Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Rights & Liberties
- Greetings,You, Alan Bacon, are using words of which you do not have the foggiest ideahow they have been defined in law and court cases.I guess you missed the Sowers v Ohio Civil Rights Commission posting on thedifference 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
-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...
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Alan Bacon (sui Juris)"
> Statements of Fact
> QUESTION: If all RIGHTS come fromGOD (citizens of the States
> retained all RIGHTS except thosesurrendered as enumerated in the
> united States Constitution), andPRIVILEGES are granted by
> government after application; THEN whatis the PRIVILEGE that
> the "income tax" is applied against ?