Chisholm v. Georgia 2 US 419 (February 1794)

[netwrkranger]

dorkenbutt wrote:
Since when do people vote anyone into office? The vote does not count and anyone that says it does is uninformed. The electoral college is the deciding factor and it has always been electors that put people into office. It has never been the popular vote.

The winner is predetermined and is hand picked by those that are truly in power. US citizens have no say so in the election process. This is the biggest sham there is.

Heh, great point =D!

That reminds me... this superdelegate business with the democrats made me wince when I heard it.

If they were to decide who becomes the nominee, what is the point of casting a vote??

- netwrkranger

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by dorkenbutt

The electoral college is the deciding factor and it has always been electors that put people into office. It has never been the popular vote.

You might try reading the Constitution sometime. The Electoral College has absolutely nothing to do with the election of Congressmen; the popular vote does.

[aksis]

Originally Posted by indio007

When this opinion was written the gov't was still de jure. Since the US is now de facto corporate, the officers of the corporation take the will of the shareholders under advisement.

They have always been corporations... political corporations. The Colonies themselves were corporations.

People are only co-owners and joint heirs. Citizens are employees.

Of your private [e]state, you are the supreme master.

So the sovereignty is dual fold... there is a private side and a public side. We created the public to protect the private.

Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

You might try reading the Constitution sometime. The Electoral College has absolutely nothing to do with the election of Congressmen; the popular vote does.

And only the election of Congressmen.

All other public servants (pre-17th amendment, at any rate), including U.S. Senator, Presidents and Supreme Court justices, were to be elected/appointed independent of the popular vote.

[Shuftin]

In plain English for everyone. Either you are 100% sovereign or you are 100% not sovereign. By the rules of sovereignty you can not be 75% sovereign and 25% slave. It's all or none. 50% sovereign and 50% 14th amendment created citizen? That's not the way the world turns. You have to be one or the other but you cannot be both.

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

You might try reading the Constitution sometime. The Electoral College has absolutely nothing to do with the election of Congressmen; the popular vote does.

LOL!!! I should have made myself more clear. The President is not elected by the popular vote. In fact people do not elect congressmen, US citizens do and that is suspect, due to voter fraud. But then again you get what you vote for, corporate officers.

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

And US citizens and only US citizens vote for certain States' officers, like Governor. And state offices have been voted for exclusively by US citizens since before the 14th.

LOL!!! You're kidding, right?

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

And US citizens and only US citizens vote for certain States' officers, like Governor.

And state offices have been voted for exclusively by US citizens since before the 14th.

Hmmmm... maybe this is why Bork will refuse to answer these questions.

It makes his whole crappy theory so exposed you can smell it 3 miles down wind.

So, what, precisely, is your own full understanding of "Bork's" "whole" "theory?"

I mean you "talk" about it, but do you have a full and expressible grasp of what it is?

Can you demonstrate such?

Will you?

If not, why not?

You must thoroughly understand it in order to be able to judge and/or debunk it, mustn't you?

Can you rationally and completely outline it point for point, in your own words, for us?

Will you then?

If not, why not?

Given your own record for rather questionably demeaning rhetoric, as well as your own refusal and inability to answer questions, why would, or should, you expect Bork, or anyone else, to answer yours?

Where, precisely, in "...this Constitution for the United States of America" is the term "US citizen?"

You state:

Hmmmm... maybe this is why Bork will refuse to answer these questions.

Yet I see no such thing as "these questions?"

Why would you make a statement relying upon something purported but not presented?

Why would you do that?

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

its hard to be convinced about this whole 14th amendment citizen thing. It did expand rights but how does it take any away? I read a court ruling where the judge was saying that the effect of this amendment was to create a federal protection against local infringements.

on the other hand...(there always is one)

it may be a question of nationality, rather than citizenship. In a USA passport the nationality is given as "u.s. of america". But then the face page says the holder is a U.S. citizen. hmmm

and then the whole thing is printed on bankpaper with the same font and style as government bonds.
oy vey.

[dorkenbutt]

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

Not at all. In California BEFORE the 14th was passed ONLY citizens of the United States were allowed to be electors and had the power to vote.





There is nothing in this constitution which gives the power to vote to the California citizenry. As a matter of fact the term California citizen is used only once I think and I am pretty sure the section grants NO powers or recognizes any special privileges to Cal. Citizens.

United Sates (singular) citizen is not the same as Citizen of the United States (plural). Take a look at Article 4, Section 2.

Section 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Notice "Citizens in the several states." In other words states united. Big difference. One, 14th Amendment government citizen (slave) the other a Citizen in the several states (national), free.