Bitcoin Forum

I came across some interesting topics regarding the United States Court System. The claim is that US Courts have been operating under the jurisdiction of Admiralty since 1938. I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around this and it would be nice if anybody here can clarify the implications of this...

A few interesting quotes I stumbled across.

"Any law which would place the keeping and safe conduct of another in the hands of even a conservator of the peace, unless for some breach of the peace committed in his presence, or upon suspicion of felony, would be most oppressive and unjust, and destroy all the rights which our Constitution guarantees." Pinkerton v Verberg, 78 Mich 573, 584; 44 NW 579, 582-583 (1889)."

“The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 US 90), and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 US 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment by grand jury, contained in the Fifth Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 US 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witness is, contained in the Sixth Amendment. West v. Louisiana, 194 US 258. In Maxwell v. Dow, supra, where the plaintiff in error had been convicted in a state court of a felony upon information and by a jury of eight persons, it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the Fifth Amendment, and the trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the Fourteenth Amendment… the decision rested upon the ground that this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not forbid the States to abridge the personal rights enumerated in the first eight Amendments, because these rights were not within the meaning of the clause ‘privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.’ …We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States…"

“…it is possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action may also be safeguarded against State action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law… If this is so, it is not because those rights are enumerated in the first eight Amendments, but because they are of such a nature that they are included in the conception of due process of law.”

(Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 98-99, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97.)"

Anybody else know anything about this?

I would assume, a "constitutional citizen" is one birthed under the shadow of direct constitutional rights...

Where as a "US Citizen" would be someone who was essentially "adopted", with protections of civil-rights under the constitution, but not so much protection that the "adoptive limitations", from where they were adopted from, would over-rule. (Over-rule without consultation.)

EG... I am born here by US citizens, I am a "constitutional citizen", with no shared prior adoption to other rights from another country/rule. However, John Doe escaped from Cuban-oppression, and was offered US Citizen status, by protective adoption. He would still have protections from Cuba, if desired, and our limitations to his protection would not extend, if for some reason Cuba "needed" him back for some legal reason of prosecution. Thus, the limited "protection by the constitution". Same if someone were to legally move here, from another country, and still be dual-citizenship or have prior crimes unpunished... We would not say... "Sorry, he is a US Citizen protected under the constitution. You can't have him." (We would turn that person's ass over in a heart-beat. Faster if there was a risk of political tension or threats of war.)

I am sure to this day, there are all sorts of amendments to that original outline.

Having that is like having a law that tells you to keep your eyes on the road, at all times... then another one that says you must be aware of your surroundings at all times, while driving... then another one that says you must be aware of your speed at all times...

You can't do all at the same time... You have to stop looking at the road, to "be aware of surroundings", and again to "look at your speed". Driving, by those laws, is essentially turning you into a criminal. Since you will break one of those laws, to obey the other.

In relation to the above post... They can essentially pick which path they want to legally follow.

Just like a cop/judge will do in court, if you get charged with the crime of an accident... Claiming you "were not aware of your speed, or surroundings, or watching the road"... You lose if they want you to lose.