Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Sovereigns Without Subjects

Expand Messages
  • lg900df@rock.com
    To get things wright..er right...I think you refer to the Chisolm case: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/419/case.html Not Wright vs Georgia [Bear
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 27, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      To get things wright..er right...I think you refer to the Chisolm case:
      https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/419/case.html
      Not Wright vs Georgia

      [Bear the moderator: Absolutely! I stand corrected.]


      The oath Bob refers to is patterned after the Art II oath of a President
      of the United States. There is no sense in taking an oath to defend a
      piece of paper....

      [Bear the moderator: A piece of paper containing high sounding principles?]

      but there is sense in defending the Constitution of the
      United States; the territory and other property owned by and ceded to the
      United States of America.


      The bond servant is an employee and in the case of Art II oath, the
      employer is Congress. Notice this oath is stuck in the middle of the
      document while the Art VI oath for ALL is near the end.


       

      I would like to believe that by his taking of an oath to support and
      defend the Constitution, they(the public servant) voluntarily become
      what is in essence an indentured servant, or possibly even a bond
      servant. The reasoning here is there is no higher authority than the
      sovereign, with, or without subjects.










      --
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.