Considering that Dr. Caligari is the only one to respond without being all over the board and curt,
bmielke wrote:What is it that you cannot understand?
Why you went into something that was not the issue. I used evidence of some guys being sovereign leaders: that was all it was for. I have to admit, your answer was pretty entertaining, in a good way. Standup routine on the horizon, Bmielke?
Nikki wrote:He's annoyed because you hit him square on the brain.
Hey, are you two sleeping together? **smile**
bmielke wrote:I am beginning to think we need some of this
Come on... Just attempting to get some things straight. **wink**
The Operative wrote:Cancel red alert, bmielke, for all intent and purposes, did answer the question about members of the legislature being a sovereign leader.
The Jurist wrote:The reason I suggested that the state legislators should be in the list of the "biggest sovereign leaders" is that they are by claiming state's rights, are they not? They must be wacky for some reason to be claiming their rights. That is the case with the bulk of the people here on Quatloos, right? That is, barring stupidity, anyone that does not want to play the Marxist law game established by the United States is a whack-job, correct?
I was interested in the last question there, of which you somewhat addressed in the next part, Operative. Note the comment about barring stupidity.
The Operative wrote:BTW, sovereign citizens and the movement attempt to ignore or circumvent laws enacted by states and/or the federal government that were enacted through the utilization of the governmental powers that were 1) not prohibited to the states and/or 2) expressly granted to the federal government under the Constitution. Sovereign citizens claim that the federal government cannot have power over them if they renounce their citizenship (without following the legal procedures to do so) or declare themselves a natural man, or some other use of magic words.
I understand the issue you have expressed and cannot agree with you more. I think it has been noted in the forum that I do not agree with the so-called "sovereign citizen" position.
The Operative wrote:A declatory statement by a state legislature expressing their belief that the federal government has encroached upon state rights or has usurped powers that were not expressly granted to the federal government under the Constitution, is not the definition of "sovereign leader/guru" that we utilize here. Even the briefest cursory perusal of this and other threads on this board should have made that clear to the reader.
Thanks, Operative. I made that clear in my post...
The Jurist wrote:Again, I am finding that some of you people tend to go off-point more than a broken compass. I know I have done so myself here as I know the intent of this thread, but I am just making a point.
Thanks!