He means well but is ignorant of the facts. For decades the gov on all levels has had an official policy of imposing federal / 14th amendment citizenship on everyone. This is important because the courts have said many times 'citizens of the United States' / 14th citizens have no protection from the bill of rights. That means no 2nd amendment right to own guns. Under current policy, if Americans want true constitutional protections they need to move to amend the 14th fully incorporate the bill of rights.
The federal government does not have the authority to impose U.S. citizenship on any living being. Their only authority is, and always has been, over their own created fictional entities. If you, the living being, answer to the NAME of their fictional entity, it raises the presumption that you have agreed to a fiduciary liability for that NAMED entity. A legal fiction was never imbued with any Constitutional protections.
As to the 14th so-called Amendment, just who or what do you suppose could possibly be a 14th Amendment U.S. citizen or U.S. citizen under any circumstances whatsoever? It certainly can't be a living being so it comes to mind that the only thing left is a legal fiction. U.S. citizens are always described as persons and we know that term is always used to define their straw men legal fictions. How could a living being be "born in" a corporation for that is precisely what the UNITED STATES is, a corporation. The only 'thing' that can be 'born in' a corporation is whatever that corporation creates--legal fictions by the millions.
The current flap over gun control is just a furtherance of the NWO agenda to disarm the public so mass genocide can be brought into full swing. Its happened all over the world where governments take away the right of the people to defend themselves and then commit atrocities against their own people, or I should say, their 'owned' people.
I would further question just how we the people can amend a provision of 'their' constitution? Our Constitution doesn't need amending. It just needs to be brought into the light from the dark corner it has been reposed to. If you don't like the policies of WalMart, do you think that your protests will force WalMart to alter its policies? Not likely, nor is it likely that the Vatican/Rothschild criminal organization will pay any attention to protests against its unlawful usurpation of our lawful government.
The constitution determines who is a citizen via the 14th, and this is all people that are not state-born whites. The gov wants all the power it can get and it has almost unlimited powers over 14th citizens. As a result, to unconstitutionally grant itself universal almost unlimited powers, it has unconstitutionally imposed 14th citizenship on everyone.
Since this had the result of stripping all the rights from sovereigns, it naturally required the gov to factually declare war on the sovereign class because the constitutions can only be set aside under communist occupation.
Sorry, Bill, the Constitution doesn't determine citizenship status for any of the people. It only determines the citizen status of their legal fictions [straw men]. If people are mislead to believe that they are the 'persons' referred to in Art. 14 in amendment, then it just goes to show how dumbed down we have become because we don't understand 'terms of art'.
Most of the people I know still think they are a 'person'. Used in street language we say 'see that person standing over there', we mean that living man or woman, however, that term always, when used in a legal connotation, means a fiction of law. The word comes from the Greek "persona" which means 'mask'. In a Greek play you knew which person an actor was playing at any given moment by the mask he wore. Quite often an actor played several roles in the same play.
The Constitution didn't strip any rights away from the people. It just permitted them to employ a lot of deceit and fraud to create the illusion that the term 'person' is synonymous with the word 'people'. It was quite clever and just about all fell for it. Everyone thinks the Constitution [current model] belongs to the people but it is nothing more than a set of corporate by-laws that government can ignore when it suits them. A constitution is just an agreement as to who will foot the bills of an insolvent government. In the immediate case it has been decided that their all caps straw men [attached to the living as transmitting utilities] has all the liability.
Before the myth of a legal fiction, there were citizens and there were different kinds of citizens and the constitutions determined the type of citizenship each had and thus the level of rights they had.
Then there were people who, although not being slaves, could not attain any citizenship and the constitutions determined this also.
I have never found any constitutional foundation for the myth of the legal fiction.
Myth? Legal Fiction? Person, Persona, Mask.
What came first, the Person or the Mask? You are serving only to confuse yourself Bill, with statements like; they have "unconstitutionally imposed 14th citizenship on everyone."
Let me get this straight. It, (the government), has unconstitutionally imposed a constitutional limitation. That means that the 14th Amendment is constitutional but imposing it isn't? You've got me. I'm confused.
The constitutions determine the citizenship status of an individual - except for corporations and congress, their creator, determines their status.
I contend the 14th is not constitutional because it violates original intent, but since it is adopted and accepted by the courts as such, it is now law in regard to the status of non-sovereigns.
The courts have stated two important things: 1] it is a citizenship of almost no rights and 2] it has no constitutional impact upon sovereigns which are suppose to have lots of constitutionally secured rights.
It is easy to prove 14th status has been imposed even upon the sovereigns. The problem the gov has with this is that can only happen under imposition of foreign law because it requires setting aside the constitutions - which can only be done under occupation wherein foreign law is imposed since that is the only way to strip the sovereign class of their constitutionally secured rights.
This is why judges refuse to state the law they are operating under - because the current courts have no constitutional authority over sovereigns.
I can follow that. I agree that the 14th is unconstitutional, but if that is so, then pardon me, but don't we have to fall back to Marbury V. Madison? I.E. - "The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."
Yes it is done under an assumed power, by men today, whom we know have no authority to do it. At least not to me anyway.
I just think the whole deal with interpretation of rights, etc. is that they tend to ignore the foundations of those rights.
So far no one has challenged the 14th on the basis it violates original intent and now it has become excepted law under the latches doctrine. It has been excepted for so long that it is now beyond challenge.
From what I have seen, the system is so broken and the trial courts are so corrupt that they will ignore the law in order to protect communist policy. [ we are truly can occupied country ].
The only alternative I can see is organizing to force an amendment to the 14th to fully incorporate the bill of rights, to include all the rights of the citizens of the original territories.
This would be a huge change because the courts have all said that citizens via the 14th do not have the rights enumerated in any bill of rights. That their rights are few and far between. This can be seen in Art. 4,3,2 where in the gov is given almost unlimited powers over them.
If you fail to recognize the existence of legal fiction straw men then everything else is a non sequitur. That is what the 14th is in regard to, not people!!! How the hell can a living being be 'born in' a corporation? The only thing that can be born in a legal fiction corporation is another legal fiction.
If you claim to be a citizen [today's meaning--legal fiction] you cannot be a sovereign under any circumstances. You said you can't find the origins of legal fictions in the constitution. Perhaps reading the 14th again will bring it home. The legal fiction straw man may have a mythical connotation to some, but it is the divisive tool that has been used to enslave mankind.
In summation, let me ask you if you think you are, or ever have been, a Taxpayer? I can say with certainty that you have never been a Taxpayer. The IRS, government agencies, all corporations, etc. have never sent a single thing addressed to you in your appellation. Everything has always been addressed to the all caps name straw man.
It is the Taxpayer and it had zero tax liability until you signed that 1st 1040 where it said "Taxpayer Signature" and then "Under penalty of perjury". The IRS knows the straw man can't sign, file or pay---its a fiction. What they needed was a fiduciary for their fiction. They created the SM, therefore it belongs to them. You are given usufruct of the SM as your transmitting utility so you can interface with their land [I should say 'sea'] of fictional commerce.
If you don't want to report the SM's earnings, file the tax forms, and send them part of your energy from the SM bank account, then revoke your election to be treated as the fiduciary for their SM. An affidavit of mistake is all it takes. Yes, I made a mistake based on IRS fraud that induced me to believe that taxes applied to me and that I had a lawful duty to sign, file and pay, but this idiot hath regained his senses and now corrects his mistake and no longer wants to retain the fiduciary relationship with your legal fiction. Believe it or not, its that simple.
For once I am in full agreement with you. Let's all file our affidavits
The 14th was created primarily for the negro but was constitutionally extended to all non-whites. It is not a legal fiction, it simply created a new form and previously forbidden form of citizenship. One of almost no rights.
The gov is free to impose any law or rule it wants on people who have no rights.
A person who is only a citizen of a state and not under the 14th is a sovereign. Absent citizenship, you have no right to even be in the states.