's what my wife says when she doesn't want to debate anymore. I'm glad you decided to join us, its sad to see you go.

originally posted by: tanstaaflNo, it wasn't.

Our only point of contention.

You are wrong.

The Chisholm v. Georgia case was overturned by the 11th amendment.

The 11th Amendment specifically prohibits federal courts from hearing cases brought against a state by citizens of another state or by citizens or subjects of foreign countries. It effectively overturned the Chisholm decision by limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts in cases involving state sovereignty.


BUT LIKE I SAID, IF YOU ARE SOVEREIGN, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO ANSWER TO THE CONSTITUTION!

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

If you officially revoke your citizenship and continue to live here, you will be considered an illegal alien.
Also, again, an actual sovereign has authority recognized by others.
You are only sovereign insofar as you can enforce and defend your will.
Just because you WANT something to be so or think it should be so, doesn't make it so.