quote:

ORIGINAL: bendmywill67

Rights come from the people that have, want, need, or demand them I suppose. I'm not much into politcs. I'm just stateing my opinion. It's my right.

quote:

1.01  State sovereignty and jurisdiction.
The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state extend to all places within the boundaries declared in article II of the constitution, subject only to such rights of jurisdiction as have been or shall be acquired by the United States over any places therein; and of course they are sworn to PROTECT WHO?
and the governor, and all subordinate officers of the state, shall maintain and defend its sovereignty and jurisdiction.

quote:

1.09  Seat of government.
Be it enacted by the council and house of representatives of the territory of Wisconsin, that the seat of government of the territory of Wisconsin, be and the same is located and established

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpaceSpank

We went into libya BECAUSE "We" (the USA and others) decided to do it.
Hence my point about saying "We" as in people, specifically the USA often enough, can impose those on others when "we" (being human beings, and not anything else) decide we want to.
thats right and the fuck you got to vote n it. this country has always been and will always be feudal at a minimum in character. only 1 of the 13 actually voted on anything the rest had the plantatins loards, those who were granted the large plots of land that everyone paid tithes to rent (and still do) to the same plantation lords (now sovereign states) stealing the name of the people as patrick henry so eloquently pointed out did all the damn voting and nominated themselves delegates for the people..... whats different now? LOL

Thats right these ass helmets decide to invade other countries and force them to contract by means of the old UKofA Law called right of "conquest". Must be nice huh!
Those are not examples of anything you are arguing for. We have already societaly dictated our own rights some time ago, we simply pushed those off on others who may or may not have shared the same goal.
well sure. once they found the magic word to invade and completely wipe out every INDIVIDUALS rights in the name of the MOB by the use of the word "INTEREST" now they can narrowly construe any damn invasion of anything they dream up and you have no redress except at the mercy of an equity court and several thousand bucls later not to mention your time and as a pro se litigant you cant even collect attorney fees. HUGE fucking stacked deck eh!

And I used the "last man on earth" example because it's the natural progression of your example. And you on a desert island have any rights you can yourself enforce in the same way. Do you have the right to pursue happiness? No, because there IS no right. You can do whatever you want on that island that is within your means. The moment another person comes into the picture, your rights are now entirely up to which ones you can enforce or agree to.
the object of a constitution is so that people have no need to "ENFORCE" but merely claim the right. Thats not anything close to reality. The opposite is true. THE LEGISLATURES OF THE 51 KINGS HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL OBLICATION TO PASS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW! They can throw any shit at the wall they want and see what sticks and that is precisely what they do in all COMMON LAW BASED UKofA countries. then we the individuals have to PAY to fight the bastards out of our pockets while they get tax payer dollors and an infinitely deep pocket to fight you back. and you cant even get attorney fees as a prose litigant! JUST BEND OVER AND SMILE This is america land of the free, it means FRANCHISED sooner and much later a few will get a fucking clue.
What if another person lands on your island and wants to kill you? And he's a hell of a lot more proficient at combat, weapons, stealth, and athletics than you are? Do you have the "right" to live? No, why? Because you can no longer enforce that, and he has all the power to remove any choice in the matter from you. And there is no societal influence, oversight, or penalty to prevent, protect, or punish.
hence the inerent right to life. These are maxims of law that date back to adam and eve. The body of law stare decis has developed over the centuries, and much of it is good and draws specific lines in the sand between you and that killer. Now this is the SUBSTANTIAL definition of why governments were created, NOT to give everyone entitlements and special dispensations under the king but to join together and form a court to PUNISH the sob that thinks he can murder you. You kill you will be killed, of course today we have such a corrupt judicial that its really difficult to send anyone up on death row with a clean conscience
In normal every day life, that kind of thing still happens, but there's oversight, there's enforcement, and there's punishment.

YES THERE IS! My neighbor was writen up under the STATES POLICE POWER for his lawn being to high and another neighbor written up for his car being parked 4 inches off the cement on his driveway.

Now thats fucking freedom let me tell ya!
Of course some can work the systems in place and literally get away with murder, but it's not to be taken lightly because our society has deemed that to be something that has very few exceptions.
politics today is all about entitlements as rights
The DoI was written by men in the language of the time and the people... so of course it referenced a deity.
wrong it referenced a diety because the equity is secularized ecclesiastic law. the bishops on staff were considered the conscience of the king, hence law and equity. Of course there is that minor snag they call corruption.
Hell, even if it was made now there is a good chance it would STILL reference a deity.
It has to, otherwise you only have the state and you are no longer the creator of the state but the state is the creator of you.

listen to many of th eposts out here.

the king won the revolution.

took him a couple hundred years to perfect it but he did.

That doesn't mean that any abstract entity LIKE TH E SOVEREIGN STATE OF______?had anything to do with the subject matter, just that they used it to speak to the common person of the time and reinforce what they were saying.

no it is based in law that you apparently are not aware of, still is
They didn't "gift" rights. They simply put down the already commonly accepted ones that society had agreed upon.
you mean revolted and chopped the fucking kings head off for

Those rights did not simply spring up out of nowhere at the creation of the USA.

tru all the so called founders, more accurately the constitutors, did was parrot the english bill of rights and the magna charta. didnt even change harly a word

We're talking hundreds of years of political changes all across Europe and then the Americas to forge the cultural identity and societal norms that existed at the time the USA was founded. We did not spring forth from a vacuum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Winterapple

FR
I doubt that Jefferson's concept of the Creator
would have much in common with Ryan's
concept of God.

I think when he wrote about inalienable
rights he was saying men should be free
of tyranny. Tyranny in the form of a king.

The point of the declaration was to inform
the king he wasn't the boss of them.
His other views on rights were most likely
a lot like other men of the Enlightenment.
The French after their revolution came
up with the Rights of Man.

Like th ecolor of law, HUman is the color of man. HUmans have inalienable rights.

Ideally Jefferson might have meant all
men should be born free and remain free.

yes under english law, same here in the UKA you are either one of th eclub or you are out of here.

to be free meant not to be in chains as a slave. The only way you could get released from slavery was to swear to be a-liege to the king, that was and still is the definition of freedom

from the law dictionaries of the time;

[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/blacks%202/universalandcriticaldictionaryofEnglishlang1849WorcesterWalkerFREEDOM000.jpg[/image]
[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/blacks%202/FREEDOMETYMOLOGICALENGLISHDICTIONARYenfranchise1689A.jpg[/image]
[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/blacks%202/FREEDOMETYMOLOGICALENGLISHDICTIONARYALLEGIENCE1749000.jpg[/image]

a franchise citizen contract in exchange for slavery.

same wonder deal they gave the blacks. If you are not UNDER a sovereign you are booted the fuck out.

Now days but "usufruct"

you benefit we have your name we know where you live pay tacxes.

the only thing that changes in the syntax, the law remains the same

all for them none for you


This would be ironic considering Jefferson's
real life. But Jefferson wasn't one to let
reality interfere with his ideals or vice versa.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

We are all going camping 10 miles off the coast friday for a week.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Winterapple
FR
I doubt that Jefferson's concept of the Creator
would have much in common with Ryan's
concept of God.

quote:


I think when he wrote about inalienable
rights he was saying men should be free
of tyranny. Tyranny in the form of a king.
The point of the declaration was to inform
the king he wasn't the boss of them.
His other views on rights were most likely
a lot like other men of the Enlightenment.
The French after their revolution came
up with the Rights of Man.

quote:

U.S. adopted Common laws of England with the Constitution. Caldwell vs. Hill, 178 SE 383 (1934).

quote:

"Biblical Law at "Common Law" supersedes all laws, and "Christianity is custom, custom is Law." Robin v. Hardaway 1790.

quote:

Inferior Courts - The term may denote any court subordinate to the chief tribunal in the particular judicial system; but it is commonly used as the designation of a court of special, limited, or statutory jurisdiction, whose record must show the existence and attaching of jurisdiction in any given case, in order to give presumptive validity to its judgment. In re Heard’s Guardianship, 174 Miss. 37, 163, So. 685.

quote:

"Immunity fosters neglect and breeds irresponsibility while liability promotes care and caution, which caution and care is owed by the government to its people." (Civil Rights) (Rabon vs Rowen Memorial Hospital, Inc. 269 N.S. 1, 13, 152 SE 1 d 485, 493

quote:

“...where any state proceeds against a private individual in a judicial forum it is well settled that the state, county, municipality, etc. waives any immunity to counters, cross claims and complaints, by direct or collateral means regarding the matters involved.” Luckenback v. The Thekla, 295 F 1020, 226 Us 328; Lyders v. Lund, 32 F2d 308;

quote:

1705, c. 49. Collection of laws in 1733, pa. 218. 'An act concerning servants and slaves,' enacts 'that all servants* imported

* The act of 1748, c. 14. Revisal of 1748, pa. 285. instead of the words ' all servants imported,' substitutes 'all persons who have been or shall be imported;' an alteration of few words indeed, but of most extensive barbarity. It has subjected to slavery the free inhabitants of the two continents of Asia and Africa (except of .the small parts of them inhabited by Turks and Moors in amity with England) and also the Aborigines of North and South America, unless Mason's observation on the word 'shipped,' shall be thought to avail them. It even makes slaves of the Jews who shall come from those countries, on whose religion ours is engrafted, and so far as it goes, supposes it to be founded on perfect verity. Nay, it extends not only to such of those persons as should come here after the act, but also to those who had come before, and might then be living here in a state of freedom and brought into this country by sea or land, who were not Christians in their native country, (except Turks and Moors in amity with her Majesty, and others that can make due proof of their being free in England, or any odier Christian country, before they were shipped, in order to transportation hither) shall be accounted and be slaves, and as such, be here bought and sold, notwithstanding a conversion to Christianity‘afterwards.* And it repeals all other acts so far ‘ as they relate to servants and slaves, or to any matter
or thing whatsoever, witliin die purview of this act,’

Having thus premised the several acts of Assembly, so far as they threw light on this subject, or on one anodier, he observed, that but four of them have imposed servitude or slavery on Indians ;

quote:

1682, c. 1. which made slaves of all Indian sei'vants imported
by sea or land, and of . all Indians sold wjt slaves by other Indians
trafficking with us- This is the act on which the defendants rely,
supposing it to have been in force when the ancestors of the plain-
tiils were brought into diis country. lint on the contrary he pro-
posed to prove,
1. That it was originally void in itself, because it was contrary
to natural right.
II. Thai it was virtually repealed by the act of 1 (384. If not, vet,
III. It was virtually repealed by die act of 1G91. And if by
neither of these, then,
IV. It was actually repealed in 1705.
I. He observed that we came to this new world, not called by
the invitations, nor provoked by the injuries of its inhabitants.
That by force we dispossessed them of the wiids they had inha-
bited from the crcation of the world; which %vas carrying far
enough our violation of their rights. That we did not therefore
pretend, in the general, to reduce tlieir persons under our dominion.
Of some of them indeed wc accepted the subjection; but this wus
a civil union of the one state with the other, not a domestic and
trios,, on vhote rertigiun our* is engriiflad, and bo far as it fcoes, suppose* it to
be founded on perfect verity. Nay, it extends not only to such of those nel-
sons as should coran here lifter the act, but also to those who have come before,
and might then he living here in a state of freedom
servile submission of individuals to individuals. Accordingly, the
freedom of die confederate or united states was secured by so-
lemn treaties. This is the case of our tributary and friendly In-
dians, whose liberty could not be invaded by any act of Assembly,
without committing so fundamental a violation of these treaties, as
would dissolve the union or confederacy, and restore them again
to their natural Independence. As little could the wars we waged
against others of them, justify the reducing the captives to slavery.
Because all such wars, whether we or they commenced hostilities,
were just ou their part, entered into pro uris et focis, to defend
from the invasion and encroachments of hostile strangers, that na-
tive soil in which the God who made and planted their fathers, and
said to them, ‘over this thou shall have dominion' So that if
we apply these acts of our legislature to the captives from hostile
tribes of Indians, they cannot be justified on the rights of war; if
to those in amity with us, they are infractions of the federal as
well as natural rights of those people. No instance can be pro-
duced where even heathens have imposed slavery on a free people,
in peace with them. The Indians of every denomination were
free, and independent of us; they were not subject to our empire;
not represented in our legislaturej they derived no protection from
our laws, nor could be subjected to their bonds. If natural right,
independence, defect of representation, and disavowal of protec-
tion. are not sufficient to keep them from the coercion of our laws
on what other principles can we justify our opposition to some late
acts of power exercised ever us by the British legislature? Yet
they only pretended to impose on us a paltry tax in money ; we on
our free neighbors, the yoke of perpetual slavery. Now all acts
of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice, are,
in our laws, and must be in the nature of things, considered as void.


The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can
be superseded by no power on earth ; A legislature must not ob-
struct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot
protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we
are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudi-
cations of our courts of justice. And cited 8 Co* 118. a. Bon-
ham’s case. Hob. 87. 7. Co. 14. a. Calvin’s case. And so he con-
cluded the act of 1782, originally void, because contrary to natural
right and justice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Winterapple
FR
I doubt that Jefferson's concept of the Creator
would have much in common with Ryan's
concept of God.

The only difference, IMO, is that Ryan has defined who his God is. Jefferson use "Creator" because he knew there was one, but didn't want to force anyone's religious beliefs on anyone else. "Creator" is more a reference than a specifier.

quote:


I think when he wrote about inalienable
rights he was saying men should be free
of tyranny. Tyranny in the form of a king.
The point of the declaration was to inform
the king he wasn't the boss of them.
His other views on rights were most likely
a lot like other men of the Enlightenment.
The French after their revolution came
up with the Rights of Man.

I would not be so sure he meant just tyranny in the form of a king. Yes, that was their current situation, but I highly doubt that he would have accepted tyranny from a non-monarchy. The DoI did inform the King, exactly as you said, but it wasn't limited solely to their specific case. The basis for the Declaration can be used by the people of any form of government.

The French Revolution took a lot of inspiration from the US Revolution.

quote:

Your rights are brought to you by the founding fathers. The dutchies