((Hansen comments.))
Sovereignty was first recognized by the high Court in this case.
CHISHOLM, Ex’r. versus GEORGIA.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES, 2 U.S. 419; 1 L. Ed. 440; 1793 U.S.
LEXIS 249; 2 Dall. 419
“To the Constitution of the United States the term
SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown. There is but one place
where it could have been used with propriety. But, even in
that place it would not, perhaps, have comported with the
delicacy of those, who ordained [***86] and established
that Constitution. They might have announced themselves
“SOVEREIGN” people of the United States: But serenely
conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious
declaration.”
((No man as to his being associated with the fiction ‘United States’ remains sovereign as to that relationship, he too becomes a legal person (fiction), at parity, but yet his sovereignty remains on his private side.))
“As the State has claimed precedence of the people; so, in
the same inverted course of things, the Government has
often claimed precedence of the State; and to this
perversion in the Second degree, many of the volumes of
confusion concerning sovereignty owe their existence.”
((State precedence can only be over the ‘person’ (the fiction) (contracted terms), never over the man, for such can not waive any right, or yield precedence to another.))
Sovereignty was defined and those who are sovereign were identified by this case; and, it is the standing law on sovereignty today.
Supreme Court in DRED SCOTT v. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), where the High Court stated, in relevant part:
@ 404
“…The words “people of the United States” and “citizens” are
synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political
body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty,
and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their
representatives. They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people’, and
every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this
sovereignty…”
((Sovereignty only in the institution (government), that only goes to consent to being governed, one that has not consented is not a party to this institution.))
“It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were
at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in
the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none
other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one
else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied to citizens of this new
sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members
of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by
birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions
of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded.” (emphasis
added) Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, at 406.
((I want independence from any state to which I have not, upon full disclosure, consented to association, contract. The above is bad if it is a state not compliant to your wishes, good if it is. All such states today are not of my wish today. I wish not associate, contract.))
Even the States recognize this sovereignty.
R. W. Kemper v. The State,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
63 Tex. Crim. 1; 138 S.W. 1025; 1911 Tex. Crim. App.
LEXIS 365
“The rule in America is that the American people are the
sovereign, and in them is lodged all power, and the agencies of
government possess no authority save that which is delegated
to them by the people…”. Also, see Perry v. United States,
294 US 330, 353 (1935), “The Congress as the instrumentality
of **sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on
behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the
Constitution ordains. The Congress cannot invoke the
sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus
declared.”
((America is not the same as United States, the first is a nation, the second, a tool of that nation.))
((This **sovereignty is in house, not to be confused with the people not of that house.))
((I conclude that I wish independence of these body politics. They look good on the surface, but all are addressing those that consent to be governed by them.))
