Magic Bullet

[clarkee]

I have been searching under the Constitution of Texas and I came across something accidentally. I'm excited because I can't believe I've officially found a form that you can fill out for "Declaration of Citizenship Status.
It's the Republic of Texas. There is also a Republic of Texas Passport you can obtain also if you meet certain conditions. I meet all. There is a lot of useful info at this site I'm getting ready to include. It's all under Common Law. You can check it out for yourself. I pray that this document who qualify for it solves a lot of our problems. All I can do is pray.
www.republic-of-texas.net/archives

[clarkee]

Scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on Document Archives.

[charlesa6]

Thanks for the info, and link. Just keep your fingers cross, you never know.

[clarkee]

Hello Charles:
After reading and re-reading I think this is that sovereign group, The Republic of Texas but anyway, I'm gonna give them a try anyway and then I can let this forum know what happened. They offer a passport just like that World Passport Organization. I don't care who provides what as long as it stands a good chance of any positive results. Anyway, I thought I would share this here.
Robert

[charlesa6]

Clarkee, thanks for your candor.

[Shoonra]

The crucial qualifier is that "stands a chance of positive results." You cannot expect that of the "Republic of Texas" passports nor of the "World Passports".

Nowadays to get on an international flight you'd have to show your passport before you'd be allowed on the plane. So it's very possible that using an ROT document will keep you here and kill your travel plans at the very beginning. At your foreign destination you'd have more hassles. Most people would not find this an enjoyable feature of a vacation.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The crucial qualifier is that "stands a chance of positive results." You cannot expect that of the "Republic of Texas" passports nor of the "World Passports".

Nowadays to get on an international flight you'd have to show your passport before you'd be allowed on the plane. So it's very possible that using an ROT document will keep you here and kill your travel plans at the very beginning. At your foreign destination you'd have more hassles. Most people would not find this an enjoyable feature of a vacation.

Originally Posted by Decl. of Ind.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

So Shoonra, can you show me where, in any part of the Decl. of Ind., the Federal government given the right to prevent anyone to exercise their right to travel into or out of the USA? This sounds like more of the same old opinion where you justify any government interference of a man or woman's God given rights like that which you spout in the travel threads.

Lets also examine how your opinion squares with the Constitution's Bill of Rights:

Originally Posted by USA Constitution

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That's VIOLATION #1. If I want to travel anywhere with the intent of assembly, there can be no law interfering with that right. Doesn't matter if I want to travel using my feet, bicycle, driving my car, truck or using any sort of public or private transportation.

Originally Posted by USA Constitution

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

N.A.

Originally Posted by USA Constitution

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That's VIOLATION #2
(Save your Supreme Ct. Cite. - what part of "shall not be violated" do activist judges not understand?) There are THOUSANDS of computers in the CIA, FBI and other HOMELAND SECURITY agencies with databases containing dimensions of personal information on citizens and foreign nationals inside and outside this country that you can't even imagine. Given all the information available prior to a passenger getting on a flight and going through what is just short of a strip search, only a creative (read deranged) legislative or judicial body would deem this acceptable.

Originally Posted by Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

N.A.

Originally Posted by USA Constitution

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

POSSIBLE VIOLATION.
This depends upon the situation. I am quite sure that if the Airport Gestapo was having a bad day or if the "suspect" was any larger than 6'2" and 200lbs, cruel and unusual punishments would follow as they did to this member of the US Military at the Las Vegas Airport:
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister...le_1718255.php
(I watched the security video from this incident a half dozen times as this man was encircled by 3 "officers", two with weapons drawn at point blank range, when the 3rd tazered the "suspect".

Originally Posted by USA Constitution

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That's VIOLATION #3 (giving you the benefit of doubt concerning the above). Anyone not a US Citizen and not part of the body politic retains ALL their God given rights the founders mentioned in the Decl. of Ind.

Originally Posted by USA Constitution

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

That's VIOLATION #4

Spin it as you will Shoonra, just what type of nation do you want to live in? Given how the Federal Gov. seems to be importing terrorists these days (such as those who were plotting to blow up the JFK fuel depot and Fort Dix and a more complete list available here: http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_153193902.html) how can you say they are doing all they can do to make the nation safer?

It seems the Federal Gov is as incompetent as ever and to cover up their gross negligence they’re taking this country down a road of fascism and despotism. I have zero confidence that Passports and the upcoming Real ID will have any impact in making the nation safer given the current foreign policies and immigration policies of this Federal Government.

[Shoonra]

The use of passports in international travel goes back to before the Founding of the Republic. You don't need a passport to go from one place to another inside the US, but if you attempt international travel the foreign country can insist on seeing a passport for you. And if you come from a foreign country to the US our govt can insist on seeing a passport to show that you are a US citizen rather than a foreign subject.

The Supreme Court has determined that American citizens have a RIGHT to obtain a passport. It hasn't determined that people must be accepted by (or from) foreign countries without a passport.

[palani]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The use of passports in international travel goes back to before the Founding of the Republic. You don't need a passport to go from one place to another inside the US, but if you attempt international travel the foreign country can insist on seeing a passport for you. And if you come from a foreign country to the US our govt can insist on seeing a passport to show that you are a US citizen rather than a foreign subject.

The Supreme Court has determined that American citizens have a RIGHT to obtain a passport. It hasn't determined that people must be accepted by (or from) foreign countries without a passport.

Your argument (for expansion of this word see definition of babble) falls apart when you read Cherokee Nation vs Georgia 5 Pet 1 decided by the supremes in 1831. The (50) states are foreign states with respect to the federal government except for the domestic issues negotiated in (YOU MIGHT GUESS IT) the U.S. Constitution. If the federal corporate government prohibits my travel I would consider this to be a violation of their oaths, wouldn't you?

[clarkee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The use of passports in international travel goes back to before the Founding of the Republic. You don't need a passport to go from one place to another inside the US, but if you attempt international travel the foreign country can insist on seeing a passport for you. And if you come from a foreign country to the US our govt can insist on seeing a passport to show that you are a US citizen rather than a foreign subject.

The Supreme Court has determined that American citizens have a RIGHT to obtain a passport. It hasn't determined that people must be accepted by (or from) foreign countries without a passport.

Inside the US? The federal zone and it's enclaves and territories? I thought Texas was foreign to the US. I thought Louisiana was foreign to Texas. I thought the states were sovereign and foreign to each other. I thought, in law, international could be presumed me traveling from Texas to New Mexico or any other state. It would seem traveling with a Us passport would be more dangerous than traveling with a ROT passport. Anything with US on it could stand for trouble since we are not the most liked people in the world due to our infamous corporation. I'm surprised, in a way that people in America don't need a state passport to travel from state to state. I shouldn't speak too soon as this is probably in the making.