Let me start my questions from the beginning.

[chronistra]

Bringing up a diversity case does not mean the Feds can start deciding divorces in Kansas.

You're still confused. I did not bring up a diversity case. I brought up cases in which the federal jurisdiction trumps state sovereignty.

For example, in Loving v. Virgina (above-cited), there was no diversity jurisdiction. Both members of the couple were citizens and residents of Virginia. Because federal sovereignty overrides that of the states, however, the state (ok, commonwealth) of Virginia was barred from enforcing Virginia law regarding the validity of the Lovings' marriage on the basis that the Virginia law, perfectly proper and legal under the Virginia constitution, violated the federal constitution.

There can never be a reverse finding, however. A federal law that is proper and legal under the U.S. constitution cannot be overturned by a state court, and Virginia agreed to this more than two centuries ago (June 1788). Virginia ceded some of its sovereignty to the central government at the time it ratified the U.S. constitution.

[JennyD]

Where do you people come from?

Quantico, you?

[Patriotdiscussions]

"ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted," 44 U.S., at 223.



Like this in my original post

[JennyD]

"ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted," 44 U.S., at 223.



Like this in my original post

Not entirely true... While it is true that jurisdiction, normally is deferred to the state (or commonwealth) where an offense takes place, at times, there are also Federal laws that are broken and the Feds can step in and take jurisdiction away without much fuss. It only applies however where a Federal Law has been broken that would trump the state case. As a matter of practice the Feds wouldn't charge and prosecute a bank robber (which is Federal) if said robber also killed several hostages outside the bank (which would be a State case for Murder One)

Savvy?

[Famspear]

I would but I am on mobile as home net is been down, auto correct can be a bitch and why put much effort into? You see I studied psychology as well and while I will never change your folks beliefe's, you can help me find holes I missed.

That's right, Patriotdiscussions -- you will never change our "beliefs." And there's a good reason for that. We're not operating here on the basis of our "beliefs". We're operating on the basis of what the law is. The law is knowable. And it's not based on your "belief" about the law, or my "belief" about the law.

The reason that you cannot change other people's "beliefs" about the law is that you don't know enough about law to understand it very well yourself. And, you never will -- unless you change your approach.

If you have studied psychology, then you should try to think about why you are having these thoughts that you are having about the law. You should try to use your knowledge of psychology to understand why you are having these feelings -- why you have developed these beliefs that you have.

You are not alone. We have been studying people like you for many years.

You see, I have studied psychology, too. I don't have a degree in psychology, and I'm not a psychologist. I'm not an expert in psychology. I am, however, pretty confident that my knowledge of psychology is better than your knowledge of law.

[JamesVincent]

It was also help immensely if you knew how to actually quote cases. You also appear to quote from Ferris v. Frohman, 223 U.S. 424 (1912) a case involving whether or not copyright law, or in this case playright law, trumps the common law governing plays. And according to the court it doesn't IF the copyright occurs after the first performance of the play. The first performance gives a common law protection to the play, if I am reading the opinion correctly.

BTW nowhere in the entire case did I see the words you had quoted. Maybe you have the incorrect case.

Edit: typo

It would help if you quoted cases I quoted, I see no quote of mine in reference to 223 us 424 in my replys, however there is a 44 us 223

Since Famspear pointed it out I'll move beyond that and point out that, yes, this statement appears in Pollard's lessee. However, remember when I told you quoting case law is bad when you have no clue what you're doing or doing your own research? The Supreme Court overruled this idea in Kohl v. United States, 1 Otto, 367 (1875) and pretty bluntly stated that the right of Eminent Domain of the U.S. is not restricted by the property being within a state's border. It also stated that just because a right had not been exercised does not mean it is invalid. And, since the case quoted was actually about the U.S. Government using a state's property for Federal use, it actually is relevant, unlike a case where the issue is whether a property lies under the high water mark.

[chronistra]

"ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted," 44 U.S., at 223.

Just for starters, do you understand what "municipal sovereignty" is, and how it differs from national sovereignty?

Next, do you grasp how the U.S. constitution expressly grants certain forms of sovereignty within the limits of a state to the national government?

[JamesVincent]

I would but I am on mobile as home net is been down, auto correct can be a bitch and why put much effort into? You see I studied psychology as well and while I will never change your folks beliefe's, you can help me find holes I missed.

So let me get this straight. You want to wander onto a legal scam board, challenge all the attorneys and accountants, etc. to a meeting of the minds, and you are too lazy to make sure you type a cite correctly?

[Patriotdiscussions]

I would but I am on mobile as home net is been down, auto correct can be a bitch and why put much effort into? You see I studied psychology as well and while I will never change your folks beliefe's, you can help me find holes I missed.

That's right, Patriotdiscussions -- you will never change our "beliefs." And there's a good reason for that. We're not operating here on the basis of our "beliefs". We're operating on the basis of what the law is. The law is knowable. And it's not based on your "belief" about the law, or my "belief" about the law.

The reason that you cannot change other people's "beliefs" about the law is that you don't know enough about law to understand it very well yourself. And, you never will -- unless you change your approach.

If you have studied psychology, then you should try to think about why you are having these thoughts that you are having about the law. You should try to use your knowledge of psychology to understand why you are having these feelings -- why you have developed these beliefs that you have.

You are not alone. We have been studying people like you for many years.

You see, I have studied psychology, too. I don't have a degree in psychology, and I'm not a psychologist. I'm not an expert in psychology. I am, however, pretty confident that my knowledge of psychology is better than your knowledge of law.

Sure very well then. Tell me does this definition

Animal includes cats, dogs, and hamsters

Of animal mean horse?

[Patriotdiscussions]

I would but I am on mobile as home net is been down, auto correct can be a bitch and why put much effort into? You see I studied psychology as well and while I will never change your folks beliefe's, you can help me find holes I missed.

So let me get this straight. You want to wander onto a legal scam board, challenge all the attorneys and accountants, etc. to a meeting of the minds, and you are too lazy to make sure you type a cite correctly?

No what I mean was cite was correct in my original post, sorry you can not understand that.

[Patriotdiscussions]

"ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted," 44 U.S., at 223.

Just for starters, do you understand what "municipal sovereignty" is, and how it differs from national sovereignty?

Next, do you grasp how the U.S. constitution expressly grants certain forms of sovereignty within the limits of a state to the national government?

Do you grasp the only way the states to be sovereign is if the people CREATING the state are sovereign.

[Patriotdiscussions]

"ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted," 44 U.S., at 223.



Like this in my original post

Not entirely true... While it is true that jurisdiction, normally is deferred to the state (or commonwealth) where an offense takes place, at times, there are also Federal laws that are broken and the Feds can step in and take jurisdiction away without much fuss. It only applies however where a Federal Law has been broken that would trump the state case. As a matter of practice the Feds wouldn't charge and prosecute a bank robber (which is Federal) if said robber also killed several hostages outside the bank (which would be a State case for Murder One)

Savvy?

Not sure how many times I have to say Feds have subject matter jurisdiction over the states.

[chronistra]

Not sure how many times I have to say Feds have subject matter jurisdiction over the states.

Well, if you acknowledge that the Feds exercise sovereignty over the states on those subject matters, then what is your argument?

Do you grasp the only way the states to be sovereign is if the people CREATING the state are sovereign.

Do you refer to the people collectively or individually? In either case, it appears to be irrelevant to the question of whether the United States, collectively, has sovereignty over the individual states.

[The Observer]

Sure very well then. Tell me does this definition

Animal includes cats, dogs, and hamsters

Of animal mean horse?

Not sure if your fractured syntax means that you are asking if the definition of "animal" would include horses or if you are asking if the word "animal" is the same as the word "horse?"

If it is the former, then please explain why you think that there is a possibility that the definition of animal excludes horses.

If it is the latter, then of course not - why would you think that?

[JamesVincent]

It would not matter if you did cite it correctly, which you didn't since neither 223 or 228 were the starting page of the case, you are still quoting dicta. And, if you had bothered to read that actual case you would see this two sentences later.

But her rights of sovereignty and jurisdiction are not governed by the common law of England as it prevailed in the colonies before the Revolution, but as modified by our own institutions.

44 U.S. 212, 229

Which is still dicta. And, again, this is still dealing with whether or not a shoreline is considered state property or whether it is reserved as public property since all navigable waters are considered to public, therefore under the domain of the Federal government. Which has nothing to do with whether or not the Federal government has jurisdiction over the states.

[Famspear]

Do you grasp the only way the states to be sovereign is if the people CREATING the state are sovereign.

No, that's incorrect -- at least, it is incorrect if I'm understanding how you're using the term "sovereign."

In the statement "the people are sovereign", the term "sovereign" is being used in a slightly difference sense than the one in which it is being used in the statement "the United States of America is sovereign."

The former statement means, roughly, that the United States of America is a true republic, a democratic republic (using the term "democratic" in the way WE use the term, not in the way that the Communists used the term in Eastern Europe in the 1950s, etc.). The PEOPLE are sovereign in, more or less, the sense that we don't have a monarch.

By contrast, in England in, say, the 1400s, the MONARCH was sovereign, not "the people" as a group. What that meant was that the monarch had political independence -- the King of England could make treaties with other countries, for example.

In the United States today, an individual, a person is NOT "sovereign" in the sense in which the King of England was sovereign in the 1400s. In the United States of America, each INDIVIDUAL has no separate, independent power make treaties with other countries. Only the GOVERNMENT (representing the people as a group) can make treaties with other countries. In this sense, each individual is not separately a "sovereign."

So, the mere fact that the United States of America is "sovereign" does not mean that YOU the individual are "sovereign" in that same sense.

If you argue otherwise, you are engaging in a fallacy that some legal logicians call whole word equivocation.

[AndyK]

PatridioticDisgurging is walking down the steps of typical sovereignoramus pathway.

First – Establish a dogmatic opinion, mind-set, or world view. In other words come to a conclusion a priori.

Second – Use Google or some other internet search engine to locate sites whose content is congruent to the preconceived conclusion.

Third – Put on blinders to anything which contradicts the information available on the site and elevate the contents of the site to the level of the ineffable word of a deity. Most importantly, do not do ANY research as to the validity or accuracy material posted on the site.

Fourth – Find another web site (in this case, Quatloos) which contradicts the predetermined answers.

Fifth – Assemble a list of points to prove and construct intentionally naive questions designed to draw out challengeable responses. Do not post the underlying theory or premise since that will short-cut the discussion.

Sixth – As soon as an answer is posted to one of the questions, pounce. Post statements, citations, quotations, and/or personal or court opinions which appear to contradict the response to the initial question. In doing so, do not verify the validity of the material or do any research to determine if any of the material is actually apposite or current.

Seventh – When challenged as to the posted material, demand proof as to the validity of the challenge.

Eighth – When all else fails, lie or move the goalposts. Do anything to avoid being painted into a corner.

Finally – Do not make use of a spelling or grammar checker.

[Famspear]

Stated another way: The People in this country are sovereign in the sense that we don't have a monarch. This does not mean that each individual person in this country is sovereign in the sense of being able to unilaterally, separately make his or her own treaties with other countries.

Further, the "sovereign citizen" in the United States -- in the correct sense -- is subject to all the laws at the national, state and local levels, under a system in which the U.S. Constitution and the statutes and treaties enacted or ratified under the Constitution, and the regulations, etc., promulgated under those statutes, are the supreme law of the land.

If a state Constitution or statute (or a local law for that matter) is contrary to the U.S. Constitution, or is contrary to a constitutionally valid U.S. statute (or U.S. treaty, or U.S. regulation, etc.), the judges in both federal and state courts are commanded to follow the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. statute, the U.S. treaty, the U.S. regulation, etc., and not the state Constitution, statute, or local law.

[ProfHenryHiggins]

Sure very well then. Tell me does this definition

Animal includes cats, dogs, and hamsters

Of animal mean horse?

That is not a definition of 'animal' at all. It is an example of the term, giving three nouns that fall within it. From a biological viewpoint, "animal" or the kingdom Animalia includes an enormous range of lifeforms, not just the small sample (all from the phylum Chordata) which you gave in your question.

[Pottapaug1938]

Sure very well then. Tell me does this definition

Animal includes cats, dogs, and hamsters

Of animal mean horse?

That is not a definition of 'animal' at all. It is an example of the term, giving three nouns that fall within it. From a biological viewpoint, "animal" or the kingdom Animalia includes an enormous range of lifeforms, not just the small sample (all from the phylum Chordata) which you gave in your question.

Troll-boy is also playing the typical sovrun word game in which to state that a particular term "includes" something is to necessarily exclude, from the scope of that term, anything not explicitly mentioned. Usually, some hoary legal maxim will be trotted out in support of the fantasy, as if that legal maxim came from sort of a secular/legal Holy Scripture. The fact that his/her proposition is completely wrong is beside the point.