George Gordon and Common Law

[palani]

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

Looks like this document proves correct what Lawdog and Myself are saying.

1) There was a territory

2) Law changed it into a state

3) It is no longer a territory.

Seems like the same thing that happened to the Articles of Con. and the Constitution.

Any more lame proofs of yours that actually prove my statements?

You certainly are off base on this one, Codee.

1} A state is a body politic.

2) A body politic might be only one individual.

3) The Louisana Purchase Art. III states "the inhabitants ... shall be incorporated in the union of the United States". It does not state that "the territory shall be incorporated in the union of the United States".

4) It follows that each individual inhabitant of the territory being discussed and ceded by France is by right an individual STATE on an equal footing with the original 13 countries that formed the United States.

How do you like them apples.

[netwrkranger]

Companies are starting to not hire or fire people who smoke. The attorney was saying that it is legal and the rationale was that smokers cost the company more money. As such, the company reserves the power direct how the employee can act or not act in their off time, private time (COMPELLED PERFORMANCE)

He then went into an example of how FOX news has stipulations in their contract that a person can be fired if they choose to exercise their free speech rights in particular ways.

The attorney didn't go into the good stuff and the real reasons why it is legal.

Contract makes the law. Consent makes the law. When you enter into a contract, license, franchise, insurance, or trust, you are signing away your rights. Plain and simple. By signing into one of these vehicles, you will experience a declension, reduction, or wholesale abrogation of your God given property rights.

Do review my initial post on this thread with particular focus on Admiralty law and jurisdiction.

That was a very eye opening segment indeed.

Regards,
netwrkranger

[netwrkranger]

Codee wrote:
Why do would not they write that then?

???

- netwrkranger

[Lawdog]

The notion that the Articles of Confederation are still somehow in force is a moron idea.

Just read the Articles. They say that, in Congress, each state has one vote.

Is that the system that pertains today? No. Under the Constitution, each state has two votes in the Senate and as many votes in the House as it does Representatives, the number varying due to the population of the state.

No one takes an oath to support, protect and defend the Articles of Confederation. They pledge to support, protect and defend the Constitution. NOT the Constitution AND the Articles. Because the Articles are dead letter. Kaput. Gone.

Again, this is basic stuff. And some of you still don't get it. Amazing.

[palani]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

The notion that the Articles of Confederation are still somehow in force is a moron idea.

Just read the Articles. They say that, in Congress, each state has one vote.

Simple principle: One man - one vote.

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Is that the system that pertains today? No. Under the Constitution, each state has two votes in the Senate and as many votes in the House as it does Representatives, the number varying due to the population of the state.

No one takes an oath to support, protect and defend the Articles of Confederation. They pledge to support, protect and defend the Constitution. NOT the Constitution AND the Articles. Because the Articles are dead letter. Kaput. Gone.

Again, this is basic stuff. And some of you still don't get it. Amazing.

Of course this is why you pay perpetual obesiance to the laws of Romans 2,000 years dead?

[palani]

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

So where are my two senators to represent me?

To re-present you as what? Possibly a sociable engineer instead of a Roman one?

In a republic you need not be re-presented. You stand as yourself at all times.