Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:
They claim they state is sovereign when only a living man can be sovereign as sovereigns are bestowed inalienable rights from God, and a state is an arificial name that cannot have a God,
This assumes facts not in evidence.
sure thing
The king is, and ever has been, a corporation sole'; that corporation sole; a corporation is an artificial person that never dies 4; that is invisible, and exists only in intendment and consideration of law; that has no soul, and cannot therefore be summoned before an ecclesiastical court or subjected to spiritual censure; that can neither beat or be beaten in its body politic, nor commit treason or felony in its corporate capacity; that can suffer no corporal punishment or corruption of blood, and can neither be imprisoned or outlawed, its existence being merely ideal5. So far he will be satisfied that the King of England, as described in law books, is in some sense an ideal personage. It may be said, indeed, that the King is not more an ideal personage than a parson or other corporation sole; that it is merely the office, which is converted by a fiction of law into a person ; and that the object of this transmutation is to have the same identical rights kept on foot, and continued forever by a succession of individuals, possessing the same privileges, and charged with the same duties. But, on reflection, it will appear that there but differ, is a wide difference between the King and other porpora- other corporations sole. Derations ' Blackstone, i. 271. iv. 2. 2 Ibid. i. 252. 257. 3 Ibid. i. 469. 472. 4 Ibid. i. 467, 468. 5 Ibid. i. 477. , . o i i o
The ideal King of the english common- law represents the power and majesty of the whole community. (AKA PEOPLE) His fiat makes laws2. His sentence condemns. His judgments give property, and take it away.
He is the state'.
It is true, that in the exercise of these powers, the real King, to whom they are necessarily entrusted, is advised, directed, and controlled by others. But in the contemplation of law the sovereignty and undivided power of the state are in the King. ' Attorney-General's Speech in Hardy's Trial. Howell's State Trials, xxiv. 246.
8 " The person of the king, in name, is the state.
(NOTICE that the words king and state and sovereignty are directly interchangable.
There is no substantial or functional difference in: But in the contemplation of law the sovereignty and undivided power of the state are in the King.
and:
But in the contemplation of law the sovereignty and undivided power of the state are in the STATE OF NEW YORK.
as that is the "person" who sues on behalf of the state of new york in court!
small world
. )
Authorities And Illustrations.
INQUIRY, &c. TRANSCENDENT ATTRIBUTES OF THE KING. To unlearned persons desirous of understanding the constitution of England, the transcendent attributes ascribed to the King, in his high political capacity, must prove a grievous stumbling block at the very commencement of their studies. They may have heard that the law of England is founded in reason and wisdom. The first lesson they are taught, will inform them, that the law of England attributes to the King absolute perfection', absolute immortality 2, and legal ubiquity 3. They will be told, that the King of England is not only incapable of doing wrong, but of thinking wrong, that he cannot mean to do an improper thing, that in him there is no folly or weakness 4. They will be informed that he never dies 5, that he is invisible as well as immortal6, and that in the eye of the law he is present at one and the same instant in every court of justice within his dominions7. ' Blaekstone, i. 24f'. » lb. i. 249. 3 lb. i. 270. 4 lb. i. 246. 5 lb. i. 249. 6 Howell's State Trials, ii. 598. ' Blaekstone, i. 270. iii. 23. U They may have been told, that the royal prerogative in England is limited: but, when they consult the sages of the law, they will be assured, that the legal authority of the King of England is absolute and irresistible, that he is the minister and substitute of the Deity; that all are under him while he is under none but God'. They may have read of oriental despotism, and pitied the lot of nations that have no property in the soil they tread, and hold at the will of a master the lands they are permitted to cultivate. What then must be their surprise, when, turning to their domestic oracles, they are informed, that in the contemplation of law, the whole soil of England belongs to the King, and, if a learned judge is to be trusted, that for certain purposes he may enter thereon at his pleasure2; that he is the universal lord and original proprietor of all the lands in his kingdom 3; that in the law of England there is no proper allodium, or land not held mediately or immediately of the King; and that no subject can have more than the usufruct or beneficiary enjoyment of the land he occupies. (sound familiar?) If they have had the benefit of a liberal education, they may have been taught, that to obtain security for persons and property, was the great end for which men submitted to the restraints of civil government; and they may have heard of the indispensable necessity of an ' Blackstone, i. 251. « lb. ii. 415. 3 Tout fuit in luy et vient de luy al commencement. Y. B. 24 Edw. III. f. 65. b. 4 Blackstone, ii. 51. 59, 60.; iv. 418.
Thats enough.... To fully explain this takes volumes for real.
but you are a citizen and your rights do not transmutate! to bad so sad get used to it! LOL The only freedom you all have is annexation to the sovereign state.
Now that is not a specifically absolute and direct answer to your question presuming you have some background in this it is or should be selfevident.
and what the hell a quicky from wiki....
its impossible you know to answer these kinds of questions in a one liner that most of you like to see:
quote:
The divine right of kings is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries) the Church. According to this doctrine, since only God can judge an unjust king, the king can do no wrong. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act.
now there is a distinction between a monarch and a king and this shit just goes on and on and fucking on! deepest rabbit hole I ever seen in my life LOL
and the only right that the government cannot take away is a right bestowed from God as God is above and outside their jurisdiction, aka alienate you from it hence the term "inalienable right", that is why in the beginning "the king has all his rights on foot" regardless of capacity.
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 6/16/2011 9:29:05 PM >
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: Freedom in the 50 States - 
Profile
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread