according to blackstones commentaries the law of nature is the law of God
as its ruled by the bible as is common law, i tend to believe him there
with how herbert bush talked about the rule of law and how he despised the
"law of nature and its God". they can feign their superiority by claiming
the usa is somehow sovereign over the people if they wish, but as you can
see as recently as 2019 from their supreme court the people are the
ultimate sovereign and both the federalist and anti federalist papers have
no choice but to bow to this. gamble v us talks about the "separate and
coequal sovereign" but as texas v white, the dredd scott cases, and steward
mach. co. v davis points out we compose the state, we are crowned by the
constitution of which is under the protection of the current constitution,
and without the original and physical land of which we compose there can be
no such political body as the united states. america was founded as a judeo
christian nation and all of our actual laws and principles not limited to
the constitution, which was created with inspiration from the law of
nations which recognizes God as the almighty, is christian or its "not only
bad law but not law at all".
united states v wong kim ark 169 u.s 649 The Supreme Court of North
Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said: "Before our Revolution, all
free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain,
whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects;
those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no
other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent
upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free
and sovereign
Page 169 U. S. 664
State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina
freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens
of the State. . . . The term 'citizen,' as understood in our law, is
precisely analogous to the term 'subject' in the common law, and the change
of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The
sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the
people, and he who before as a 'subject of the king' is now 'a citizen of
the State.'"
COX, Chief Justice (Supreme Court of Indiana): In that remote and despotic
period when the sovereign king chartered rights and liberties to his
subjects, the people, all governmental powers were assumed to be his by
divine right. In him were combined the legislative, executive, and judicial
powers of government; he was lawgiver, interpreter, and enforcer; when the
powers were executed by agents, the agents were his and responsible to him
alone. On this continent we came to the time when the people, by
revolution, took to themselves sovereignty, and, in exercising supreme
political power, chartered governments by written Constitutions. These
organic instruments declared and guaranteed the rights and liberties of the
individual, which had come to the people through centuries of struggle
against absolutism in government. The majority was to rule, but under
restraints and limitations which preserved to the minority its rights. "By
the Constitution which they establish, they not only tie up the hands of
their official agencies, but their own hands as well; and neither the
officers of the state, nor the whole people as an aggregate body, are at
liberty to take action in opposition to this fundamental law." Cooley's
Constitutional Limitations (7th Ed.) p.56. The government so instituted was
representative of the creator of it, the people. ELLINGHAM Sec. of State
v. DYE et al, 178 Ind. 336
Justice O'CONNOR (Supreme Court of the United States) delivered the opinion
of the Court: As every schoolchild learns, our Constitution establishes a
system of dual sovereignty between the States and the Federal Government.
This Court also has recognized this fundamental principle. In Tafflin v.
Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458 (1990), "[w]e beg[a]n with the axiom that, under
our federal system, the States possess sovereignty concurrent with that of
the Federal Government, subject only to limitations imposed by the
Supremacy Clause." Over 120 years ago, the Court described the
constitutional scheme of dual sovereigns: " '[T]he people of each State
compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the
functions essential to separate and independent existence,'... '[W]ithout
the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United
States.' GREGORY v. ASHCROFT, 501 U.S. 452
"The Convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the
State legislatures. But the instrument ... was submitted to the
people.... It is true, they assembled in their several States--and where
else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough
to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of
compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when
they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on
that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become
the measures of the State governments." 4 Wheat., at 403. U.S. TERM LIMITS
INC. v. THORNTON, 514 U.S. 779
state citizenship is a vested substantial property right, and the State has
no power to divest or impair these rights. Favot v Kingsbury, (1929) 98
Cal. app. 284, 276 P. 1083
We must apply to this text our longstanding interpretive presumption that
"person" does not include the sovereign. See United States v. Cooper Corp.,
312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941); United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275
(1947) Justice BREYER, concurring: I join the opinion of the Court in full.
I also join the opinion of Justice GINSBURG. The Court's principal argument
relies on "our longstanding interpretive presumption that 'person' does not
include the sovereign." [***] What's more, the doctrinal origins of that
"presumption" meant only that the enacting sovereign was not normally
thought to be a statutory "person." See, e.g., United States v. California,
297 U.S., at 186 ("[T]he canon of construction that a sovereign is
presumptively not intended to be bound by its own statute unless named in
it ... has its historical basis in the English doctrine that the Crown
[sovereign. ] is unaffected by acts of Parliament not specifically directed
against it. The presumption is an aid to consistent construction of
statutes of the enacting sovereign when their purpose is in doubt"
(emphasis added)); see also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S., at
275; United States v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315 (1876); Will v. Michigan Dept. of
State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 73
Justice KENNEDY (Supreme Court of the United States) delivered the opinion
of the Court: The contracts between a nation and individuals are only
binding on the conscience of the sovereign, and have no pretensions to a
compulsive force. They confer no right of action independent of the
sovereign will. ALDEN v. MAINE, 527 U.S. 706].
There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They
affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not
individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic
utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While, because of a
general recognition of this truth, the question has seldom been presented
to the courts, yet we find that in *Updegraph v. Commonwealth,* 11 S. & R.
394, 400, it was decided that
"Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the
common law of Pennsylvania; . . . not Christianity with an established
church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of
conscience to all men."
And in *People v. Ruggles,* 8 Johns. 290, 294-295, Chancellor Kent, the
great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court of New York, said:
"The people of this state, in common with the people of this country,
profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith
and practice, and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only,
in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to
the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good
order. . . . The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious
opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any
religious. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021, 11:00 AM Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The federalist papers often asked, "what about the least of these" or one
may say the poor. It is often known when a pack of dogs get together
(democracy) they gang up on one single weak dog. Nature's lesson to learn.
How do one protect that one? But to give him equal power. Presently our
government and society has been run by rich men,I believe, and not the
people. So one can ask as governments go corrupt, "what about the people".
Lincoln said of the United Stares court of federal claims: it is the
conscience of the people. I see it as my last vote as a sovereign to hold
goverment accountable to my sovereign wish. By asking where is the claim?
To hold the people of the state of democracy accountable to me as a king or
law into myself amongst other kings making agreements. Holding the group
accountable to the first law that recognized men as a equal or Free citizen
of the kingdom of heaven wandering this earth to carry out by creators
mission. To be blessed by the creator or fate will have it for my riches
Forever reminded that all men are crafted equal in his sight and amongst
men. To violate another man is to violate my creator. Any religion that
does not recognize that is an enemy of the United States of America as much
as government is and may be worst then government because it is the fabric
of one's conscience.
Like a pack of dogs. Nature's law and evolution: survival of the fittest.
That describes government well, too often. Or we that low of creatures with
no compassion?
On Oct 28, 2021, 7:06 AM -0600,
administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, wrote:
and
