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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Rights & Liberties

Expand Messages
  • Occupant Family
    Greetings, You, Alan Bacon, are using words of which you do not have the foggiest idea how they have been defined in law and court cases. I guess you missed
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 29, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      You, Alan Bacon, are using words of which you do not have the foggiest idea
      how they have been defined in law and court cases.
      I guess you missed the Sowers v Ohio Civil Rights Commission posting on the
      difference between a "right" and a "liberty".
      Full case attached.
      Here is the "meat" of what it said: 

      Sowers v Ohio Civil Rights Commission


      In the below excerpt, it states that the term "privilege" was equivalent to "right."


                "While the original Constitution did not have a

           bill of rights, commentators are frequently deceived

           in thinking it was completely unconcerned with human

           rights. The first article of the Constitution

           provides that 'The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas

           Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases

           of Rebellion or Invasion the Public Safety may

           require it.' The language provides good proof that

           the word 'privilege' by 1789 had become a

           constitutional synonym for 'right.' The right to the

           writ was already firmly established when in 1679 the

           British Habeas Corpus Act was passed, described as

           'the most famous statute in the annals of English

           law.' This right from the original Constitution was

           well known to the members of the Thirty Ninth

           Congress as they debated which rights were to be

           made binding upon the States. This is set forth in a

           subsequent section. Article VI of the original

           Constitution protected religious freedom by

           providing that 'no Religious Test shall ever be

           required as a Qualification to any Office of public

           Trust under the United States.' This, too, was

           thoroughly recognized by members of the Thirty Ninth

           Congress, and is treated in a later section." [Cites omitted]


      At page 78.

      The Intended Significance of the Fourteenth Amendment

      by Judge Chester James Antieau (ret.)

      William S. Hein & Co., Inc. : Buffalo, NY. 1997


      Maybe more clarification is needed on the differences between

      a "right", a "privilege", and a "liberty"...


      Privilege's are mere allowances of a superior authority, i.e.

      Da Massa OK.


      I again quote from Sowers v Ohio Civil Rights Commission,

      cited as 252 N.E. 2d 463:

      On "Civil rights" & "Civil liberties"


      "Civil rights" have been defined simply as such rights as the law

      will enforce, or as all those rights which the law gives a person.



      "Natural rights" are those rights which appertain originally and

      essentially to each person as a human being and are inherent in

      his nature, as contrasted to civil rights, which are given, defined

      and circumscribed by such positive laws enacted by civilized

      communities, as are necessary to the maintenance of organized

      government.  (Byers v Sun Savings Bank, 41 Okl. 728, 139 P. 948.



      Professor Pollack, 27 Ohio State Law Journal 567, points out that

      indiscriminate use of the term "rights" to describe an immunity,

      or privilege, has fostered confusion in the law.


      And, still quoting from Sowers:

      President Kennedy carefully drew this distinction, identifying

      immunities as civil liberties, and claims as civil rights.  He said:

            "The Bill of rights, in the eyes of its framers,

            was a catalogue of immunities, not a schedule

            of claims.  It was, in other words, a Bill of

            Liberties  * * *.  When civil rights are seen as

            claims and civil liberties as immunities, the

            government's differing responsibilities become

            clear.  For the security of rights the energy of

            government is essential.  For the security of

            liberty restraint is indispensable.


      Professor Pollack goes on to say...

      Liberty is preserved through constitutional assurances that

      government encroachments, and economic and social change

      is re-enforced by legislative action.


      And then the case states:

      Civil rights, (within anti-discrimination statutes) are economic rights,

      functioning as legally enforceable claims which are structured in

      legislation.  On the other hand civil liberties are natural rights which

      appertain originally and essentially to each person as human being

      and are inherent in his nature; such rights, which are constitutionally

      protected, are not actually rights but are immunities, or restraints

      on government.


      -End of Sowers quotes- 


      Once you have that clear in your mind, ask me about the "rights" that a

      citizen of the United States DOES NOT HAVE that a State Citizen does have!


      As for your other post on "Direct Taxes"... I ask:

      What evidence [reasonable basis] do you have to substantiate the

      claimed belief that we are currently under a Constitutional government?

      I have plenty of evidence to the contrary...

      Deo volente,
      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Alan Bacon (sui Juris)" 
      <arement@p...> wrote:
       > Statements of Fact

      > QUESTION: If all RIGHTS come from
      GOD (citizens of the States 
      > retained all RIGHTS except those
      surrendered as enumerated in the 
      > united States Constitution), and
      PRIVILEGES are granted by 
      > government after application; THEN what
      is the PRIVILEGE that
      > the "income tax" is applied against ?

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