(Unfortunately) The Irish Constitution does NOT recognise sovereign individuals ie men and women claiming to stand in their sole sovereign capacity. This does not exist in Irish written law! There is a HUGE difference between a Sovereign Nation and a Nation of Sovereigns! When the Constitution says: the People are sovereign it does NOT mean each individual. It means the People of Éire plural - as a collective, single unit. Just as if it was its own ‘entity’ like a corporation. It means that the People have the authority to change the constitution, but only as the People. You or I cannot change the Constitution or the laws just on our own will and whim. It requires the collective consent of the People of Éire which is obtained by referendum. Individual or Personal Sovereignty by very definition is NOT this form of popular sovereignty (which is basically just democracy ie the mob/people dictate the rules over other people, but only as the people, the collective. Popular Sovereignty does not recognise YOU as an individual. The Constitution only recognises you in the capacity of a “CITIZEN”. If you use the constitution it is implied you are a citizen. It is oxymoronic to say on one hand, I am a sovereign/free man or woman, and in the other hold a copy of the constitution (or any other document you didnt write and are not party to for that matter) as though it somehow acknowledges and grants this to you? The Constitution grants the opposite! THE CONSTITUTION IS WHERE THE IMPLIED RIGHT TO BE GOVERNED BEGINS! NOT LEGISLATION. Read the preamble. “We, the People of Éire … Do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution.” Who are the People of Éire? (Who is the “Occupier”?) If you believe you fall into this category, and so ‘hereby adopt’ the constitution unto yourself - You by proxy accept all the consequences running from that. You accept the ‘State’ model as outlined in that Constitution. You accept everything the State does unless it can be proven to be un-constitutional. As all legislation is ‘deemed constitutional’ until the contrary is shown by a challenge in the High Court – You are also by proxy deemed to have consented to all legislation. So do you believe the Constitution protects you? No, it just sets the parameters for the use of force which will later be defined further in legislation. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. - Lysander Spooner A real sovereign/freeman perspective would see no association between a Constitution and the source of his own rights. And it makes no difference whether youre born under monarchy, democracy, or tyranny - in theory we are all born absolutely free and equal (this is the notion that you are sovereign right now) but in practice we all have to work for it! Practically speaking, we are not free. And even though we’re “born sovereign” don’t forget we’re also born hopelessly dependant! And this is how we stay, in my opinion, until we change our lives – the way we live – so much so that we are NO LONGER DEPENDANT on the State. Contrary to how this was portrayed on RTÉ this is the height of civil maturity. As such you cannot be a Sovereign Citizen as this is a contradiction of terms. Sovereign implies not being subject to anothers will (whether a tyrant, or the government on behalf of the collective), while Citizen implies the opposite -subjugation to the will of the state power. As a citizen inherent rights are converted into recognised rights and so are no more than benefits, privileges, duties, grants, and obligations. In other words permissions. I think sovereign citizen is used as a dirty word to tarnish free men and women in America, and freeman has become a nasty word here too. Putting aside the use of force by the State, from where does the Constitution derive its authority if not by our mere belief and acceptance of it? Now, factoring in the force used by the State – what does it mean to live in a society were sole justification is derived from force and violence? The State own the monopoly on force, the legal system sets out the rules for the ‘legitimate’ use of that force. The problem is, what we have is a ‘legal system’ not a ‘justice system’ although we may describe it as such. We have a legal system which governs the legitimate use of violence against the subjects. These are crucial points and I believe the real crux of the debate and the clash of ideologies centres here. Its not enough to just believe hard enough and click your heals together and say sovereignteeeey, or even if you start to use the word sovereign over and over, and as an adjective for everything you do, it doesnt change the fact that were not living in a free society, shit is bad. If it wasnt, I wouldnt be writing this and you wouldnt be reading it. So you can (be) free (in) your mind, but we really do have to work hard to attain this goal. A freer, better, more just society for all. --- THE HISTORY OF LIBERTY The event which we commemorate is all-important, not merely in our own annals, but in those of the world. The sententious English poet has declared that the proper study of mankind is man, and of all inquiries of a temporal nature, the history of our fellow-beings is unquestionably among the most interesting. But not all the chapters of human history are alike important. The annals of our race have been filled up with incidents which concern not, or at least ought not to concern, the great company of mankind. History, as it has often been written, is the genealogy of princes, the field-book of conquerors; and the fortunes of our fellow-men have been treated only so far as they have been affected by the influence of the great masters and destroyers of our race. Such history is, I will not say a worthless study, for it is necessary for us to know the dark side as well as the bright side of our condition. But it is a melancholy study which fills the bosom of the philanthropist and the friend of liberty with sorrow. But the history of liberty—the history of men struggling to be free—the history of men who have acquired and are exercising their freedom—the history of those great movements in the world, by which liberty has been established and perpetuated, forms a subject which we cannot contemplate too closely. This is the real history of man, of the human family, of rational immortal beings.... The trial of adversity was theirs; the trial of prosperity is ours. Let us meet it as men who know their duty and prize their blessings. Our position is the most enviable, the most responsible, which men can fill. If this generation does its duty, the cause of constitutional freedom is safe. If we fail—if we fail—not only do we defraud our children of the inheritance which we received from our fathers, but we blast the hopes of the friends of liberty throughout our continent, throughout Europe, throughout the world, to the end of time. History is not without her examples of hard-fought fields, where the banner of liberty has floated triumphantly on the wildest storm of battle. She is without her examples of a people by whom the dear-bought treasure has been wisely employed and safely handed down. The eyes of the world are turned for that example to us.... Let us, then, as we assemble on the birthday of the nation, as we gather upon the green turf, once wet with precious blood—let us devote ourselves to the sacred cause of c̶o̶n̶s̶t̶i̶t̶u̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶ liberty! Let us abjure the interests and passions which divide the great family of American freemen! Let the rage of party spirit sleep to-day! Let us resolve that our children shall have cause to bless the memory of their fathers, as we have cause to bless the memory of ours!—Edward Everett. No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority – Lysander Spooner youtube/watch?v=dWESql2dXoc# tirnasaor
Posted on: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 03:12:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015