Sovereign

There is a movement within our country by persons who are reclaiming the sovereignty that is rightfully inherent in the people of this land. By definition, as sovereigns, we are free to be and do anything we want. At first glance this seem to imply that the sovereign is free of all social and moral constraints. Without qualification this could lead to what might be termed Sovereign Immunity Syndrome, i.e., a condition whereby one believes he/she is the only sovereign and therefore is above the law, as opposed to a sovereign who is surrounded by a whole world of other sovereigns, each having been endowed with the same unalienable rights.

Common Law has two major governing precepts. First, as a sovereign one is free to be and do anything he/she pleases as long as whatever is done does not injure another sovereign in his/her person, character or property; and second, that the sovereign honor all contracts and agreements that were entered into knowingly, voluntarily and willingly.

To have freedom as a sovereign requires responsibility. Because one becomes aware of his/her sovereignty does not grant license to ride rough shod over whoever gets in the way or whoever doesn’t have the same awareness of his/her sovereignty. The genuine sovereign will give respect to all other sovereigns, even those who may not be currently aware that they are sovereign. There is no asking permission to be sovereign. If you were born and are a real flesh and blood human, you are sovereign. That does not however guarantee that the sovereignty potential has been actualized. There is a Latin term in law, res ipsa loquitur, which means the thing speaks for itself. If one is truly living as a sovereign, it will speak for itself. Unfortunately, in our land the vast majority are sovereigns who have yet to realize and actualize their potential.

The term Sovereign is defined in Webster’s Dictionary as "Having supreme rank, power and authority…being above all others…rightful status of independence and prerogative…" In Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition Sovereign is defined as "A person, body, or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a king or other ruler in a monarchy."

Prior to the statutory maze that now curses the citizenry of this land we were subject to the law of the land. The United States, by way of the Constitution, adopted the Common Laws of England. Caldwell v. Hill 176 S.E. 383 (1934). The Law of the Land means the Common Law Taylor v. Porter (4 Hill) 140, 146, State v. Simon, (2 Spears) 761, 767.

The Constitution was adopted and made by people in their capacity as Sovereigns. Therefore, as a whole, the United States emanates from the people thus the laws and constitutions of the several states are subordinate to the Constitution of the United States and the laws made pursuant to it. "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law for it is the author and source of law;" Yick Wo vs Hopkins and Woo Lee vs Hopkins 118 U.S. 356. "Here [in America] sovereignty rests with the People." Chisholm. v. Georgia, (2 Dall) 415, 472.

"To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But, even in that place it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves ‘SOVEREIGN’ people of the United States. But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration." Chisholm v. Georgia, (2 Dall) 440, 455. Thus, the People themselves, either singly or collectively, are sovereign, supra at 456, over both the State and the federal government and are the true SOVEREIGNS within this nation.

"It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states." Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997. "The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY).

The Privileges and Immunities of a Citizen of Minnesota are completely different than those of a "citizen of the United States", see K. Tashiro v Jordan, (1927) 201 Cal. 236, 246, 256 p. 545. The United States Supreme Court in National City Bank v. Republic of China, 348 U.S. 356, 99 L.Ed. 389, 75 S.Ct. 423 (1955) stated at page 363: "(a) The Court of Claims is available to foreign nationals (or their governments)…" The Executive Branch’s agency, the Internal Revenue Service, has also recognized this by stating in their publications that "nonresident aliens [state Citizens] must take their cases to the Court of Claims, as they do not have standing in the federal district court or the tax court." This premise is based on the fact that the immunity rests upon the grounds that no enforceable right exists "against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends…" Kawananakoa v. Polybank, 205 U.S. 349, 353, and it is undisputable that the Citizens of the several States united granted limited powers to the federal government, because the people are vested with complete sovereignty.