Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: Arturas
Very well, then according to the 14th Amendment, my privileges are safeguarded and these include food, shelter, internet access and marrying my first cousin since marriage is a right that cannot be restricted. Also, the Constitution does not specify how many marriages are a right so I can now marry multiple women should I be so foolish as to do so and my right to do so is protected.
Again, not true. States are constitutionally free to define marriage (US courts) as a contract between two people only.
Furthermore, any govt. provision of food, clothing and shelter is subject to the various state and federal laws and are in no way guaranteed constitutional law but the 14th amend. requires their equal protection.
To be fair to Arturas. States being "Constitutionally Free" to define something is NOT the same thing as that something being defined in the Constitution.
First off marriage is a private affair, though without some kind of event recording would be a bit cumbersome for everyone to deal with when it comes to wills etc.
The gubmint claims an interest in your marriage for several reasons. the usual money and power.
As far as incestual marriage is concerned the only reason that is tabu is because its was and still is used by the aristocracy to keep the wealth in the family, and like the construction of all subordinate colonies laws are passed to prevent anyone from growing larger than big cheeze. Like dismantle the crown and rothschild dynasty, both very functional today and both ill-gotten wealth. Especially the rothschilds.
The states administrative offices create definitions using new words then like terrorists sneak in through the back door and use their new words to subordinate the words used in the constitution.
Here is an example: You have the 'inherent' right 'travel'. It was reserved and grandfathered in, in the articles of confederation.
Now the states decide they want a traffic system. this is good right?
So they start out taxing corporations who use truck 'drivers' to operate in 'commerce' and do 'business' on the hiway system.
The people say oh yah thats fair so no one fights it.
Then they start taxing private citizens who use the hiways to buy food to survive at some point wrongfully shoving them under the same umbrella.
The average joe citizen not knowing his rights and damn sure no understanding of how to defend them against professional attorneys looks at his empty pockets and the law slips by, grows roots, and is cast in concrete.
Later the gubmint slips the word 'travel' a private inherent right reserved by the people UNDER driving, and UNDER commerce and your right to the 'free' use of the common-way by travel is abolished. They not only tax the gas but require those who would travel for private reasons to buy expensive licenses for their car under the pretense that everyone is a 'driver' operating in commerce.
So STFU and PAY the extortionists and if you dont they will fuck you in the courts with more syntax terrorism when they mysteriously cannot seem to figure out how travelling is any different than driving or how the private man for his own survival is not operating in commerce, or for that matter the intent of the right to travel in the first place.
The only rights you have are those that the gubmint can regulate. Absolutely NO different than the King of England prior to the revolution. Exactly like the King they simply change the meaningof words of create new ones to 'overlay' over the old ones. People are none the wiser, the fraud slips right by most of them.
All else is not recognized despite the fact you reserved them. speech (as long as it does not offend, religion as long as its only praying, travel, as long as its driving, arms are now redefined as guns or 'fire'-arms and so forth to give it a narrowly different twist to pull it out of the state of original agreement and into their newly created jurisdiction to usurp your rights. Its a great scam, works perfectly every time.
The American Dream: You have no rights. ~George Carlin
Its a great dream, that freedom gig.
oh and I suppose I may as well prove it right away LOL
quote:
“Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth.”
Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth’s non ocean surface.
She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. This land ownership is separate from her role as head of state and is different from other monarchies where no such claim is made – Norway, Belgium, Denmark etc.
The value of her land holding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx).
This makes her the richest individual on earth. However, there is no way easily to value her real estate. There is no current market in the land of entire countries. At a rough estimate of $5,000 an acre, and based on the sale of Alaska to the USA by the Tsar, and of Louisiana to the USA by France, the Queen’s land holding is worth a notional $33,000,000,000,000 (Thirty three trillion dollars or about £17,600,000,000,000). Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns. Her main holdings are Canada, the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 million acres, Australia, the 7th largest country on earth with 1,900 million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with 66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres.
She is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin. The next largest landowner is the Russian state, with an overall ownership of 4,219 million acres, and a direct ownership comparable with the Queen’s land holding of 2,447 million acres. The 3rd largest landowner is the Chinese state, which claims all of Chinese land, about 2,365 million acres. The 4th largest landowner on earth is the Federal Government of the United States, which owns about one third of the land of the USA, 760 million acres. The fifth largest landowner on earth is the King of Saudi Arabia with 553 million acres
Largest five personal landowners on Earh
Queen Elizabeth II 6,600 million acres
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia 553 million acres
King Bhumibol of Thailand 126 million acres
King Mohammed IV of Morocco 113 million acres
Sultan Quaboos of Oman 76 million acres
and who is entitltes to collect taxes on that land with an "in fee" property titling system? Same for any common law country colonized by England or rampaged by the US, including the southern states.
The land titles in the US split and they operate like a trust. You get to use it but the gubmint is the trustee who can take a percentage of its value in the form of taxation, because like england the land titles are 'in fee'. Very simple in the final analysis, hence while not fitting the definition of 'direct' ownership as the above is concerned the federal government, the united states, a corporation/association, created under the 13 original colonies have whats called a 'controlling interest' and right of execution through their sub-corporate agent states.
the US being a constitutional republic, the king gig done through the national debt system rather than straight up. They had to devise a work around.
SSDD....
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 7/7/2015 8:43:42 AM >
_____________________________
"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: 14th Ammendment - 
Profile
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