Trump, asked if he has to 'uphold the Constitution,' says, 'I don't know'

[BADecker]

^^^ Again, you use the word "evolve." What does that mean to you? Darwinian evolution has never been proven, and the complexity of nature shows that any Evolution Theory that we come up with can't be properly applied to nature, because of the greatness of natural complexity.

People have been talking in all kinds of directions about everything you say. But what is the basic truth about it all? Watch the video presented at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5543769.msg65395007#msg65395007, because it shows some history that has to be understood to get a picture of what is really going on.

However, the basics of this world are the things that are found in the Bible. The Septuagint Bible, and the historian, Flavius Josephus, agree that the world of this creation is only about 7,500 years old. The farthest we can securely go back with 'solid' archaeology is 5,000 years. Everything else is based in potentially faulty extrapolations and guesswork. The people who did the actual extrapolations always say that there is room for mistakes in their extrapolations about the age of the universe and this creation.

Watch that video to see how we are being controlled and manipulated.


Again, the Contract Clause in the Constitution gives the people of America the ability to move themselves out from under the Constitution. But the people always have the right to redeem themselves from such a move, afterward. It's law and adjudicated common law. This makes everything very unclear. Trump knows it, so he can't honestly answered the question posed to him about if he has to uphold the Constitution. In many cases, he would be upholding the Constitution by not upholding it.

[_Miracle]

^^^ Again, you use the word "evolve." What does that mean to you? Darwinian evolution has never been proven, and the complexity of nature shows that any Evolution Theory that we come up with can't be properly applied to nature, because of the greatness of natural complexity.

People have been talking in all kinds of directions about everything you say. But what is the basic truth about it all? Watch the video presented at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5543769.msg65395007#msg65395007, because it shows some history that has to be understood to get a picture of what is really going on.

However, the basics of this world are the things that are found in the Bible. The Septuagint Bible, and the historian, Flavius Josephus, agree that the world of this creation is only about 7,500 years old. The farthest we can securely go back with 'solid' archaeology is 5,000 years. Everything else is based in potentially faulty extrapolations and guesswork. The people who did the actual extrapolations always say that there is room for mistakes in their extrapolations about the age of the universe and this creation.

Watch that video to see how we are being controlled and manipulated.


Again, the Contract Clause in the Constitution gives the people of America the ability to move themselves out from under the Constitution. But the people always have the right to redeem themselves from such a move, afterward. It's law and adjudicated common law. This makes everything very unclear. Trump knows it, so he can't honestly answered the question posed to him about if he has to uphold the Constitution. In many cases, he would be upholding the Constitution by not upholding it.

Not gonna get into biological evolution with you, I'm not a genetic researcher, archeologist or scientist, but I enjoy too many documentaries, credible scientist and books for my mind to be changed by some rando on bitchute.

Systems evolve; Example: a democratic republic instead of monarchs who claim divine rights to rule.

You have that twisted (and so does he). America's government rules by consent of the governed.

[Ishicryptic]

Interesting enough Trump could have avoided all this discussion with just a simple word "yes".
After all, he sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States when he was officially inaugurated.

And yet, I don't understand what Trump is trying to get out of this by avoiding to explicitly say he will uphold and protect the constitution. He has nothing to win out making people to believe he is going to use power to become a tyrant or something similar. As if he does not even care to hide anything anymore.

Trump, voiced a fraction of what goes on in the minds of leaders when asked questions that requires a 'yes or 'no answer according to what is imbedded in their constitutions. I want to believe that the tendency to be dictators lies in minds if all the leaders but they don't have a choice but to uphold what is written in the constitution. I read somewhere that Trump, made a comment about a possibility of contesting again, I don't know how true that is but I won't be surprised if he has not conceived it in his heart, the constitution is the tough barrier that stops leaders from playing god. Deep down most of them are no different from leaders of countries that have been ruling for decades. Democracy is the government of the people not the leaders because deep down leaders like to be autocratic, it is human nature.

[BADecker]

Interesting enough Trump could have avoided all this discussion with just a simple word "yes".
After all, he sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States when he was officially inaugurated.

And yet, I don't understand what Trump is trying to get out of this by avoiding to explicitly say he will uphold and protect the constitution. He has nothing to win out making people to believe he is going to use power to become a tyrant or something similar. As if he does not even care to hide anything anymore.

Trump, voiced a fraction of what goes on in the minds of leaders when asked questions that requires a 'yes or 'no answer according to what is imbedded in their constitutions. I want to believe that the tendency to be dictators lies in minds if all the leaders but they don't have a choice but to uphold what is written in the constitution. I read somewhere that Trump, made a comment about a possibility of contesting again, I don't know how true that is but I won't be surprised if he has not conceived it in his heart, the constitution is the tough barrier that stops leaders from playing god. Deep down most of them are no different from leaders of countries that have been ruling for decades. Democracy is the government of the people not the leaders because deep down leaders like to be autocratic, it is human nature.

Remember that Democracy is really group Dictatorship.

The 51% beat the 49% in the elections. Then the group that actually gets into office does whatever it pleases. Mostly what they do is something that neither the 51% or the 49% want done. The difference between this kind of Dictatorship and a simpler form of the same is, the elite have to go a few extra step to get the job done the way they want.

[_Miracle]

Interesting enough Trump could have avoided all this discussion with just a simple word "yes".
After all, he sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States when he was officially inaugurated.

And yet, I don't understand what Trump is trying to get out of this by avoiding to explicitly say he will uphold and protect the constitution. He has nothing to win out making people to believe he is going to use power to become a tyrant or something similar. As if he does not even care to hide anything anymore.

Trump, voiced a fraction of what goes on in the minds of leaders when asked questions that requires a 'yes or 'no answer according to what is imbedded in their constitutions. I want to believe that the tendency to be dictators lies in minds if all the leaders but they don't have a choice but to uphold what is written in the constitution. I read somewhere that Trump, made a comment about a possibility of contesting again, I don't know how true that is but I won't be surprised if he has not conceived it in his heart, the constitution is the tough barrier that stops leaders from playing god. Deep down most of them are no different from leaders of countries that have been ruling for decades. Democracy is the government of the people not the leaders because deep down leaders like to be autocratic, it is human nature.

Maybe an also valid concern regarding human nature is that too many will feel powerful by controlling the choices of others while simultaneously giving away their own liberty.

The oppressed oppress to avoid being oppressed and that is simply all it takes to perpetuate oppression --- add a few dashes of comfort, distraction, lack of relevant information with a pinch of resentment that you are somehow lacking because someone else is getting and viola *chefs kiss


America's Constitution laid a framework for a government that had its powers checked by each respected branch: "by the people, of the people, for the people".
Do you think the everyday man would have shed blood and laid down their lives in a revolution to protect the interests of a handful of wealthy white men who didn't want to be ruled by a king or because they believed that they would also achieve equality?

The founders also feared the tyranny of the majority (because they were the minority).

[BADecker]

Interesting enough Trump could have avoided all this discussion with just a simple word "yes".
After all, he sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States when he was officially inaugurated.

And yet, I don't understand what Trump is trying to get out of this by avoiding to explicitly say he will uphold and protect the constitution. He has nothing to win out making people to believe he is going to use power to become a tyrant or something similar. As if he does not even care to hide anything anymore.

Trump, voiced a fraction of what goes on in the minds of leaders when asked questions that requires a 'yes or 'no answer according to what is imbedded in their constitutions. I want to believe that the tendency to be dictators lies in minds if all the leaders but they don't have a choice but to uphold what is written in the constitution. I read somewhere that Trump, made a comment about a possibility of contesting again, I don't know how true that is but I won't be surprised if he has not conceived it in his heart, the constitution is the tough barrier that stops leaders from playing god. Deep down most of them are no different from leaders of countries that have been ruling for decades. Democracy is the government of the people not the leaders because deep down leaders like to be autocratic, it is human nature.

Maybe an also valid concern regarding human nature is that too many will feel powerful by controlling the choices of others while simultaneously giving away their own liberty.

The oppressed oppress to avoid being oppressed and that is simply all it takes to perpetuate oppression --- add a few dashes of comfort, distraction, lack of relevant information with a pinch of resentment that you are somehow lacking because someone else is getting and viola *chefs kiss


America's Constitution laid a framework for a government that had its powers checked by each respected branch: "by the people, of the people, for the people".
Do you think the everyday man would have shed blood and laid down their lives in a revolution to protect the interests of a handful of wealthy white men who didn't want to be ruled by a king or because they believed that they would also achieve equality?

The founders also feared the tyranny of the majority (because they were the minority).

That's exactly the thing that I have been talking about for some time now. The Contract Clause is part of the Constitution. The Founders placed it there. When the people contract with the Federal Government, their contract can easily bypass other Constitutional protections. It's up to the people who do the contracting with government. These people fail because they don't have the wisdom of the Founders. So, it is the people doing it to themselves.

This is the reason why Trump finds it so hard to determine if he has to uphold the Constitution. Most of the people have contracted themselves out from under the protections of the Constitution. And the whole process is constitutional through the Constitution Contract Clause.

[_Miracle]

Interesting enough Trump could have avoided all this discussion with just a simple word "yes".
After all, he sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States when he was officially inaugurated.

And yet, I don't understand what Trump is trying to get out of this by avoiding to explicitly say he will uphold and protect the constitution. He has nothing to win out making people to believe he is going to use power to become a tyrant or something similar. As if he does not even care to hide anything anymore.

Trump, voiced a fraction of what goes on in the minds of leaders when asked questions that requires a 'yes or 'no answer according to what is imbedded in their constitutions. I want to believe that the tendency to be dictators lies in minds if all the leaders but they don't have a choice but to uphold what is written in the constitution. I read somewhere that Trump, made a comment about a possibility of contesting again, I don't know how true that is but I won't be surprised if he has not conceived it in his heart, the constitution is the tough barrier that stops leaders from playing god. Deep down most of them are no different from leaders of countries that have been ruling for decades. Democracy is the government of the people not the leaders because deep down leaders like to be autocratic, it is human nature.

Maybe an also valid concern regarding human nature is that too many will feel powerful by controlling the choices of others while simultaneously giving away their own liberty.

The oppressed oppress to avoid being oppressed and that is simply all it takes to perpetuate oppression --- add a few dashes of comfort, distraction, lack of relevant information with a pinch of resentment that you are somehow lacking because someone else is getting and viola *chefs kiss


America's Constitution laid a framework for a government that had its powers checked by each respected branch: "by the people, of the people, for the people".
Do you think the everyday man would have shed blood and laid down their lives in a revolution to protect the interests of a handful of wealthy white men who didn't want to be ruled by a king or because they believed that they would also achieve equality?

The founders also feared the tyranny of the majority (because they were the minority).

That's exactly the thing that I have been talking about for some time now. The Contract Clause is part of the Constitution. The Founders placed it there. When the people contract with the Federal Government, their contract can easily bypass other Constitutional protections. It's up to the people who do the contracting with government. These people fail because they don't have the wisdom of the Founders. So, it is the people doing it to themselves.

This is the reason why Trump finds it so hard to determine if he has to uphold the Constitution. Most of the people have contracted themselves out from under the protections of the Constitution. And the whole process is constitutional through the Constitution Contract Clause.

DoubleSpeak horse shit. I ain't buying it. But you do you and cede all the rights you wish. I am maintaining and exercising all of mine.

[BADecker]

~

That's exactly the thing that I have been talking about for some time now. The Contract Clause is part of the Constitution. The Founders placed it there. When the people contract with the Federal Government, their contract can easily bypass other Constitutional protections. It's up to the people who do the contracting with government. These people fail because they don't have the wisdom of the Founders. So, it is the people doing it to themselves.

This is the reason why Trump finds it so hard to determine if he has to uphold the Constitution. Most of the people have contracted themselves out from under the protections of the Constitution. And the whole process is constitutional through the Constitution Contract Clause.

Double Speak horse shit. I ain't buying it. But you do you and cede all the rights you wish. I am maintaining and exercising all of mine.

Anybody can do what you say, of course. The law tells us that we can cancel our contracts. But here is where you are wrong in your thinking. And I am not saying that you aren't rebellious. I'm just saying that if you don't know about it, you will only do it by accident if you manage to do it at all.

If you look at the laws in all of government, you will see the term 'persons' and the term 'people'. Look throughout the Constitution and you will see that there are only a few places where 'people' is used, but there are loads of places where 'persons' is used.

If you analyze the usage of both, you will find that 'persons' are the names on the contracts where 'people' take positions in government. If you look at the laws - particularly the definitions - you will see that 'persons' never (almost) include men or women, otherwise known as 'people'.

If you don't make the distinction between being a 'person' or a 'people' when using the law or Constitution, government persons will consider that you are a 'person' just like they are... a name on a contract. This takes you out from under a lot of protections that the Constitution offers.

Many people have claimed Constitutional rights or protections in court. And the judge has said that they are not allowed to bring the Constitution into the court. How can the judge rightly say this? Because the people have contracted to be a person on some paperwork. They tricked you out from under being a people by getting you to agree that you are some name on some paperwork.

Check the law. It's in all the law, from the Constitution down. Few people know this, so they contract themselves right out from being people to being persons... where rights change into privileges and duties. When you get yourself into that position, you can cry 'Constitutional rights' all you want, but if you don't understand you will fail.

When people win in court with the contract like this, it's because the judges don't want people to understand this. They lose control that way. So, they often give in to the people/persons.

Office of the Person - https://redress4dummies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/office-of-person1.pdf.

Trump understands this, having gone through all those court battles. But, he had to win the way he did, because it included for him, actually becoming a person to take the job of President. But average people don't usually become President, and most don't even hold a government office. So Trump isn't going to explain it to them like I have to you, if he is smart. If he were righteous, he might.

[_Miracle]

~

That's exactly the thing that I have been talking about for some time now. The Contract Clause is part of the Constitution. The Founders placed it there. When the people contract with the Federal Government, their contract can easily bypass other Constitutional protections. It's up to the people who do the contracting with government. These people fail because they don't have the wisdom of the Founders. So, it is the people doing it to themselves.

This is the reason why Trump finds it so hard to determine if he has to uphold the Constitution. Most of the people have contracted themselves out from under the protections of the Constitution. And the whole process is constitutional through the Constitution Contract Clause.

Double Speak horse shit. I ain't buying it. But you do you and cede all the rights you wish. I am maintaining and exercising all of mine.

Anybody can do what you say, of course. The law tells us that we can cancel our contracts. But here is where you are wrong in your thinking. And I am not saying that you aren't rebellious. I'm just saying that if you don't know about it, you will only do it by accident if you manage to do it at all.

If you look at the laws in all of government, you will see the term 'persons' and the term 'people'. Look throughout the Constitution and you will see that there are only a few places where 'people' is used, but there are loads of places where 'persons' is used.

If you analyze the usage of both, you will find that 'persons' are the names on the contracts where 'people' take positions in government. If you look at the laws - particularly the definitions - you will see that 'persons' never (almost) include men or women, otherwise known as 'people'.

If you don't make the distinction between being a 'person' or a 'people' when using the law or Constitution, government persons will consider that you are a 'person' just like they are... a name on a contract. This takes you out from under a lot of protections that the Constitution offers.

Many people have claimed Constitutional rights or protections in court. And the judge has said that they are not allowed to bring the Constitution into the court. How can the judge rightly say this? Because the people have contracted to be a person on some paperwork. They tricked you out from under being a people by getting you to agree that you are some name on some paperwork.

Check the law. It's in all the law, from the Constitution down. Few people know this, so they contract themselves right out from being people to being persons... where rights change into privileges and duties. When you get yourself into that position, you can cry 'Constitutional rights' all you want, but if you don't understand you will fail.

When people win in court with the contract like this, it's because the judges don't want people to understand this. They lose control that way. So, they often give in to the people/persons.

Office of the Person - https://redress4dummies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/office-of-person1.pdf.

Trump understands this, having gone through all those court battles. But, he had to win the way he did, because it included for him, actually becoming a person to take the job of President. But average people don't usually become President, and most don't even hold a government office. So Trump isn't going to explain it to them like I have to you, if he is smart. If he were righteous, he might.

I said what I said. If anything I've said in this thread makes me "rebellious" than something is wrong with my country.

[BADecker]

~

Anybody can do what you say, of course. The law tells us that we can cancel our contracts. But here is where you are wrong in your thinking. And I am not saying that you aren't rebellious. I'm just saying that if you don't know about it, you will only do it by accident if you manage to do it at all.

If you look at the laws in all of government, you will see the term 'persons' and the term 'people'. Look throughout the Constitution and you will see that there are only a few places where 'people' is used, but there are loads of places where 'persons' is used.

If you analyze the usage of both, you will find that 'persons' are the names on the contracts where 'people' take positions in government. If you look at the laws - particularly the definitions - you will see that 'persons' never (almost) include men or women, otherwise known as 'people'.

If you don't make the distinction between being a 'person' or a 'people' when using the law or Constitution, government persons will consider that you are a 'person' just like they are... a name on a contract. This takes you out from under a lot of protections that the Constitution offers.

Many people have claimed Constitutional rights or protections in court. And the judge has said that they are not allowed to bring the Constitution into the court. How can the judge rightly say this? Because the people have contracted to be a person on some paperwork. They tricked you out from under being a people by getting you to agree that you are some name on some paperwork.

Check the law. It's in all the law, from the Constitution down. Few people know this, so they contract themselves right out from being people to being persons... where rights change into privileges and duties. When you get yourself into that position, you can cry 'Constitutional rights' all you want, but if you don't understand you will fail.

When people win in court with the contract like this, it's because the judges don't want people to understand this. They lose control that way. So, they often give in to the people/persons.

Office of the Person - https://redress4dummies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/office-of-person1.pdf.

Trump understands this, having gone through all those court battles. But, he had to win the way he did, because it included for him, actually becoming a person to take the job of President. But average people don't usually become President, and most don't even hold a government office. So Trump isn't going to explain it to them like I have to you, if he is smart. If he were righteous, he might.

I said what I said. If anything I've said in this thread makes me "rebellious" than something is wrong with my country.

You said what you said? Okay. But you contradict yourself in what you say. You can't be rebellious against the Constitution and accept it for yourself at the same time.

[_Miracle]

You said what you said? Okay. But you contradict yourself in what you say. You can't be rebellious against the Constitution and accept it for yourself at the same time.

I am not the one "rebelling" against the constitution: Trump is.
His take on the Declaration of Independence is cringe. I've actually read it, he obviously hasn't and probably should.
https://youtu.be/GBwCUPttprw  

And since you guys were so excited to be distracted by the shit show portion instead of the fundamentals : The judicial branch confirmed (again) that Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia requires due process so he is back in country.

I voted for Newsome reluctantly.
Right now Newsome is having a redeeming moment and unless another nonsensical twist in reality happens, our state is filing a lawsuit against the administration for this bullshit that happened (and is happening) with the National Guard in Los Angeles.
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/gov-newsom-tells-president-trump-to-stand-down-amid-l-a-protests-241152581707

[BADecker]

You said what you said? Okay. But you contradict yourself in what you say. You can't be rebellious against the Constitution and accept it for yourself at the same time.

I am not the one "rebelling" against the constitution: Trump is.
His take on the Declaration of Independence is cringe. I've actually read it, he obviously hasn't and probably should.
https://youtu.be/GBwCUPttprw  

And since you guys were so excited to be distracted by the shit show portion instead of the fundamentals : The judicial branch confirmed (again) that Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia requires due process so he is back in country.

I voted for Newsome reluctantly.
Right now Newsome is having a redeeming moment and unless another nonsensical twist in reality happens, our state is filing a lawsuit against the administration for this bullshit that happened (and is happening) with the National Guard in Los Angeles.
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/gov-newsom-tells-president-trump-to-stand-down-amid-l-a-protests-241152581707

Trump might be acting legally by everything he is doing. Why? Because few Americans would think of attacking him as men or women rather than 'persons by contract', based on the Contract Clause.

If a man or woman stood in court against Trump, as a man or woman rather than a 'person', Trump would totally answer differently.

[_Miracle]

https://youtube.com/shorts/nbFT2kUiGLc?si=TKRi2GzpsbrmW2yw ------- Yes due process is for ALL people on American soil P.S. Birthright citizenship is protected by the constitution:

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/can-birthright-citizenship-be-changed/

https://youtube.com/shorts/eh_cbFO-xmw?si=-eNU7c8XxXfFonsh Scalia and Ginsburg ----The 5 Freedoms (less than 90 seconds)

[BADecker]

If you as a man or woman have a contract/agreement with the US government, you have set aside Constitutional and Bill of Rights protections in favor of your agreement. It's based on the Contract Clause of the Constitution. If you won't wake up to this fact, and properly express that the NAME on the agreement is not you the man/woman, but is only a fictional 'person' authorized to exist by your signature on some document (or your actions that indicate that you are that 'person'), you are doomed to loss of rights and freedoms.

This gives Trump and other government officials the right and duty to act according to the agreement, even if it is in direct violation of other parts of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Wake up!

https://redress4dummies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/office-of-person1.pdf

[paxmao]

If you as a man or woman have a contract/agreement with the US government, you have set aside Constitutional and Bill of Rights protections in favor of your agreement. It's based on the Contract Clause of the Constitution. If you won't wake up to this fact, and properly express that the NAME on the agreement is not you the man/woman, but is only a fictional 'person' authorized to exist by your signature on some document (or your actions that indicate that you are that 'person'), you are doomed to loss of rights and freedoms.

This gives Trump and other government officials the right and duty to act according to the agreement, even if it is in direct violation of other parts of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Wake up!

https://redress4dummies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/office-of-person1.pdf

More non-sense. You live in the US, you are under the constitution wether you like it or not. And the constitution clearly says in the 14th amendment that any person born in the US is a citizen.

Since it clearly says "born" it means "born", it does not say you need to "sign a contract" and since it clearly says "Born" it can only refer to a human being - which are "born" as opposed to any other definition of person that are "not born".

Even by the most biased interpretation, this is very clear. Else, you are going to star telling all descendants of the African slaves that they are no longer citizens.

[BADecker]

If you as a man or woman have a contract/agreement with the US government, you have set aside Constitutional and Bill of Rights protections in favor of your agreement. It's based on the Contract Clause of the Constitution. If you won't wake up to this fact, and properly express that the NAME on the agreement is not you the man/woman, but is only a fictional 'person' authorized to exist by your signature on some document (or your actions that indicate that you are that 'person'), you are doomed to loss of rights and freedoms.

This gives Trump and other government officials the right and duty to act according to the agreement, even if it is in direct violation of other parts of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Wake up!

https://redress4dummies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/office-of-person1.pdf

More non-sense. You live in the US, you are under the constitution wether you like it or not. And the constitution clearly says in the 14th amendment that any person born in the US is a citizen.

Since it clearly says "born" it means "born", it does not say you need to "sign a contract" and since it clearly says "Born" it can only refer to a human being - which are "born" as opposed to any other definition of person that are "not born".

Even by the most biased interpretation, this is very clear. Else, you are going to star telling all descendants of the African slaves that they are no longer citizens.

Legally define 'US'.

Legally define 'born'.

Once you have done that, show me why I am part of which definition.

If a descendant of a slave doesn't want to be a US citizen, he/she has to state such, and then act the part. What you or I tell them means nothing if they don't accept what we tell them.

The original slaves that were freed at the time of the civil war, if after they were freed thru the 13th and 14th Amendments, they could have made the statement that they were Americans, and not US citizens... if they had understood it. Obviously, it is difficult to make a statement about something that you don't understand without training.

The interesting thing is that Brits have similar authority, granted to them thru the Magna Carta. If they are like you, they can't use their authority, because it is difficult for you to use something that you don't know about... especially when you don't accept it, and when you turn a blind eye to it, like you seem to be doing.

[paxmao]

If you as a man or woman have a contract/agreement with the US government, you have set aside Constitutional and Bill of Rights protections in favor of your agreement. It's based on the Contract Clause of the Constitution. If you won't wake up to this fact, and properly express that the NAME on the agreement is not you the man/woman, but is only a fictional 'person' authorized to exist by your signature on some document (or your actions that indicate that you are that 'person'), you are doomed to loss of rights and freedoms.

This gives Trump and other government officials the right and duty to act according to the agreement, even if it is in direct violation of other parts of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Wake up!

https://redress4dummies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/office-of-person1.pdf

More non-sense. You live in the US, you are under the constitution wether you like it or not. And the constitution clearly says in the 14th amendment that any person born in the US is a citizen.

Since it clearly says "born" it means "born", it does not say you need to "sign a contract" and since it clearly says "Born" it can only refer to a human being - which are "born" as opposed to any other definition of person that are "not born".

Even by the most biased interpretation, this is very clear. Else, you are going to star telling all descendants of the African slaves that they are no longer citizens.

Legally define 'US'.

Legally define 'born'.

Once you have done that, show me why I am part of which definition.

If a descendant of a slave doesn't want to be a US citizen, he/she has to state such, and then act the part. What you or I tell them means nothing if they don't accept what we tell them.

The original slaves that were freed at the time of the civil war, if after they were freed thru the 13th and 14th Amendments, they could have made the statement that they were Americans, and not US citizens... if they had understood it. Obviously, it is difficult to make a statement about something that you don't understand without training.

The interesting thing is that Brits have similar authority, granted to them thru the Magna Carta. If they are like you, they can't use their authority, because it is difficult for you to use something that you don't know about... especially when you don't accept it, and when you turn a blind eye to it, like you seem to be doing.

All irrelevant questions.

Born in legal terms in most countries means from where you leave your mommy to 24 hours after that.
The US - that could be more interesting to define - but basically any land inside the US official borders or US ships and perhaps US military basis and the like.

BA, there is no training needed. The 14th is absolutely straightforward. If anyone does not want to be an US citizen they can renounce ciizenship.

The Brits do not have a constitution nor anything similar. There is no blind shit here, it is you negating the real world as usual.

[BADecker]

~

Legally define 'US'.

Legally define 'born'.

Once you have done that, show me why I am part of which definition.

If a descendant of a slave doesn't want to be a US citizen, he/she has to state such, and then act the part. What you or I tell them means nothing if they don't accept what we tell them.

The original slaves that were freed at the time of the civil war, if after they were freed thru the 13th and 14th Amendments, they could have made the statement that they were Americans, and not US citizens... if they had understood it. Obviously, it is difficult to make a statement about something that you don't understand without training.

The interesting thing is that Brits have similar authority, granted to them thru the Magna Carta. If they are like you, they can't use their authority, because it is difficult for you to use something that you don't know about... especially when you don't accept it, and when you turn a blind eye to it, like you seem to be doing.

All irrelevant questions.

Why irrelevant? If there aren't clear definitions of words, how will anybody know what somebody else is saying? Seems that you are making yourself irrelevant by suggesting irrelevance.

Born in legal terms in most countries means from where you leave your mommy to 24 hours after that.
The US - that could be more interesting to define - but basically any land inside the US official borders or US ships and perhaps US military basis and the like.

When you use the term that you are trying to define to define itself, there is no definition at all. Most countries is not the US or America. When defining the US as any more than the territorial borders of lands that they gave up to the States, that is a very 'loose' definition of the US, and it is a common law definition, not legal one.

Both Britain and the US are based in systems of legal law being limited under common law. The governments themselves operate by legal law. The people operate under common law... law in everyday life between the way people want to act. Since government people are people, if they use their authority incorrectly in the eyes of the common people, people can step in with common law and have them punished.

You really need to read Blackstone. Actually, you don't. You could never comprehend him.

BA, there is no training needed. The 14th is absolutely straightforward. If anyone does not want to be an US citizen they can renounce ciizenship.

Of course it's straightforward. Does it apply to Germans in Germany? Does it apply to Japanese in Japan? It needs explanation. The fact that you want to lump all the people of the world together, rather than respecting their individuality, is something that the whole war of independence that Americans fought was based on. Since English in the UK and English in America is similar, it has to be defined for each country to keep the countries separate. That's why the courts and governments of both countries have distinct legal definitions.

The Brits do not have a constitution nor anything similar. There is no blind shit here, it is you negating the real world as usual.

The Magna Carta is the basic defining document in Great Britain. It includes legal (civil) law and common law. If you really are a Brit, you are a reasonably ignorant one regarding your own law.

Note that I am writing this not as an answer to you, but to help any other forum members to consider these things a little better. I know you will not understand, but your ignorance has prompted me to attempt to help others in ways I probably wouldn't have otherwise. So, thank you for being so ignorant.

To stay on topic a bit, people in government in America generally understand that they have a dual position in life. They live in common law, but they exercise legal law. Since they are people, they need to be careful in the ways that they exercise their positions of authority. Why? Because some man or woman can sue them as a 'people' for some failure to act or some harm that they do. This is part of why Trump doesn't always have to follow the Constitution, and that his not following is based on every instance for itself.

[_Miracle]

To stay on topic a bit, people in government in America generally understand that they have a dual position in life. They live in common law, but they exercise legal law. Since they are people, they need to be careful in the ways that they exercise their positions of authority. Why? Because some man or woman can sue them as a 'people' for some failure to act or some harm that they do. This is part of why Trump doesn't always have to follow the Constitution, and that his not following is based on every instance for itself.

Upholding the Constitution IS the Presidential Oath.
And "We the People" need to understand that very short document so that we don't continue to allow our basic freedoms to be reimagined into narrower meanings.
Why this administration isn't being held accountable is no big secret. If you take time to watch congressional hearings the ideocracy an influence of money is worse than any time in history.

From many of your posts you seem to have a slight understanding of things like sovereign citizenry but still not clear on how our basic rights (and biases) play into providing the freedom to do something like that.
1. you need enough money to be part of a republic
2. you need to 'look' like someone they wont get away with imposing the deprivation of rights on.
3. you need enough money to defend yourself.

Aside from diplomatic immunity, the 5 Freedoms afforded every person on US soil is a base for experiencing sovereignty.

When we allow others to have their rights stripped we are next. And that is happening now.

[BADecker]

To stay on topic a bit, people in government in America generally understand that they have a dual position in life. They live in common law, but they exercise legal law. Since they are people, they need to be careful in the ways that they exercise their positions of authority. Why? Because some man or woman can sue them as a 'people' for some failure to act or some harm that they do. This is part of why Trump doesn't always have to follow the Constitution, and that his not following is based on every instance for itself.

Upholding the Constitution IS the Presidential Oath.
And "We the People" need to understand that very short document so that we don't continue to allow our basic freedoms to be reimagined into narrower meanings.
Why this administration isn't being held accountable is no big secret. If you take time to watch congressional hearings the ideocracy an influence of money is worse than any time in history.

From many of your posts you seem to have a slight understanding of things like sovereign citizenry but still not clear on how our basic rights (and biases) play into providing the freedom to do something like that.
1. you need enough money to be part of a republic
2. you need to 'look' like someone they wont get away with imposing the deprivation of rights on.
3. you need enough money to defend yourself.

Aside from diplomatic immunity, the 5 Freedoms afforded every person on US soil is a base for experiencing sovereignty.

When we allow others to have their rights stripped we are next. And that is happening now.

"Upholding the Constitution IS the Presidential Oath."

But answer this. When the people use the Contract Clause of the Constitution to take themselves out from under the protections of the Constitution, how is Trump supposed to answer the question? He is upholding the Contract Clause part of the Constitution by not upholding the rest of the Constitution which the people contracted themselves out from under... even if they didn't realize it.

Trump isn't there to school the people about what the Constitution says. There are plenty of Constitution law professors to do that. But the people aren't even asking the questions, or listening to the answers.

Possibly the biggest thing that the people have to learn is that they are men and women, not legal 'persons'. If they would learn that one thing, they could be out from under all kinds of laws and even taxation.

For example. When the law says that a person has to obey the driving laws, the definition of 'person' does not include men and women. Why not? Because the 1st Amendment has already been adjudicated to mean that we have the RIGHT to travel. Having this right means that we can do it any way we want... as long as we don't do injury. But when an ignorant man or woman suggests that they are 'persons', they just admitted that they fall under the law and not the RIGHT.

Wake up.