Are social security cards mandatory?

[JamesVincent]

PleAse professor school me on the right to choose a domicile if your so smart.

Not a damn one of you will understand that right eh?

What, like you demonstrating constantly that you have no clue what the right to not answer stupid questions is? You came to us, we didn't come to you. If we don't feel like wasting any more time with you, so be it.

The funny thing is you're talking to several people who have taken on the government in different situations.... and won. Several of the posters here routinely go after the government, for different reasons, for governmental screwups or excesses. Even to protect taxpayers from the IRS. Some of them are even employed by the government to protect others from the government. And yet you call them bootlickers. If you had ever bothered to look through the forum and read some of the threads you will find a bunch of us actively look for what we feel are true legal overreaches and report on them. And several of us, myself included, have spoken on the failure of the court system in certain instances as a rule. We constantly look for times or places where the courts have erred or where the government has overreached in any way. Hell, if you read one thread of mine you will see I have no problem calling judges idiots for some of the things they allow in court, much less actually rule on. And can actually explain why they are idiots and why they should not even have allowed it into court. You can't even acknowledge that your questions have been answered, you keep looking for more and more ways to stretch out the inevitable, going deeper and deeper into the internet to find ONE more thing to discredit the answer, and have failed miserably. Well, I'm going to ask that that is stopped.

Moderators, I have a couple of unusual (at least for me) requests. The OP has been answered. I ask that this thread be locked so it can not go further and further away from the topic. I also ask that any future topics or posts be moderated and that there be some substance to anything posted from now on before it is allowed. We are not doing our primary task of educating people who are looking for answers if we do not have real questions to answer. And when the questions are answered we do not need to keep going back to more questions that have the same answer.

[Duke2Earl]

This was all completely predictable from day one.

[notorial dissent]

Sovrunidjitjibber has repeatedly proven that he is illiterate in general, his writing is proof of that, and as witness his total lack of comprehension of political rhetoric, or the simple meaning of words, that he is specifically illiterate in history and the law simply by virtue of some the incredibly ignorant things he has said, and the fact that he really doesn't have a clue in general by the fact that rather than actual use a dictionary/encyclopedia/or heaven help us the internet to actually research anything. He produces copypasta from various sovcit sources and then gets bent out of shape and frothy when it is not only (rightly) contradicted, but contradicted with actual real, valid, verifiable sources, something he doesn't seem to have mastered.

Sovrunidjitjibber desperately wants someone to agree with his ignorance, and it isn't going to happen here. I'm very much afraid he is just have to get used to derision and ridicule, since he hasn't earned anything else.

A wise man once said don't ask questions you don't want answers to, and Sovrunidjitjibber obviously hasn't learned that lesson as he keeps right on asking questions he really doesn't want the answer to.

[Pottapaug1938]

Lmfao you people do not have a frickin clue what a right is, if you had a clue you would understand why the founders included a clause that stated that every state in the union would have a republican form of government. Not a republic, not a democracy but a government with the power invested in the individual, not the group.

This goes beyond the idiocy of the John Birch Society, which was the first group I remember which tried to push the "republic, not a democracy" fallacy upon the rest of us.

First of all, having a "republican" form of government is no guarantee of personal freedom. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, in the past, are two examples of republics where PD would be lucky to remain alive if her dared assert his fantasies there; and in the modern era North Korea and Iran are two more examples of the sort. That's why the Founders designed our form of government as a democratic republic -- although the word "democratic" appears nowhere in the Constitution, that document, taken as a whole, makes clear that our republic is supposed to be a democratic one.

That bit about our "republican" form of government involving not a republic or a democracy (a distinction of interest only to political scientists) but on the power of the individual is pure bulldroppings. It's not a recipe for government, it's a recipe for anarchy; for if each individual is sovereign, then no one else can tell him or her what do do. The "sovereignty of the people" is a collective concept, Sparky, not an individual one.

And YOU have the chutzpah to tell US that WE "have no frickin' clue"?

[Pottapaug1938]

If we are doomed to hear more from PatriotDiscussions, it's time to hang a title on him. I suggest "Mover of the Sovrun Goalposts".

[notorial dissent]

A little short history lesson for Sovrunidjitjibber since he obviously slept through it all during what little schooling he had.

When our REPUBLIC(which by definition means a representative form of government) was founded, the vote belonged to anyone who happened to be male, white, 21 or older, and generally of the propertied class and proper religion, in other words, a WASP. A very small portion of the then society.

Over the course of time the franchise was extended to those who were not of the propertied class or proper religion, was extended to black males in 1870, and gasp, finally women, in 1920, with the voting age being dropped to 18 in 1971.

[Judge Roy Bean]

If we are doomed to hear more from PatriotDiscussions, it's time to hang a title on him. I suggest "Mover of the Sovrun Goalposts".

How about "In Game, Sans Helmet."

[Patriotdiscussions]

Lmfao you people do not have a frickin clue what a right is, if you had a clue you would understand why the founders included a clause that stated that every state in the union would have a republican form of government. Not a republic, not a democracy but a government with the power invested in the individual, not the group.

This goes beyond the idiocy of the John Birch Society, which was the first group I remember which tried to push the "republic, not a democracy" fallacy upon the rest of us.

First of all, having a "republican" form of government is no guarantee of personal freedom. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, in the past, are two examples of republics where PD would be lucky to remain alive if her dared assert his fantasies there; and in the modern era North Korea and Iran are two more examples of the sort. That's why the Founders designed our form of government as a democratic republic -- although the word "democratic" appears nowhere in the Constitution, that document, taken as a whole, makes clear that our republic is supposed to be a democratic one.

That bit about our "republican" form of government involving not a republic or a democracy (a distinction of interest only to political scientists) but on the power of the individual is pure bulldroppings. It's not a recipe for government, it's a recipe for anarchy; for if each individual is sovereign, then no one else can tell him or her what do do. The "sovereignty of the people" is a collective concept, Sparky, not an individual one.

And YOU have the chutzpah to tell US that WE "have no frickin' clue"?

Sure I guess I could take your word, but I think the members of the supreme from around the same time the constitution was written would be a much better bet.



No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African

Page 2 U. S. 472

slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.

From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and preeminences; our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens.




Man, that sure is a different line then what your b.s. is saying, but who are we kidding, there is no way they know more then you right?

Maybe I read it wrong.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Shall we start by quoting the section in full, because I note you omitted a couple of bits of it.

11120. It is the public policy of this state that public agencies
exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business and the
proceedings of public agencies be conducted openly so that the public
may remain informed.
In enacting this article the Legislature finds and declares that
it is the intent of the law that actions of state agencies be taken
openly and that their deliberation be conducted openly.
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the
agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do
not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for
the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people
insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the
instruments they have created.
This article shall be known and may be cited as the Bagley-Keene
Open Meeting Act.

Now that extra information shows that you found a bit of preamble that you think means one thing when it's legislative intent is actually rather clear. That doesn't say that people are sovereign and above the law, but rather describes that the law below is effectively about freedom of information.

The preamble is basically a description of what the law hopes to achieve which aids judicial interpretation because they are given a clear picture of the legislative intent. The preamble has been held to not be binding. In other words the laws/legal code enacted by the legislation would be the same with or without that preamble.

Try to get your head around this, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act was enacted to create open government, the people are only sovereign (by which the interpretation clearly must be that they are the supreme power) in the context of open governance. That is that this act makes it unlawful for a civil servant to withhold information or to have closed sessions (unless of course otherwise stipulated in the subsequent code). The people are not sovereign or made sovereign by this law in any other way.

Further having quickly read the entire section (11120 to 11132) no provision struck me as existing that conferred any form of any sovereignty on the citizens of the state of california. Equally even if it did such a law would likely be struck down as unconstitutional/ultra vires due to it conflicting with the articles of the constitution and the power demised in that document to the federal government.

As for calling us boot-lickers, we may well be, but at least we aren't the ones licking the windows clean on the short bus.

Did you really just say that our servants did not confer sovereignty on us thru legislative laws?

No shit, man you guys are sharp. Seeing as how they are our SERVANTS, that would make sense.

Notice if you can read that the code states the people did not give up sovereignty, does not that sentence imply we have sovereignty to give up?

I mean if not sovereign then why include that sentence at all?

"People of a state are entitled to all rights, which formerly belong to the King by his prerogative." Lansing v Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9,20 (NY).


"The people or sovereign are not bound by general word in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign,.....It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King (or the people) he shall not be bound." People v Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825)

[Patriotdiscussions]

A little short history lesson for Sovrunidjitjibber since he obviously slept through it all during what little schooling he had.

When our REPUBLIC(which by definition means a representative form of government) was founded, the vote belonged to anyone who happened to be male, white, 21 or older, and generally of the propertied class and proper religion, in other words, a WASP. A very small portion of the then society.

Over the course of time the franchise was extended to those who were not of the propertied class or proper religion, was extended to black males in 1870, and gasp, finally women, in 1920, with the voting age being dropped to 18 in 1971.

So we agree then, everyone born after the 13th in the United States was not considered a "citizen" because citizens had the right to vote.

Tell us about the first court case after the 13th involving women and citizenship, I'll give you a hint, she was a better lawyer then you.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
So we agree then, ...

No. The argument is incompetent.

[Pottapaug1938]

Sure I guess I could take your word, but I think the members of the supreme from around the same time the constitution was written would be a much better bet.

No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African

Page 2 U. S. 472

slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.

From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and preeminences; our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens.

Man, that sure is a different line then what your b.s. is saying, but who are we kidding, there is no way they know more then you right?

Maybe I read it wrong.

FINALLY, YOU GOT SOMETHING RIGHT!!!

You are reading the dicta from a Supreme Court case, NOT the holding, which is the important thing to read. Even so, the sovereignty to which the court refers is a collective, and not an individual sovereignty -- which as I said before, would amount to nothing less than anarchy.

[Pottapaug1938]

So we agree then, everyone born after the 13th in the United States was not considered a "citizen" because citizens had the right to vote.

Wrong again. That's not what he said at all.

If I recall correctly, it was the infamous Dred Scott decision which said that there was no Federal definition of citizenship at that point in our history, and that no one became a U.S. citizen without being a citizen of one of the states of the Union. Some people, like women and children, were citizens yet had no right to vote.

The 14th Amendment changed all but that last sentence; so that today, unless you are born the child of foreign diplomats, birth within any state of the United States or within some of its territories automatically makes you a citizen of the U.S. and of the state where you reside.

[notorial dissent]

So we agree then, everyone born after the 13th in the United States was not considered a "citizen" because citizens had the right to vote.

Tell us about the first court case after the 13th involving women and citizenship, I'll give you a hint, she was a better lawyer then you.

The only thing we agree on is that you are wrong as to all particulars and points.

The only thing the 13th amendment ratified in 1865 did was TO ABOLISH SLAVERY, and had nothing to do with citizenship. Your ignorance is showing, no surprise here.

So wrong again, there are still 32 amendments left to guess at, so try again. I'll give you a little hint, there are ONLY three from the period in question, so you've got a 1 in 3 chance of guessing right, since you obviously don't know.

There was never any question that women, and children, if they were white, were not citizens if they were born here, any more than there would have been if they had been naturalized.

Citizenship and voting have exactly are two entirely separate sets of laws.

You have to be a citizen to vote, but just because you are a citizen doesn't necessarily mean you can vote(for president).

[AndyK]

Enough is too much.

This thread has been moved much too far off the original topic BY THE ORIGINAL POSTER who keeps ducking and weaving to avoid all the facts facing him.

If he wants to try again, so be it -- in a new thread.

LOCKED