(Unfortunately) The Irish Constitution does NOT recognise 'sovereign individuals' ie men and women claiming to stand in their sole sovereign capacity. This does not exist in Irish written law! There is a HUGE difference between a "Sovereign Nation" and a "Nation of Sovereigns"! When the Constitution says: "the People are sovereign" it does NOT mean each individual. It means "the People of Éire" plural - as a collective, single unit. Just as if it was its own ‘entity’ like a corporation. It means that "the People" have the authority to change the constitution, but only as the People. You or I cannot change the Constitution or the laws just on our own will and whim. It requires the "collective consent" of "the People of Éire" which is obtained by referendum.

Individual or Personal Sovereignty by very definition is NOT this form of popular sovereignty (which is basically just democracy ie the mob/people dictate the rules over other people, but only as 'the people', the collective. Popular Sovereignty does not recognise YOU as an individual. The Constitution only recognises you in the capacity of a “CITIZEN”. If you use the constitution it is implied you are a citizen. It is oxymoronic to say on one hand, I am a sovereign/free man or woman, and in the other hold a copy of the constitution (or any other document you didn't write and are not party to for that matter) as though it somehow acknowledges and grants this to you? The Constitution grants the opposite! 
 



THE CONSTITUTION IS WHERE THE IMPLIED RIGHT TO BE GOVERNED BEGINS! NOT LEGISLATION.

Read the preamble. “We, the People of Éire … Do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution.” Who are the People of Éire? (Who is the “Occupier”?) If you believe you fall into this category, and so ‘hereby adopt’ the constitution unto yourself - You by proxy accept all the consequences running from that. You accept the ‘State’ model as outlined in that Constitution. You accept everything the State does unless it can be proven to be un-constitutional. As all legislation is ‘deemed constitutional’ until the contrary is shown by a challenge in the High Court – You are also by proxy deemed to have consented to all legislation. So do you believe the Constitution protects you? No, it just sets the parameters for the use of force which will later be defined further in legislation. 

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

A real sovereign/freeman perspective would see no association between a Constitution and the source of his own rights. And it makes no difference whether you're born under monarchy, democracy, or tyranny - in theory we are all born absolutely free and equal (this is the notion that you are 'sovereign right now') but in practice we all have to work for it! Practically speaking, we are not 'free'. And even though we’re “born sovereign” don’t forget we’re also born hopelessly dependant! And this is how we stay, in my opinion, until we change our lives – the way we live – so much so that we are NO LONGER DEPENDANT on the State. Contrary to how this was portrayed on RTÉ this is the height of civil maturity.

As such you cannot be a "Sovereign Citizen" as this is a contradiction of terms. "Sovereign" implies not being subject to another's will (whether a tyrant, or the government on behalf of the 'collective'), while "Citizen" implies the opposite -subjugation to the will of the state power. As a citizen 'inherent rights' are converted into 'recognised rights' and so are no more than benefits, privileges, duties, grants, and obligations. In other words permissions. I think sovereign citizen is used as a dirty word to tarnish free men and women in America, and 'freeman' has become a nasty word here too.

Putting aside the use of force by the State, from where does the Constitution derive its authority if not by our mere belief and acceptance of it? Now, factoring in the force used by the State – what does it mean to live in a society were sole justification is derived from force and violence? The State own the monopoly on force, the legal system sets out the rules for the ‘legitimate’ use of that force. The problem is, what we have is a ‘legal system’ not a ‘justice system’ although we may describe it as such. We have a legal system which governs the legitimate use of violence against the subjects. These are crucial points and I believe the real crux of the debate and the clash of ideologies centres here.

It's not enough to just 'believe hard' enough and click your heals together and say "sovereignteeeey", or even if you start to use the word "sovereign" over and over, and as an adjective for everything you do, it doesn't change the fact that we're not living in a free society, shit is bad. If it wasn't, I wouldn't be writing this and you wouldn't be reading it. So you can (be) free (in) your mind, but we really do have to work hard to attain this goal. A freer, better, more just society for all. 


---



THE HISTORY OF LIBERTY

"The event which we commemorate is all-important, not merely in our own annals, but in those of the world. The sententious English poet has declared that "the proper study of mankind is man," and of all inquiries of a temporal nature, the history of our fellow-beings is unquestionably among the most interesting. But not all the chapters of human history are alike important. The annals of our race have been filled up with incidents which concern not, or at least ought not to concern, the great company of mankind. History, as it has often been written, is the genealogy of princes, the field-book of conquerors; and the fortunes of our fellow-men have been treated only so far as they have been affected by the influence of the great masters and destroyers of our race. Such history is, I will not say a worthless study, for it is necessary for us to know the dark side as well as the bright side of our condition. But it is a melancholy study which fills the bosom of the philanthropist and the friend of liberty with sorrow.

But the history of liberty—the history of men struggling to be free—the history of men who have acquired and are exercising their freedom—the history of those great movements in the world, by which liberty has been established and perpetuated, forms a subject which we cannot contemplate too closely. This is the real history of man, of the human family, of rational immortal beings....

The trial of adversity was theirs; the trial of prosperity is ours. Let us meet it as men who know their duty and prize their blessings. Our position is the most enviable, the most responsible, which men can fill. If this generation does its duty, the cause of constitutional freedom is safe. If we fail—if we fail—not only do we defraud our children of the inheritance which we received from our fathers, but we blast the hopes of the friends of liberty throughout our continent, throughout Europe, throughout the world, to the end of time.

History is not without her examples of hard-fought fields, where the banner of liberty has floated triumphantly on the wildest storm of battle. She is without her examples of a people by whom the dear-bought treasure has been wisely employed and safely handed down. The eyes of the world are turned for that example to us....

Let us, then, as we assemble on the birthday of the nation, as we gather upon the green turf, once wet with precious blood—let us devote ourselves to the sacred cause of c̶o̶n̶s̶t̶i̶t̶u̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶ liberty! Let us abjure the interests and passions which divide the great family of American freemen! Let the rage of party spirit sleep to-day! Let us resolve that our children shall have cause to bless the memory of their fathers, as we have cause to bless the memory of ours!"—Edward Everett.

 

 

 

No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority – Lysander Spooner http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWESql2dXoc
 

Views: 2245

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion



A Solas said:

It's certainly not a contract.

The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner



john mc fadden said:

as I understand it, the constitution is a contract between the people and the state.

I had a quick listen to the Lysander talk. within the first few minutes it seemed to be defining the constitution as the contract. I don't really see the point in nitpicking. I don't see why it is such a problem to define it as such. In my dictionary it says the latin root of constitution is construct and to be fair the word contract is not used anywhere in any of the definitions I've seen.

again as I understand it it is an agreement between the people of this nation to suspend their God-given rights and permit the existence of a state to act as the guardian of the common good .within this agreement there are clearly defined parameters that the state is completely and utterly compelled to operate within. It also reaffirms in a number of places like I quoted in my first post if you care to read it that the people can rescind their consent to be gathered if the terms of this agreement/ contract are not honour . The constitution is not there to constrain us it is there to constrain the state .the problem is we do not exercise our superior even supreme authority. When we try we more often than not make the mistake that we do not rebut the states presumption that they still have authority. When we protest and when we petition we reaffirm the states authority. This is why I included a mention about the writs of mandamus . I have spoken to Kevin about these writs as I believe there is a viable remedy therefore us to use. He's asked me to start a new post on it .I'm no expert but I'm more than happy to explain my reasoning as best I can. I've been watching this site for a number of years and there's plenty of smarter people on it,with far better penmanship skills than mine. I'm sure collectively we could put them,the writs, to good use.there is also writs of  mittimus  and writs of dedimus that are worth looking into. i will mention more in the new post .they also sound funny, and I do like a bit of humour. man dam us, de dim us . Another funny word but not a writ I found the other day mumpsimus. it means mistake or opinion adhere to even after being proved wrong. There is plenty of mumpties running this country, we really need to focus on getting then locked up before it's too late.



A Solas said:

It's certainly not a contract.

The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner



john mc fadden said:

as I understand it, the constitution is a contract between the people and the state.

I had a quick listen to the Lysander talk. within the first few minutes it seemed to be defining the constitution as a contract. I don't really see the point in nitpicking. I don't see why it is such a problem to define it as such. In my dictionary it says the latin root of constitution is construct and to be fair the word contract is not used anywhere in any of the definitions I've seen.

again as I understand it it is an agreement between the people of this nation to suspend their God-given rights and permit the existence of a state to act as the guardian of the common good .within this agreement there are clearly defined parameters that the state is completely and utterly compelled to operate within. It also reaffirms in a number of places like I quoted in my first post if you care to read it that the people can rescind their consent to be governed if the terms of this agreement/ contract are not honoured . The constitution is not there to constrain us it is there to constrain the state .the problem is we do not exercise our superior even supreme authority. When we try we more often than not make the mistake that we do not rebut the states presumption that they still have authority. When we protest and when we petition we reaffirm the states authority. This is why I included a mention about the writs of mandamus . I have spoken to Kevin about these writs as I believe there is a viable remedy therefore us to use. He's asked me to start a new post on it .I'm no expert but I'm more than happy to explain my reasoning as best I can. I've been watching this site for a number of years and there's plenty of smarter people on it,with far better penmanship skills than mine. I'm sure collectively we could put them,the writs, to good use.there is also writs of  mittimus  and writs of dedimus that are worth looking into. i will mention more in the new post .they also sound funny, and I do like a bit of humour. man dam us, de dim us . Another funny word, but not a writ ,I found the other day, mumpsimus. it means mistake or opinion adhere to even after being proved wrong. There is plenty of mumpties running this country, we really need to focus on getting them locked up before it's too late.



A Solas said:

You said that the constitution is a contract, it’s not a contract, it doesn’t fit the definition of a contract.

Spooner said it best which is why I linked to his text.

It’s not an agreement (agreement/contract, what’s the difference?) between the people and the state because neither exists, it’s not an agreement between me and the state because I didn’t agree to it. It does not compell anyone to do anything as it is simply a piece of paper, history also shows that constitutions cannot compel anyone to do anything, they are merely religious texts used to divert attention away from criminals.

The idea of having to rebut something is ridiculous, especially given the nature of the beast, to make an analogy, if a man holding a gun , covered in blood and faeces were to approach you in the middle of the street and claim you were the tooth fairy you would be a fool to contradict this lunatic, you would also not be the tooth fairy.

You will not prevent criminals from doing harm to yourself using magical words, not in their courts, you are deluding yourself if you believe this.

The numpties running the country are are the product of  the psychopathology of the masses that support that system.

If they get locked up and the disease is not addressed the body will produce more.



john mc fadden said:

hi a solas

 I am not a very smart man especially academically.I did not do well in school I left when I was 16, the only reason I can write to you now is because of the computer program I have that writes what I say I can be sloppy and you are right it is not a contract in the definition of the word.I was mistaken to say it was a contract between the people and the state, but I do think it can be regarded as an agreement between the people. An agreement to create the legal entity known as the state to act as the Guardian of the common good with clearly defined parameters to it authority and to operate according to certain principles i.e. prudence charity and justiceI know language can be very deceitful and misleading and maybe with the wording and their own definitions they may mean something different to them, but it's what those words mean to us that counts.if there is to be any hope of us surviving we need to wake up and mobilise as many of the moderate majority,and present them with a method that might appeal to them.

It is silly magic words on bits of paper that has the vast majority of the people running around like headless chickens flapping and shiting themselves. I'm just suggesting we use silly magic words on bits of paper that haven't been used before, not in this country as far as I know. I don't guarantee that they would work I can't see the harm in trying

I completely agree we need to do more than just lock up the present scumbags but it would be a start. we can only take one step at a time .to realise an utopia from the starting point  we find ourselves now is going to take many steps . It will take all sorts of strategies and efforts, some of which no doubt will be futile and fruitless, but that does not make them worthless. It boggles my mind that I find so much petty nitpicking and squabbling on this site while there is a common enemy in the process of annihilating us and the biosphere.you sound angry which I don't doubt is justified but is it focused in the right direction

PS how did you know I'm not the tooth fairy,when in fact I am the truth fairy


pps your mate lysander does call the constitution a contract  eight times in the first few minutes
A Solas said:

It's certainly not a contract.

The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner



john mc fadden said:

as I understand it, the constitution is a contract between the people and the state.

I had a quick listen to the Lysander talk. within the first few minutes it seemed to be defining the constitution as a contract. I don't really see the point in nitpicking. I don't see why it is such a problem to define it as such. In my dictionary it says the latin root of constitution is construct and to be fair the word contract is not used anywhere in any of the definitions I've seen.

again as I understand it it is an agreement between the people of this nation to suspend their God-given rights and permit the existence of a state to act as the guardian of the common good .within this agreement there are clearly defined parameters that the state is completely and utterly compelled to operate within. It also reaffirms in a number of places like I quoted in my first post if you care to read it that the people can rescind their consent to be governed if the terms of this agreement/ contract are not honoured . The constitution is not there to constrain us it is there to constrain the state .the problem is we do not exercise our superior even supreme authority. When we try we more often than not make the mistake that we do not rebut the states presumption that they still have authority. When we protest and when we petition we reaffirm the states authority. This is why I included a mention about the writs of mandamus . I have spoken to Kevin about these writs as I believe there is a viable remedy therefore us to use. He's asked me to start a new post on it .I'm no expert but I'm more than happy to explain my reasoning as best I can. I've been watching this site for a number of years and there's plenty of smarter people on it,with far better penmanship skills than mine. I'm sure collectively we could put them,the writs, to good use.there is also writs of  mittimus  and writs of dedimus that are worth looking into. i will mention more in the new post .they also sound funny, and I do like a bit of humour. man dam us, de dim us . Another funny word, but not a writ ,I found the other day, mumpsimus. it means mistake or opinion adhere to even after being proved wrong. There is plenty of mumpties running this country, we really need to focus on getting them locked up before it's too late.



A Solas said:

Hey John, I can asssure you I’m not an Academic.  You seem smart enough to me or I wouldn’t still be talking to you.

:)

In communicating with people I often come across the idea that I am nitpicking or playing word games with people, that’s not my intention, I think that words should have meaning, one and only one specific meaning in any conversation, if not communication is not possible either internally or with others,.

I think Constitution and Agreement mean the same thing, or very similar, I cant agree that the Constitution is either, at least to me, because I did not agree to it.

I understand your idea to use legal method to try to do the opposite of what it is used for, I have considered this myself, I dismissed it for two main reasons, 1) the people who commit these crimes own the court system and the propaganda outlets, you cannot beat them when they make the rules up on a whim. 2) The belief in things like “silly magic words on bits of paper” is closer to the root of the problem than the actual bits of paper themselves, it is the belief that the INDIVIDUALS CHOOSE to hold that is at issue. If you manage to do something good with these magic words as it were you still have a massive herd of completely irrational animals capable of doing anything in the next minute depending on which buttons are pushed. 

I wouldn’t ask you to accept my opinion on this though, perhaps try using the system on itslef, I would caution to do it with something small/low risk and in a way that you will get results that show for definite whether or not it has worked, I’ve heard of a lot of people being burned beacuse they wanted to believe.

I’m not angry, but I am frustrated, I see people making the same mistakes over and over again and not learning, not wanting to learn but wanting to deny reality, I’m not saying this is you.

Lysander Spooner argues , similar to yourself, that the “Authority” of the constitution comes from the idea that it is a contract/agreement, he then goes on to show how it does not fit the requirements of that definition.

It’s worth listening to the whole thing, the audio 2hrs long.

Source Page

NO TREASON: The Constitution Of No Authority Mp3 audio file


john mc fadden said:

hi a solas

 I am not a very smart man especially academically.I did not do well in school I left when I was 16, the only reason I can write to you now is because of the computer program I have that writes what I say I can be sloppy and you are right it is not a contract in the definition of the word.I was mistaken to say it was a contract between the people and the state, but I do think it can be regarded as an agreement between the people. An agreement to create the legal entity known as the state to act as the Guardian of the common good with clearly defined parameters to it authority and to operate according to certain principles i.e. prudence charity and justiceI know language can be very deceitful and misleading and maybe with the wording and their own definitions they may mean something different to them, but it's what those words mean to us that counts.if there is to be any hope of us surviving we need to wake up and mobilise as many of the moderate majority,and present them with a method that might appeal to them.

It is silly magic words on bits of paper that has the vast majority of the people running around like headless chickens flapping and shiting themselves. I'm just suggesting we use silly magic words on bits of paper that haven't been used before, not in this country as far as I know. I don't guarantee that they would work I can't see the harm in trying

I completely agree we need to do more than just lock up the present scumbags but it would be a start. we can only take one step at a time .to realise an utopia from the starting point  we find ourselves now is going to take many steps . It will take all sorts of strategies and efforts, some of which no doubt will be futile and fruitless, but that does not make them worthless. It boggles my mind that I find so much petty nitpicking and squabbling on this site while there is a common enemy in the process of annihilating us and the biosphere.you sound angry which I don't doubt is justified but is it focused in the right direction

PS how did you know I'm not the tooth fairy,when in fact I am the truth fairy


pps your mate lysander does call the constitution a contract  eight times in the first few minutes

hi a solas
I too have often been misunderstood. I read a Maxim sometime ago that said something like. When there is any ambiguity enquire into the intended meaning. I like that, it's important. that all you ve been doing .it's because we don't do this often enough we are in this awful mess. you were right to correct me.
I thought some time ago I read in the definition of the constitution is the social contract. I cannot find it now so it's entirely possible I remembered something incorrectly. It's to be expected as well past my best before date I should have checked before mouthing off, so thank you for your observations.
I am a Brit and I don't get to vote on amendments to the constitution so I could argue it has nothing to do with me, but the reality is in this nation the majority of people believe it does. Which is crazy because very few of these people even know what's in it or what it says,talk about crazy. It's far from a perfect document so I don't object to your stance or argument.
My main interest over the years has been natural medicines, homoeopathy in particular, which the main tenant is, like cures like. To put it another way fight fire with fire. So just a few bits of paper[minimum dose] against the massive libraries of bollocks. If given the right potency, i.e. the correct words, may well have a miraculous result.
The mandamus is a common law prerogative. One issued from the people clearly stating themselves as the supreme authority of this nation under God.by their own rules completely negates any legal authority they hide behind. It circumvents all their shenanigans and deceits.the reason I posted is because I know to be the most potent it needs accuracy in the words used in it. This lawful procedure need not, should not, even enter their jurisdiction, the criminal courts and the criminal justice system. The main reason kev created this site was to facilitate what we are now doing. I do think my suggestion is worth trying.
My nickname years ago was mad mc I nearly signed up as mad mc freedom. Because to be honest I'm still a bit crazy. At this stage in my life[my kids grown-up and self-reliant]my principal obligation is to my wife's welfare.these scum bastards are spraying crap all over us etc etc etc. Compared to millions of people's struggle, sacrifice and effort my proposals are very tame and safe.I realise there could be a very high price, a very frightening and horrific price. But in action will extract a dreadful price itself.
Like you say it is the belief in the magic words that are the root of the problem. We have just got to convince these people our magic words have more authority, and the reality is they do. Convince these people wilful disobedience carries severe and exacting penalties which one day may be levied on them, and these writs could throw a lot of these people off-balance. From my experience many of the civil servants I have met have been very sound good people I am deeply indebted to them . Some of these people could use these writs to disobey unlawful orders from their superiors that they are currently obeying under duress.
As a child our family motto seemed to be " no castle is too high in the sky, aim high",and we were taught if confronted by gang of thugs attacked the biggest mouthy bastard. I've been aiming at ridiculously high targets all my life, as a consequence I'm a chronic perpetual failure, but I don't mind. I console myself with something I read years ago "failure is a prerequisite to success" so I could argue I'm extremely successful. Maybe one day I'll hit the target I'm aiming for, I have hope if I don't well at least I can say I tried and from a spiritual perspective nothing is more important. 
All the best in your endeavours A 
and all the best to you 
John

Have really enjoyed following the discussion here and also on facebook. It's great to be able to have a frank and open, intelligent discussion about these important ideas.

@ Robert Feguson King. I love this idea of a the Supreme Sovereign being God and it’s one that has helped me understand these ideas in a deeper perspective and it’s a great theory, and it might be true, but we cannot prove it objectively and so we cannot fairly make it a fundamental and required feature of the ‘political-reality’. If someone was an atheist would it mean they can’t be sovereign? And how so if they are exercising their (intellectual) sovereignty by becoming atheist. And the same can be said for preamble’s reference to ‘the Most Holy Trinity’ – what if you’re not a Catholic? But, the idea of sovereignty from God is a great subjective view to have in my opinion, it’s when we try to impose our subjective world views on to others that problems and conflict arise. Instead of focusing on the spiritual plane, perhaps we should focus on the natural one for the source of our freedom. We are creatures, in nature, in the universe, having an experience. We are pure conscious impulses. We are smart animals. We are wild we are free. In our natural state. That’s why man is ‘civilised’ in otherwords; tamed, domesticated, servile. I’m not advocating barbary or primitivism, but an untaming of our potential as ‘smart’ creatures – using our minds and our creative abilities. Maybe we should try sit with the idea for a while, try to remember what it’s like to be untamed, see how it feels? Because I think this is the true source of our sovereignty – which I equate simply with free will?

@ Mac Riordan – this is a good point and I think the Catholic influence on the Constitution is very clear (ie the Holy Trinity), legally I would say no it doesn’t matter too much but then why have it there? To me it can only be an effort to use fancy words to invoke the name of a divinity to inspire a greater ‘belief’ in the people of its legitimacy. But in this sense also, all law is recognised to stem back to God, the Creator, but specifically the God of the Bible. And so, what does this make the Bible in terms of law and if you are religious would this affect how you interact with the state by your moral convictions. For example, would you refuse to ‘swear an oath’ on the Bible because the Bible instructs not too? Just throwing around ideas off the cuff here.

And about the Constitution being a contract, even though technically speaking it is not legally a contract because it doesn’t fulfil the requirements, it is considered and viewed as a ‘social-contract’ between citizen and state. It is more like a ‘promise’ or ‘pledge’ given by the Gov to the people.

 

@Di. You make a good point re: why are they destroying the constitution. The way I see that is it’s nothing more than a sanctioned moving of the goal-post, a widening of the parameters oringally set. A change in the Constitution merely allows Gov to do something that would have previously been unconstitution and as such challengeable by the citizens. The rules might change but the game is the same. Unless the Constitution said: We recognise the sovereignty of every man and woman…. They are not limited to it. And when we think of the State in the form of a ‘legal construction’ (which it is) – this ‘idea’ of individual sovereignty does not exist in the current socio-political paradigm in Ireland. And about the idea either recognising a higher-power or have Merkel and Kenny step in, I don’t think it’s only those two choices. We can agree to principles of social conduct based on logic. In my opinion all we need to do is draw principles from the ‘cause no harm’ concept that are univerally observable worldwide. It’s wrong to cause harm, loss, injury or to be dishonest (fraudulent) in your contracts. Now, we can’t force anyone to abide but nor are we appealing to a ‘higher-power’ for legitimacy, instead we are saying this is a fair standard to live by if we want a peaceful co-existence; if not you clearly do not want peaceful co-existence and in this sense you make yourself an ‘out-law’.

 

 

So really it doesn’t make any difference if we go by this Constitution or an earlier one because it simply grants us a longer or shorter leash – that said, are we to have a society completey devoid of written principles? I don’t think so, but these should be objectve (as possible) and universal, broad and far reaching, and that people’s acceptance of them was done in the full awareness that: they are waiving sovereign rights in exchange for civil privileges and securities. But I must point out we HAVE to do this in order to live peacefully, I mean we must forego certain instinctual urges and in this sense our impulsive freedom in order to co-exist. This is why we create a system where it’s not okay to kill someone for stealing your shoes or sleeping with your wife. We set standards and we agree to these so that we might be protected by the wider society. This is where the idea: He who accepts the benefit must accept the liability comes in. The benefit of state protections and taking on certain ‘civil duties’ in exchange for inherent natural freedoms. Otherwise you could be an ‘outlaw’ – seen as not having any rights ‘within the law’ – being ‘outside the law’ and so legally no different than an animal out fending for themselves in nature – A cold harsh lesson in the real natural law I’d say!

 

@ JJ I’m glad you brought up the proclamation because it ties into this too. I haven’t researched too deeply on the proclamation but I see it in the same light as the Constitution, even if to some people it has nicer words. I’m interested to now at what point the Proclamation gained legitimacy in Ireland? It wasn’t during the Easter rising, the rebels were despised by a lot of people until they were executed, so it must have come after the forming of the Sate, but even so – what legal basis does it have? It is an aspirational document ‘proclaiming’ something – If I stood on the steps of the GPO tomorrow and proclaimed Ireland to be a ‘Sovereign Republic’ … what makes it so? Aside from the fact that the Proclamation was only signed by eight men – it wasn’t recognised by the establishment of it’s day as being ‘legal’ – meaning within the framework of the established legal structure. It’s power is only gained when enough people ‘believe’ in it. Again, it is words written by men from a different age. This is your time, your age. Write your own story. The “Irish Republic” doesn’t exist, but if it did you allegience to it is “claimed” as an “entitlement”. Just like in the modern state (described as) “The Republic of Ireland”, you belong to the State. I agree though, our sovereignty would exist whether or not the Proclamation recognised it or if the people even recognise it in themselves, it is inherent but I think we either use it or lose it.

 

Discussion on Facebook

 

[...]

Colin Ryan Surely a constitution can only confirm that it will protect something you already possess. It can't confer new rights on you. In itself it can only try and restrict them like any statute does.
(At worst it could try and confer a right to do something unlawful as statute could also do)
Yesterday at 2:16pm · Unlike · 2

Shin Goki All political parties are part of the problem as politics is the problem...I couldnt find the batman and robin pic but it goes like this "I'm starting a new political par"....SLAP!!! "STOP BEING PART OF THE PROBLEM!"
Yesterday at 2:17pm · Unlike · 5

Ben Gilroy who wrote the constitution and who gave them power to turn slaves or subjects into sovereigns
Yesterday at 2:17pm · Unlike · 2

Joey Soape ^ LOL, if you believe a book will protect whatever rights you think you might have, you may go back to sleep buddy....
Yesterday at 2:18pm · Unlike · 2

Jay Kay the irish people were sovereign until our constatution was shat all over.

a person has a right to pick or belive what ever they want(other than deciding to be a giraffe)
Yesterday at 2:18pm via mobile · Unlike · 1

Ben Gilroy freeman movement belongs with people who are subjects to a queen. You dishonour our FREEdom fighters who got your FREEdom so you dont need a FREEMAN movement just exercise your sovereignty that's my humble opinion
Yesterday at 2:19pm · Like · 4

Colin Ryan No a book doesn't. But if it is the set of rules by which the officers must adhere to then that's as much as it can do. Though it takes people to enforce that
Yesterday at 2:20pm · Unlike · 1

Ceiteach Ó Duinn ben are you a freeman now ? just curious
Yesterday at 2:20pm · Like

Joey Soape Lol, wait, just wait... Ben, are you referring to some people as slaves, months after you had run for elections for a parliament that is BASED around the Constitution ?? And you say excercise your FREEDOM just months after running in the same election for a government ( A group or retarded men and women ) who decide how other people live ??

Seriously ? Were you dropped on your fucking head as a child ?
Yesterday at 2:22pm · Unlike · 7

Jay Kay so a freeman frees himself the royals. if you excomunicate yourself from for your country and constatution can you be an X-man?
Yesterday at 2:23pm via mobile · Unlike · 2

Joey Soape It's OK folks, politics has been fixed by Ben, all you have to do now is, excercise whatever freedoms you like while listening to a Government telling you how to live your life.

Thanks Ben, games over folks, we can all go home now....
Yesterday at 2:24pm · Unlike · 2

Ben Gilroy yes Joey I was however I think you missed what we were trying to do restore some good articles back to the constitution. However why dont u just tell how it is and we can all fuck off
Yesterday at 2:24pm · Like

Joey Soape Officers can suck my fat left one...
Yesterday at 2:24pm · Like · 1

Ben Gilroy a fat left one might indicate cancer need to check that out lol wouldnt like to lose ya Joey
Yesterday at 2:26pm · Like

Joey Soape Restore some good into the Constitution ?? haha, good one lad... Tell me, just one or two points , what exactly is the Constitution "missing" ?
Yesterday at 2:26pm · Unlike · 2

Ceiteach Ó Duinn lads lads lads relax
Yesterday at 2:26pm · Like · 1

Ben Gilroy ah joey your right its missing nothing sorry just a bad relapse from that fall
Yesterday at 2:27pm · Like

Colin Ryan Well I'm sure you're more likely to be sucking their left one in the Joy considering they have the monopoly on force
Yesterday at 2:28pm · Edited · Like · 1

Gearóid Ó Bruác'Abáinn Sovereignty and Freeman are completely different.. Same as how Roman Catholic and Christianity are completely different also, but problems will always arise when people mistake the two.. A Freeman is a title of nobility granted from a King.. Hence why a Lord Mayor working for the Crown Corporation grants someone the "Freedom of the City" or the title "Freeman".. Sovereignty and Freeman are completely different..
Yesterday at 2:29pm · Unlike · 4

Joey Soape ^ Lol, yeah, cos a book is going to stop that from ever happening.... Just like the Ten Commandments have ever stopped people from killing...
Yesterday at 2:29pm · Unlike · 4

Ben Gilroy I dont think the book was supposed to stop anything
Yesterday at 2:30pm · Unlike · 1

Joey Soape Oh, well then it's clearly worth having then , isn't it....
Yesterday at 2:31pm · Unlike · 2

Gearóid Ó Bruác'Abáinn For example.. If you go into court, how can you possibly claim to be a "Freeman" when you obviously must not be free if you are in Court in the first place, that's what I mean "Sovereignty" and "Freeman" are completely different.. but most people do not know this which confuses things..
Yesterday at 2:35pm · Edited · Like · 3

Ben Gilroy the ten commandments may have stopped some killing was there not a lot of religious people that wouldnt join the army in the USA maybe they would have killed if they joined up
Yesterday at 2:32pm · Like · 1

Ben Gilroy if it stopped one killing thats a good thing but I get where your coming from it was probably used to kill more than save
Yesterday at 2:33pm · Like · 1

Shin Goki And if you dont go into the court Ger they will default you and come get you http://globe-union-court.org/...

Roman Court Procedures | Attendance
globe-union-court.org
Roman Court Procedures | Attendance
Yesterday at 2:35pm · Unlike · 4 · Remove Preview

Ben Gilroy talk soon have to go and put on a pork joint for the dinner......oh no thats not allowed in that book no PORK ah hell it is oh no its only a book
Yesterday at 2:35pm · Like

Trevor Byrne THE STATE 1922-2014 RIP
The power to run the state is divided into three separate powers: the legislative power, the executive power, and the judicial power.
So in short... those who make up the rules, those who execute them & those who enforce. enforcement is generally our first suspicion something is a awry.
There are no summary hearings in common law which should be a hint that very little is dealt with in that way.
These people are not judges, they are Justices (political appointments.) The summary court was created to speed up the bill of exchange process as a result of the BoE act 1882.
That court holds 10 presumptions before you even enter, another indication of the commercial jurisdiction/legal framework.
The offences being dealt with do not fit the definition of common law crime... so therefore we know they are not.
They do however fit the description of Torts, loss of a legal right, legal rights created by the legal framework of contract, contract makes the law.
A trust was created here in 1922 under oath to the king. It bore 2 charters (constitutions) We are the hapless beneficiaries turned trustee through use of the ppsn/Birth-Cert. As was intended.
You vote for your administrators but you have no say in how things are run .... who have proven to us repeatedly they are inept to change anything. Those who look for votes to "change" it from the inside are either criminally naive or purposeful misleader's. The Govt offices they covet have fiduciary duties & anyone who strayed from that would be removed from office by the Attorney General.
Being a Citizen makes you the lowest rank in Government.(David Hall is a citizen, therefore disqualifying his claim)
Operating through a PPSN means you volunteered for service. Registration implies compliance...does it not?
Govts insistence to use a foreign currency & your dependence/ignorance on/of commercial banks allows the court to enforce the banks T&C's.
Aligning Yourself to political Saviour's will not help you,
Looking back to the lie of our Independence will not help, Repeating the same mistakes over & over, expecting a different outcome is by definition MADNESS!!!! https://www.facebook.com/photo.php...
Photo
Timeline Photos
THE STATE 1922-2014 RIP The power to run the state is divided into three separa...See More
By: Súil Eile
Yesterday at 2:36pm · Unlike · 4 · Remove Preview

Gearóid Ó Bruác'Abáinn Exactly Shin Goki, so the whole place is in a right mess.. People need to seriously get educated on the whole thing.. basically you only have rights is your starting to educate yourself otherwise your really stuck between a rock and a hard place.. Education is the key
Yesterday at 2:39pm · Edited · Unlike · 4

Jay Kay fuck puttin names and shit on yourself you are you. read the law thats stands in your country if you understand it go to the judge with your story of what you belive (do you belive this to be the whole truth and nothing but....yes judge). the judge is only there to balance the story.
Yesterday at 2:40pm via mobile · Unlike · 1

Joey Soape You're going way off the topic here.... I said that as an example. Even you said it yourself, in your first video on YouTube to that guy who was standing in as the Sheriff. " A man's house is enviable , under the constitution " but, that house still got repossesed , didn't it ? So there, an enviable house is a good point to have in the Constitution, yet, it's still broken. So therefore, the constituion is a waste of fuckin paper...
Yesterday at 2:40pm · Unlike · 2

Gearóid Ó Bruác'Abáinn @Trevor, In Cork an office inside the social welfare was occupied as they sought clarification on the authority of birth certs to be able to abduct kids fro the financial proffit of the HSE.. The entire maritime law was challenged, the office evacuated as no one could answer for obvious reasons. There is fierce things happening in cork at the moment.. The local community group have summoned the Gardai and HSE workers to be trailed by the community at our community center on Tuesday.. Look my thing is I just support the mothers and community, and I see where there comming from, and if the Gardai don't turn up, the community will default and be comming after the kidnapping Gardai, I don't know where this is going to be honest, but that's what's going on in cork
Yesterday at 2:46pm · Edited · Like · 3

Manson Raynes Gearóid that birthcert conspiracy goes back to the redemption movement, hard core christian white extremist similar to the klan. The Dorean group started all this, and Ben is calling that mcKeown his 'hero'.Which is the base for those scam trusts, which if were legit, banks would never lend money, as people would never pay it back, each of your bullshit claims have been debunked, you're all going to drag innocent, gullible people down with you, people who are paying their last cent and end up in mountjoy, like that fool who took bens advice. You're a dangerous group spreading dangerous lies. Not one case has ben won, not one property secured, will you be recognising the juristiction or the authority of the court Ben? Fuk the lot of ye.
Yesterday at 3:55pm · Unlike · 3

Lee Livestream
Yesterday at 3:56pm via mobile · Unlike · 1

Manson Raynes Gearóid Ó Bruác'Abáinn & Ben Gilroy does this read familiar?: http://www.redcrayons.net/splc_kane.pdf
Yesterday at 3:58pm · Like

Niam Gibney · 3 mutual friends
No matter how it's interpretation is taken, the entire system here is ruled by corruption. The minister for finance issued the bank guarantee without consultation of the people he was elected to represent. There is no argument. One citizen cannot change the system, so why are they so afraid of article 47? Wake up people it's a con job. And an inside one at that.
Yesterday at 4:25pm via mobile · Unlike · 3

Bubbawake Dúisígí Isn't there a difference between a 'Freeman' and a 'Freeman of the City/Land/State'? (of) defining the meaning!
Yesterday at 4:45pm · Like

Gearóid Ó Bruác'Abáinn Manson Raynes the Birth Certificate goes back to Roman Cannon Law, more commonly reffered to as Uniform Commercial Code or UCC Law.. You speak of a debunked claim about the Birth certificate as a means of trying to be-little others.. can you please elaborate here... also what relevance does the crap you attached have to do with anything.. Have you ever heard of Uniform Commercial Code..?
20 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2

Manson Raynes The redemption movement is based upon a complicated theory that consists of several elements. Purveyors of the theory claim that debts can be eliminated by filing a Form UCC-1 financing statement through the Uniform Commercial Code. They hold that an inalienable right is an “in-a-lien-able” right, having some relation to liens. They claim that birth certificates are negotiable instruments, behind which is a $1,000,000 bond that is pre-paid financing on any activity of the straw man, and that the man or woman, by means of his or her first lien, has first claim on that money and can use it to pay off home or commercial mortgages, bank or student loans, tax liens, credit card debt, etc. Birth certificates are said to be a contract by which the parents sign over all title to their child, releasing it to the state; the state then assumes commercial control over the contract and processes it as if it were articles of incorporation.

The myth holds that there is a distinction between “persons” and “the people" or individual "men" and "women" under the law and that the "legal person" or "straw man,” a fictional commercial debtor corporation, is denoted by an uppercase name listed on birth certificates and Social Security cards, the birth certificate representing the body and the Social Security Number representing the commercial account. The man or woman can do commercial assignments by means of an asset called a bill of exchange that can be spent out. The myth holds that governmental courts are mere “colour of law and right” institutions that only have jurisdiction over legal persons. Admiralty law and the doctrine of parity play roles in this myth.

The basic theory is that a filed UCC-1 is public notice of a registered lien by a real human being who is the secured party creditor upon the straw man, the government-created, foreign non-registered corporation. With the straw man under one’s control, government has no access to the treasury direct account and also loses its connection to the real, living man or woman. No longer a subject, the man or woman become a free sovereign once again. This process is also known as “redemption.” Other important documents in this theory are the security agreement, power of attorney, copyright notice, hold-harmless agreement, Form UCC-3, notice of security agreement, birth certificate bond, Form 56 (notice concerning fiduciary relationship), Form W-8BEN (serving notice to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury of the correct status of the issuer of the bond and countering any presumption that the issuer might be considered to be a fictional entity), declaration of status, Form 1040-V, Form 1099-OID, and the Notice of International Commercial Claim in Admiralty Administrative Remedy. It is held, however, that the UCC-1 merely creates a rebuttable presumption, which can be overcome if a man or woman is receiving some sort of benefit from the state as a slave. It is held to be important to not sign documents such as W-4 forms, or if one is to sign them, to also write “under duress.” - there u go.
21 hours ago · Unlike · 3

Gearóid Ó Bruác'Abáinn Jeez your obviously a Barister, Lawyer or some other form of law prostitute..
20 hours ago · Edited · Like · 3

Gearóid Ó Bruác'Abáinn The entire UCC Law is basically full of shit..
A friend has all the records of when merchant banking law came to "allegid" power in Ireland... B-RIT-ISH, RULE of B-RIT-ANNIA, here is one for ya.. Check out the definition of "ANNIA" you obviously know what a RIT or WRIT is? But check out what the word "ANNIA" means.. Very interesting..
17 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

Gearóid Ó Bruác'Abáinn At the top of each Birth Certificate it states.. "Issued in Pursurance of the Registration Act"

Could you please explain what that means? And also could you please define "REAL HU-MAN" which you have used above..
17 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

Gearóid Ó Bruác'Abáinn Let's just keep to the basics Manson Raynes do you know the difference between Real and REAL-ITY ?
17 hours ago · Edited · Like

Oliver Whelan Kevin Flanagan,, a great Post,, very interesting.
16 hours ago · Unlike · 1

Kevin Flanagan Well Ben, nice to finally make your acquaintance, thanks for joining the discussion. I agree! The word ‘people’ can be both singular and plural and thanks for pointing that out and thanks again for bringing it up because it really serves to further highlight what I’ve written above about the constitution.

Consider the example: Those people are a friendly people, or even better: those Irish people are a sovereign people. Here “Irish people” refers to the PLURAL of the word ‘persons’ while “sovereign people” refers to ALL the people AS A SINGULAR UNIT – tribe, nation or group as in “The People of Éire”. So yes, thanks for highlighting that and I also agree that the Constitution doesn’t make you sovereign but I’m not sure if you agree that it actually limits your rights and freedoms? Albeit by force, economic coercion and necessity. Who wrote the constitution? Who gave them power and why does it still apply today let alone to me? All very relevant questions.

I just want to address one or two more points before I get back to the actual topic of discussion:
“freeman movement belongs with people who are subjects to a queen”
What are you talking about here? This makes no sense to me. Have you listened to the podcast I sent you called “The Freeman Nonsense” you were invited to come on air? I explain how the words have been warped and sullied and that originally the term ‘free man’ merely meant a man who was free. It’s exactly this sort of ill-thought out jibes that are causing the words to become so nasty, just as the media would have it too. But just a man (or woman) who is ‘free’, it’s an adjective. Nice and simple. No bells and whistles or glitter or symbols. So I do hope you will clarify this because it looks like you’re going for one of those ad hominem attacks, you know when you attack the character rather than the substance and I’d be very disappointed if this turns out to be the case?

@ Gearóid, thanks for adding that “Freeman” was a title granted by the monarch or mayor but again this is an inaccurate picture as the idea goes back much earlier. Fair enough, the title of “Freeman of the City” became a civic privilege that was granted (eg to the likes of bono) it is wrong (imo) to suggest that this is ‘where it comes from’. I know you are keen on Irish history so this should interest you greatly: the Brehon laws were not called that in their day, they were known as the Fénechas – this means ‘the law of the free land tillers’ or what could be called the FREE MEN ON THE LAND. So in fact, no, the idea of Freemen on the land can be found in the ancient laws of Ireland which pre-dates the English monarchy. Isn’t this fascinating? But all that aside, I wouldn’t get so hung up on the definitions; are you free or not free?

It really appears that people are playing into the divisive tactics of the State helped along by RTE. All this “I’m a sovereign, and that’s better than a freeman” shite is doing nothing but creating division amongst people who should be working together towards finding the truth. Gearoid hit the nail on the head, Education is the key and hopefully this post is helping in the discussion.
Kevin Flanagan's photo.
9 hours ago · Edited · Like · 4

Kevin Flanagan In my own opinion, I couldn’t care less if you wanted to call yourself a pope, call yourself whatever you want – but let’s not lose focus of our actual condition. To me, I see no significant distinction between freeman and sovereign because the essential principles are identical – that is, you are free, neither above nor below any other man. It’s becoming quite clear that some people use the word “freeman” as a derogatory term viewing themselves to be superior “sovereigns” – like I said I really couldn’t give much of a toss about the definitions and titles people want to give to themselves (in fact this was one of the first things we used to highlight as an issue ie title, the legal person, offices and oaths) to me, it’s all just decoration, linguistic camouflage for the fact that we’re just smart animals. Now, to put it simply: You are either free or you are not free. You are either an enslaved man, bonded to the State, bonded by the Constitution, bonded by economic necessity, bonded by egotistical attachments to titles and property, or you are a free man (which you can just as easily and readily call a sovereign if this pleases you more). It’s that simple to me. But this is not a discussion about the differences between Freeman/Sovereignty; it’s about the Constitution and how it relates to you as an individual so back on topic.

@ Ben, your sovereignty under the constitution amounts to your right to get in line and cast your vote when you’re told to. Yes, this is the ‘sovereignty’ afforded to you, ‘the individual’ AS one of the People. If you had personal sovereignty under the Constitution you wouldn’t need to form a political party, garner enough of the popular vote, get into power, have your bills motioned and passed, have the articles then put to “the People of Éire” to determine whether or not ‘they’ accept the change. Its popular vote, popular sovereignty – your sovereignty is conditional and only exists in this form under the Constitution – is this a good or a bad thing? I don’t know, it just is what it is. Don’t even get me started on why there’s no mention of a Republic in the Constitution…no one seems to mention that one.

It’s democracy, it’s government by the people. I’m not talking about anything new or surprising here, rather outlining the political-legal philosophy ‘as it is’. I don’t understand why this would not be seen as a good thing? Am I saying you’re not sovereign or free because the Constitution doesn’t say so? No! Of course not, I’m saying the Constitution doesn’t make you free one way or the other. You are free based on the actual quality and conditions of your life. So you can call yourself whatever you want if you’re in a cage, you can call yourself free, or even a king, but unless the conditions match the description you give yourself what’s the point. Vice versa, you could be the king and call yourself a slave; does it change your conditions? All I’m saying is that not only does the Constitution fail to acknowledge your personal sovereignty, it actually limits and restricts and in this sense is a document that binds us to the state. Even prime time made the point of saying “they believe INDIVIDUALS are Sovereign” – so what right? Well they mean ‘as opposed to a Sovereign People’.

@ Joey Soape “LOL, if you believe a book will protect whatever rights you think you might have, you may go back to sleep buddy” – exactly the point! I see no difference between someone holding up the constitution and expecting me to believe it just because they have a load of fancy political rhetoric, or someone holding up the bible and expecting me to believe in that for the same fanciful reasons. Both of these require a commitment of belief which no-one should give without direct felt experiential evidence. And, if we do ‘choose’ to accept such a philosophy – it should be in the full knowledge that this is in fact what we are choosing – instead of ignoring the facts and deluding ourselves we have something we don’t. If you’re serious about this ‘truth movement’ we have to be consistently learning and talking about radical liberation of the mind from false ideas like for example ‘Statehood’. The ironic thing is these ideas are made out of the same stuff as the things in the legal system that are attacked – this stuff is just belief, the only difference is the mainstream view is the dominant one. On a similar token, by accepting the Constitution do you refer to the Most Holy Trinity before all your actions? Because the preamble says you ‘must’ do this.

@ Colin Ryan, I’m with you when you say it’s a book of rules (including statutes) which officers must follow, and that’s one way we should view it, but within that sets out the scope for how those officers interact with ‘the people’ aka ‘the citizens’ and so more than being a book of restrictions of state power, they also contain permissions for the use of state power. You are protected only insofar as the law permits it. The home is inviolable ‘save in accordance with law’ – whose law? The states! The same ‘piece of text’ that protects your home in the first part, also allows for the ‘lawful intrusion of your home – in accordance with law’ – so where is your sovereign indefeasible right to an inviolable dwelling? You don’t have one because you waived it when you became a ‘citizen’ under the Constitution – now you have a conditional permission – the state will protect you but only so far.

@ Trevor Byrne and Shin Shin Goki Well said.

“A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.” [What we have is] “A government that can at pleasure accuse, shoot, and hang men, as traitors, for the one general offence of refusing to surrender themselves and their property unreservedly to its arbitrary will, can practice any and all special and particular oppressions it pleases. […] But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” – Lysander Spooner

 

 

I think this quote from J.M. Barry's Peter Pan captures what I'm getting at and where I think we're at regards the current political paradigm at the moment:

"If you believe," he shouted to them, "clap your hands; don't let Tink die."

Many clapped.

Some didn't.

A few beasts hissed.

I think I may have mentioned this before but worth mentioning again in this  particular thread.

Constitution as described on the online etymology dictionary: " mid-14c., "law, regulation, edict," from Old French constitucion (12c.) "constitution, establishment," and directly from Latin constitutionem (nominative constitutio) "act of settling, settled condition, anything arranged or settled upon, regulation, order, ordinance," from constitut-, past participle stem of constituere (see constitute). 

Meaning "action of establishing" is from 1580s; that of "way in which a thing is constituted" is from c.1600; that of "physical health, strength and vigor of the body" is from 1550s; of the mind, "temperament, character" from 1580s. Sense of "mode of organization of a state" is from c.1600; that of "system of principles by which a community is governed" dates from 1730s; especially of a document of written laws since the U.S. and French constitutions, late 18c."

And from the free online legal dictionary we have

CONSTITUTOR, civil law. He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another; and this is always a principal obligation. Inst. 4, 6, 9.

So was Develera not the Constitutor, the one guaranteeing to pay "the peoples"debts? and by succession the government, being the guarantor of the constituents? 

Indeed, the Constitution is merely a contract, between the people and the state. The original people alive in 1919. And again I ask, if you were not amongst those who drafted or ratified this Contract/ Constitution. then how can you be a party to it? 

You don't even have Constitutional Rights, as I see it. Claiming them makes you seem crazy to the state. Incompetent. That's why they don't listen when you claim those rights. That's why the Judge takes you into custody, for your own protection and takes responsibility for you, deciding on a case. And I have heard, though cannot prove this is true, but if you claim your Constitutional Rights in the United States, in front of a Police officer they are trained to deem you as a terrorist.

It kind of makes sense. Forget the Constitution. At least as it applies to you. Instead get the state to prove you are claiming to be a party to a contract you were not party to.

Instead of claiming the government are violating the terms of the contract you could never be a party to, making you seem insane, turn it on them. Make them appear to be crazy to try and prove that you, a Living Being, NOT an entity or corporation, was crazy enough to claim to be a party to a contract they were not even alive at the time to sign or ratify. That's an impossibility.

Think on that. and there you have my view, my two cents. I am not offering legal advice  and do not claim I have all or even any of the facts. But i wanted to share this and get feedback. 

According to Veronica of the family Chapman the Irish Constitution is the only constitution in the world that recognises the sovereignty of the people, in fact I said so on Vincent Browne's show – People's Debate in Jan 2015, it still might be on YouTbe. The recognition of the sovereignty in the Constitution is the use of the word man. I understand sovereignty of people is not sovereign individuals. Talk to people about sovereignty and someone in the room will pipe up and ask will I still get my pension if I declare my sovereignty- you need to understand the chasm you're trying to cross. Many can't see beyond their next pay cheque.

Many people claim to have a special understanding of the constitution based on this part or another, usually warped to fit some preconceived notion rather than adjusting one's position to the facts. 

On so many levels the claim that the constitution is linked to your individual sovereignty is untrue, and to suggest otherwise degrades the very position. 

Practically speaking in how you see the constitution in action today in the state, legally speaking in what the constitution signifies, rhetorically speaking in what it aspires to, and plainly interpreted the constitution does not recognise your sovereignty - that is not what this book is for and in fact no book is for this. 

And yes, there's a huge chasm and in my opinion it's just this sort of reasoning that needs to be gapped. Senses of entitlement, worker/master psychology, habitual living, mundanity, false certainty and blind living are the blocks to our individual growth.

brian of the family whelan said:

According to Veronica of the family Chapman the Irish Constitution is the only constitution in the world that recognises the sovereignty of the people, in fact I said so on Vincent Browne's show – People's Debate in Jan 2015, it still might be on YouTbe. The recognition of the sovereignty in the Constitution is the use of the word man. I understand sovereignty of people is not sovereign individuals. Talk to people about sovereignty and someone in the room will pipe up and ask will I still get my pension if I declare my sovereignty- you need to understand the chasm you're trying to cross. Many can't see beyond their next pay cheque.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2017   Created by Kev.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service