|
Real0ne -> RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH (5/27/2017 5:59:46 PM)
|
in fact the word 'person' is one of my favorite playgrounds because its one of the words that has been used to fuck us over, and illegally reduce our rights by none other than the corporation entrusted to defend our rights. the US. [sm=skiprope.gif]
Blackstone ridiculed what was done as much as he could without getting hung.
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 for ever 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
There is therefore something higher, more mysterious,and more remote from reality, in the conception which the law of England forms of the King, than enters into Ideal theory the notion of a corporation sole.
The ideal King of the english common- law represents the power and majesty of the whole community. 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.
2 In an argument before the Court of King's Bench, in 23 Edw. III. it was said, " Que le roy fist les leis par assent dez peres et de la commune, et non pas lez peres et la commune." Y. B. 23 Edw. III. i. 3. b.
8 " The person of the king, in name, is the state.
He is to all intents and purposes the sole representative of the state." Solicitor-General's Speech in Hardy's Trial. Howell's State Trials, xxiv. 1183.
It is not my intention to dispute the truth or reality of this view of the constitution of England.
The difference of course and the fraud is that the king with his sole corp wont personally suffer since the distinction is upheld between 'the man' and 'the artifice', however for the rest of us that distinction between our sole corp shackles they placed around our ankles and the living (wo)/(man) is ignored and if you fight for it in court they will make sure you go to jail to shut you up. the sleight of hand with the lil ole word person is what splits the man and grants the gubmint title and legal jurisdiction over who and what owns your body, legal shackles. That is why they immediately made the slaves citizens of the federalgubmint since we cant have a bunch of black sovereigns running around now can we! Its a big club and you aint in it.
The conversion of rights of man equal to the state to privileges under the state.
Art. XIV. g 1. ""No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law."
That the first ten articles of amendment were not intended to limit the powers of the state governments in respect to their own people, but to operate on the National Government alone, was decided more than a half century ago, and that decision has been steadily adhered to since.
Hanson v. Baltimore, 32 U. S. 7 Pet. 243,247 [8:672,674];
Livingston v. Moore, Id. 469, 552 [8:751, 781];
Fox v. Ohio. 46 U. S. 6 How. 410, 434 [12: 213, 223];
Smith v. Maryland, 59 U. S. 18 How. 71, 76 [15: 26S, 2711;
Withers v. Buckley, 61 U. S. 20 How. 84, 91 [15:816, 819];
Pernear v.Commonwealth, 72 U. 8. 5 Wall. 475, 479 [18:608, 6091;
Twitchell v. Commonwealth, 74 U. 8. 7 Wall. 321, 325 [19:223, 224];
The Justices v. Murray, 76 U. S. 9 Wall. 274, 278 [19:658, 660];
Edicard» v. Elliott, 88 U. S. 21 Wall. 532, 557 [22:487, 4921;
Waller v. Sawinet, 92 U. S. 90 [23:678];
U. 8. v. Cruikshank, Id. 542, 552 [23: 588, 5911;
Pearson v. Tewdall, 95 U. S.294,296 [24:436,437];
Daridton v. New Orkan», 96 U. 8. 97, 101 124:616, 618];
Kelly v. Pittsburgh. 104 U. S. 79 [26: 658];
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 Í29: 615, 619].
It was contended, however, in argument, that, "though originally the first ten amendments were adopted as limitations on federal power, yet in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights—common-law rights —of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as a citizen of the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a State under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, while the ten amendments as limitations on power only apply to the Federal Government, and not to the States, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the Fourteenth Amendment as to such rights limits state power, as the ten amendments had limited federal power."
It is also contended that the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment which declares that no State shall deprive "any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" implies that every person charged with crime in a State shall be entitled to a trial by an impar [167] trial jury, and shall not be compelled to testify against himself.
and if you read that king part very carefully it will give you cluees to the origins of many other legal constructs that we take for granted, most of which are technically unconstitutional but work great for 'lording' over the masses and keepint them under da mobacracies thumb.
Oh they fuck ya to the left they fuck ya to the right, they fuck up they fuck ya down they fuck ya otta sight!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-diB65scQU
|
|
|
|
