Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Codee
"Sovereignty" does not equal "sovereign." different words for a reason.
|
I think this is semantics to say that
'Sovereignty does not equal sovereign. different words for a reason.'
It is, indeed, "sovereignty" that makes a sovereign "sovereign". The Supreme Court for the united States of America has held both that "..the people are the true sovereigns..."
and that "...sovereignty itself remains with the people". In a phrase, the people are the sovereigns who possess the sovereignty. Therefore, "sovereignty" versus "sovereign" is basically irrelevant semantics. The "State" is a fictitious artificial person that has absolutely no power whatsoever over a sovereign. So, to get the sovereign to submit to the State's jurisdiciton, the actors/Officers of the State must deceive the sovereign into believing that the sovereign is a fictitious legal entity called a "person", who has been sued by the artificial person called "State of Colorado".
The Supreme Court rulings state that some sovereign powers are delegated to the government by the people. This does not bestow sovereignty upon the government. It simply means that the government has been given extremely limited sovereign powers by the people, who can retract those sovereign powers at any time.
For those who doubt my word about statutes relating to fictitious legal entities called "persons", the following definitions in pertinent part are taken directly from the Colorado Revised Statutes (Colorado is a State I chose at random, and I chose random statutes, as well):
18-1-502. Requirements for criminal liability in general and for offenses of strict liability and of mental culpability:
The minimum requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act which he is physically capable of performing.
4-1-308. Performance or acceptance under reservation of rights.
(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice", "under protest", or the like are sufficient.
Remember what I said about variations of "person" (i.e. "resident", "party", etc.)? I know there is someone out there saying "
See! 4-1-308 applies to a "party", not a "person"! They will be disappointed when they go to the General Definitions section, and see the word "party" defined at 4-1-201(b)(25) as
"..."Party", as distinct from a "third party", means a person that has engaged in a transaction or made an agreement..."
It's all about words. Statutes are crafted in a tricky way, to deceive the sovereign into believing that he is a fictitiouls legal entity called a "person".