(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: 2244

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

as I understand it, the constitution is a contract between the people and the state.the state is defined as the guardian of the common good and as the preamble says its actions should be guided by prudence charity injustice. Article 9.2 fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the state is the fundamental principle duty of every citizen. Fidelity is strict , accurate, adherence and conformity to the original intent. The original intent of this state could be said to be the 1916 proclamation and even the 19 19 constitution . Therefore as individuals or groups of any size it is our duty to realise the aspirations of the 1916 proclamation .if you hired somebody to protect you, a bodyguard for example you would be stupid if you disregarded his instructions/orders. You should do as he says, but if he was clearly and deliberately exposing you to danger  you would be well within your rights to sack him .the state clearly are in breach of the terms of contract. The preamble and article 6.1 and 6.2  affirm our sovereign authority we just don't exercise it properly .petitions and protests are not the actions of sovereigns. Sovereigns express wishes which should be regarded as commands by there servants. To ensure there is no misunderstanding I think we should be issuing writs of Mandamus a writ is a written instruction from a sovereign, mandamus is Latin for, we command.if you use the wrong password you can't get into your computer files, if we use the wrong words on documents we file , we allow legal loopholes. Well drafted writs of mandamus containing lawful commands signed by large numbers of people would completely remove any legal authority the state hides behind, and although they may be ignored for awhile at least it would be irrefutable evidence of treason.to establish their authority I think it would be a good idea to send a list of questions to many of the senior officers of state from the President down in the form of a negative averment to deny and rebut the absolute authority of the writ of mandamus. I can't think of a more effortless environmentally friendly peaceful lawful way to establish our sovereign authority.some of you guys out there have great penmanship skills, it must be worth trying.just for the crack if nothing else.the pen is mightier than the sword. It is only a couple years left before we celebrating the Easter rising ,do we want to do it as a free sovereign people enjoying the fact that we live in a society that your ancestors fought so hard for,or as spineless gutless moronic slaves of the Crown 

There was some talk a time back in the chat room, that Denizen was a more appropriate term. Denizen; An inhabitant of a place, or one who dwells in a place, whether localregional or national.  This is where the 'citizen' idea comes unstuck. According to the Welsh State, I am a citizen of that country, not this country, but I am someone who dwells here by choice. The Welsh State has no call on me and neither does the Irish State, as far as I'm concerned any view to the contrary is impinging on my 'Peaceable enjoyment' of my home or dwelling.

"The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become absolutely free; that your very existence is an act of rebellion." - Albert Camus

 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10th December 1948) 

 Article 1

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." 

Article 13(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

  • (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

At least Ireland signed up for this!

I don't hold a passport but thought I might acquire a World Passport: 

The World Passport represents the inalienable human right of freedom of travel on planet Earth. Therefore it is premised on the fundamental oneness or unity of the human community.

In modern times, the passport has become a symbol of national sovereignty and control by each nation-state. That control works both for citizens within a nation and all others outside. All nations thus collude in the system of control of travel rather than its freedom. If freedom of travel is one of the essential marks of the liberated human being, as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then the very acceptance of a national passport is the mark of the slave, serf or subject. The World Passport is therefore a meaningful symbol and sometimes powerful tool for the implementation of the fundamental human right of freedom of travel. By its very existence it challenges the exclusive assumption of sovereignty of the nation-state system. It is designed however to conform to nation-state requirements for travel documents. It does not, however, indicate the nationality of its bearer, only his/her birthplace. It is therefore a neutral, apolitical document of identity and potential travel document.

Well, for what its worth I as a member of DDI am moving towards speaking in public forums about the idea of a society based on consent rather than coercion, where people contribute to society based on seeing a real need for their contribution, where anyone can look at the books (accounts) of the local  or state authority if desired, Where taxes are spent locally not centrally controlled into some bottomless pit. Where the individual is sovereign and providing that individual doesn't cause harm, loss or injury to another human being, every Act or Statute requires their consent. We're moving in this direction step by step.

Theres no contradiction an individual contributes based on real need, if the they don't wish to contribute at all they may not be able to avail of local services. I know the taxation is mostly a scam especially the income tax but there will be a need to contribute a small amount maybe nothing at all if Walter Burien of CAFR in the USA is right, he has uncovered the real asserts of the local and state government and it runs into the billion,s can it be any different here?  This is not written in stone what we are trying to introduce the idea of consent. I also believe the secret is community ie where people know each other.

Give me a break will ya the society of the future will be based on consent by the society themselves not by me, I'm simply putting ideas forward to see what people's reaction will be, I'm attempting to introduce the idea of consent to the people - ordinary people not researchers or academics, its a step by step process. People have been told all their lives they must pay taxes, the idea of consent may not have even occurred to them.

Here's an alternate view.  

Video:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/24896.html

'Government' need to be separated from the people in an economic sense (monetary economics of course). Economics these days are based on waste. This is not the way it is meant to be.

In home economics, is all based on the no waste principal, You have roast chicken one night, the next day you make stock or soup from the bones. The waste principal has fueled animal abuse and over kill. We have to move away from that. Life is sacred and important, every calf sent to slaughter is a tragedy. We all have to grow up. Life can never be wasted. What we see around is is mass slaughter, humans and animals alike, we are all in this together. The alliance of the insane (the US, EU and AU governments) have MURDERED people without penalty. Karmically, there is a train that has just left the station, it is coming down the track and it is going to crash headlong into the people behind all this. The industrialists, the meat factory scum bags and the owners of Monsanto and Halliburton et al. Horrible things are coming to them and their families who have been fed by the evil tit of corporatism. Bad things are in the brew, and there is no avoiding it.

I agree, but isn't it bloody hard work trying to convince them of the obvious truth? This is why I only talk to people who are 'half way there' otherwise it is a real waste of valuable time. Don't try and save the people who do not want to save themselves!

Brian of the family Whelan said:

Give me a break will ya the society of the future will be based on consent by the society themselves not by me, I'm simply putting ideas forward to see what people's reaction will be, I'm attempting to introduce the idea of consent to the people - ordinary people not researchers or academics, its a step by step process. People have been told all their lives they must pay taxes, the idea of consent may not have even occurred to them.

Hi,  Our Constitution does not declare our rights rather it acknowledges that we are in possession of rights, these rights are superior to law, the Constitution gives our rights protection.

Yes, as long as people who do not understand Bunreacht fail us all by giving away those Rights.



Diane, Denizen said:  ...

 

Hi Di, I remember you explaining this to me before and I think it is a very appropriate word and may be necessary to think of alternatives given the sullying of the words freeman/sovereign by the media, mainstream and truth movement alike. A good politically neutral word is libertarian.

john mc fadden said:  ...

 

Hi John, I was meant to get back to you on this twice now and i'm sorry I didn't. I was going to suggest you add the mandamus info into a discussion of its own so it can be discussed in depth on the forums. I remember when I looked into it before and I wanted to ask you how you would used this outside of the court procedure because as far as I can tell it's an order issued by a judge in relation to a case ongoing and wasn't able to find any examples of people using such a tool.



Brian of the family Whelan said:

... every Act or Statute requires their consent. We're moving in this direction step by step.

 

The only way such a thing could be achieved is a completely new constitution. I'm trying to point out in my post that the Constitution, not legislation, should be the real focus of consent - because you do consent to all legislation via your acceptance of the validity of the constitution. If you don't like the legislation - you have a right to challenge the constitutionality of it as a citizen, but if it is found constitutional you consent because you revere the Constitution.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2017   Created by Kev.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service