Your argument falls flat on it's face with a quote from your own post:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."
Obviously you are entirely unaware that the "United States" is NOT the same thing as the "United States of America". Things that are similar are not the same.
Wow, you really are lost in the desert of your own mind. You seemingly believe you are not subject to the law of the US. I knew an airline captain in years past that didn't think he needed to pay income tax because he was not a citizen of the US. I'll leave it to you to guess the outcome.
Then there is the bizarre idea that the 14th A. only applies to second class citizens. The 14th A. didn't create anything, but simply recognized what already existed. As the drafter, Sen. Howard wrote, "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States." Now, anticipating your rebuttal that you are sovereign and not subject to its jurisdiction, you should understand that the meaning of "subject to their jurisdiction" was necessary because there were persons born in the United States who were not subject to its jurisdiction as members of families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. I doubt you are in that category.
You are also wrong about the US passport. The passport is ALSO issued to those who are nationals but not citizens. Where a passport is issued to a non-citizen national, it bears this statement, "The bearer of this passport is a United States national and not a United States citizen." I think the only category of persons this now applies to are American Samoans.
I am not a Federal employee nor am I mistaken to claim I am a US citizen. If you subscribe to the belief you are not a US citizen or subject to its jurisdiction, please enlighten us as to how successful you in acting on that belief.
There's a desert involved here, but it consists of poor understanding and probably a dash of unwitting behavior.
I would AGAIN ask you to review both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation, both of which make provision for those that CHOOSE NOT TO BE GOVERNED. Why do you suppose the provision for "free inhabitants" was created? What do you actually think 'consent to be governed' actually means? Know, too, that these documents are part of the ORGANIC LAW of the country and stand as immutable testaments to the ideas I present.
You should know, too, that the 14th Amendment actually only applies to second class citizens: those that are or unwittingly call themselves US citizens, which Black's defines as a federal citizen* (words mean things). And as I have pointed out previously, the US State Department issues passports to those that stipulate that they are NOT US citizens, but are instead American Nationals. Why do they provide for that if what you assert has any relationship to reality?
It seems that your limited exposure to the reality of the situation has served to function as blinders or perhaps in your case has caused severe myopia.
These truths are not taught in school purposefully—the system is desirous of serfs not educated individuals— but they remain truths nonetheless and the truth is discoverable. One must, however, look outside the box that is purposefully constructed to make you believe that you are something less than your birthright endows, even a slave.
* Are you a federal employee? Do you live on federal territory? Do you mistakenly claim that you are a US citizen?
Moses, you're still lost in the desert. In the US the government derives its authority from the people, as in "consent of the governed." So, yes, I consider myself bound by the Constitution and the laws of the land. I suspect with your philosophy you would be much happier in Somalia, where labor laws are non-existent.
If we're all equals under the law, then obviously "labor laws" violate that principle. I never consented to be bound by them. Did you?
Government in the main is nothing more than a criminal scam. If you lack sufficient cognitive dissonance, you should go to youtube and watch the short video entitled "Statism: The Most Dangerous Religion". You are obviously one of their choir boys.
Where does government derive the authority to compel people to do what they deem to be morally reprehensible if we're all equals and no one has any more power than the next and can only delegate the authority that they themselves have? You are promoting the scam if you believe otherwise, but importantly you lack a legitimate argument to even substantiate your assertions because you keep sidestepping the issue of lawful authority.
welldone I remember slw at $3-15 some how thru gg I bought some too; but sold off when I tripled on gg just needed cash back thengood luck to you holding till $30.
i'm making money- i bought slw in the threes- held my core position all these years- bought and sold shares to trade- i've been very happy- can't wait until it goes back up to make me even happier
So, I assume your answer to the question was that unless the contract was illegal or compelled under duress there are no limitations on the freedom of contract under the Constitution. If that were the case, all manner of labor laws would be invalid. As example, how could it be Constitutional for there to be a minimum wage?
I don't agree with the issue you have framed. The state is not forcing anyone to do what they find morally reprehensible. Just as someone who wants to hire employees must pay them a minimum wage, so must someone who wants to sell to the public not violate discrimination laws. No one is being compelled to contract, but if they do contract, they play by the rules. The answer to your question of when the state acquires the power to set the rules, the answer is its police power. Wikipedia has an explanation. Look it up. You might learn something.
Now, I'm done and looking forward to returning to our regular programming.
If by that you are attempting to invoke some sort of arcane logic, let me nip it by stating that under the law a contract that in of itself deals or attempts to deal with something illegal to begin with, i.e., murder for hire for example, or is predicated on an otherwise illegal action, the contract could never be deemed valid or enforceable.
What we are actually discussing here is the very idea that someone can be compelled to enter into a contract against their will ostensibly mandated by the state that cannot legitimately give itself that authority in the first place, which, on the face of things, (at least for a considerable amount of this country's history) could never have happened. A contract foisted upon a party that did not want to be a party to it in the first place is absolutely no different than being made to do something under duress. Duress has always nullified such contracts.
So, doesn't the real issue here require determining of when the state acquired the lawful authority to force one, under duress, to do something that they find morally reprehensible? Since we're all equals under the law, each with no more power or authority than the other and government only wields the limited authority that we can choose (by consent) to delegate it, the legitimacy of being so compelled is easily called into question. Not only can I not find any legitimacy, but it seems also to be immoral on its face and that immorality smacks of a state instituted religion run amok.
I don't agree. Business owners are not prohibited from the free exercise of their religion by making a wedding cake. Business owners can believe gays shouldn't marry and that for them to marry is forbidden by their religion. However, they are not participating in the ceremony nor are they restricted from believing whatever they choose. Would you say the same if the business were an ambulance service that refused to transport gays?
No, claiming the first amendment protection is simply a cover for their bias and hypocritical. Jesus didn't comment on sexual relations or marriage of those of the same sex, but He did comment on divorce. The point is that those claiming sincere religious belief against gays have no problem when the issue becomes the marriage of persons who have divorced.
As for property rights the Constitution has many protections, probably the closest to this situation being the fifth amendment protection against the taking of property by the government without due process. I don't see that making a cake amounts to a deprivation of property, but if you do, please explain it or how there is any other denial of property rights listed in the Constitution.
Finally, I spent 20 years in the USMC protecting your freedom and the Constitution, so I am particularly offended when people such as you attempt to use it as an excuse to justify their greed, bias or other harms they would inflict on another.
It's quite obvious that it's you that has the problem. Maybe professional help is warranted. I'd urge you to seek it... and soon.... before we see you on the news as the perpetrator of some heinous act.
Hell of an Engineer.
Another valuable contribution from the "Georgia Tech" educated moron. Totally oblivious, totally self centered,
just another clueless "BUBBA".
VANCOUVER, May 7, 2015 /PRNewswire/ - Silver Wheaton Corp. ("Silver Wheaton" or the "Company") (SLW) (SLW) is pleased to announce that its Board of Directors has declared its second quarterly cash dividend payment for 2015 of US$0.05 per common share.
Second Quarterly Dividend
The second quarterly cash dividend of US$0.05 will be paid to holders of record of Silver Wheaton common shares as of the close of business on May 20, 2015, and will be distributed on or about June 2, 2015.
Of course there's no logical argument there, just name calling. What a surprise!
Are you suggesting trying to determine whether someone "hates" and punishing them? You believe in thought crimes eh? You must claim to have never hated. But hate is not exactly what you mean by "hate". You mean something else - in typical Orwellian leftist speak.