Does /pol/ know law?

>>136379332
How do you feel about the incorporation doctrine through the 14th Amendment?

File: 14th.jpg (93KB, 638x479px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 638x479px

>>136379332
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

From the declaration of independence.

Lets take a look at citizen described by the book of law

>CITIZENS. Citizens are members of a political community who, in their
associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.

>>136379665
Your about to find out as I continue the dump

>>136379802
I'm waiting for the day the Federal government proposes abolishing states all together because our citizens are so dumb they don't realize that each state is actually country with its own government and laws. They think state borders are just arbitrary lines that mean nothing.

To further illustrate: In 1884 in the case of Elk v Wilkins,10 the court stated the following in
reference to Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and its dual citizenship:

“...this section contemplates two sources of citizenship and two sources only:
birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ”All persons
born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect
or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to
their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance...”

Under international and constitutional law, all states that are in the American union — that
are also referred to as republics — are separate sovereignties, countries and nations. To assist in explaining this let us view the first set of legal definitions which are as follows:

>COUNTRY. By country is meant the state of which one is a member; Every man’s
country is in general the state in which he happens to have been born.

And accordingly,

>• NATIONS. Nations or states are independent bodies politic; societies of men
united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by
the joint efforts of their combined strength... i.e., your state/republic/country
Ergo: Lawful “nationality” defined — pursuant to international law — is:

>• NATIONALITY. The state of a person in relation to the nation in which he was
born... i.e., your state reflects your nationality, e.g., Iowan, Ohioan, etc.4

As you can plainly see, a country is a state, and a nation is somewhat synonymous with state.
All states (i.e., several states) of America make-up the “[U]nited States of America” (Union)
the incorporated unit makes-up the “United States” (the ‘State’ of the Union).
Before this time, did you realize that the “United States” is not your nation?"

Now, to make a point: As discussed above, we know that California and Nevada are deemed
nations under international law. Let us say that one nation attacked the other; in other words,
declared war on the other for some reason or another. If you were a member of the nation of
the Nevada republic — which you would have direct allegiance to — how can you go to war
against California which you also have allegiance to? You cannot fight on two sides!
Simply put, you can only have allegiance to one of the countries, your country: Nevada.
To expand on this premise (as to above example because it is the same situation) you may
have heard that the Confederate Soldiers in the “Civil War” were deemed rebels. This is not
correct. In other words, in saying this is fraud, see this documented authority:
• REBELS. A term loosely but incorrectly applied to the Confederate
Forces engaged in the Civil War. 30 Am J Rev ed lnsurr § 2
Why?... There was no breach of allegiance to their nations (countries/state governments) nor
did any one of them commit treason against the Union to a foreign power! The Confederate
States had a war pursuant to international law. It was actually an International War : A war
between nations… the individual states. Courts properly call it The War Between the States

What are we seeing is actually the real purpose of the so-called “Civil War” : Genocide. This
is melding of many nations into one which essentially destroys their ability to be sovereign.
Accordingly, to further illustrate this farce see this definition Title 8 USC § 1401:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) A person
born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (b) A person born in
the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe:
Provided, that the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner
impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property.
12
Note the above statutory reference states: “a person born in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof shall be a national and citizen of the United States at birth.”

File: Less you think more you believe.jpg (77KB, 598x600px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 598x600px

This noted status is further defined by Title 8 USC § 1101(a)(22), definitions:
• The term “national of the United States” means a citizen of the United States.
In other words, a citizen of the United States is a national of the United States. Pursuant to the
Fourteenth Amendment operations you have one “nationality” only: United States nationality.
Of course, this is repugnant to constitutional law and the law of nations. But again, this was
all in the hidden design of the so-called “Civil War” as established by its orchestrators:
“The Communists are further reproached with desiring
to abolish countries and nationality.” Communist manifesto

THE GOVERNMENT OF CONSENT
NOW...
What government have you consented and/or submitted to?
Well, according to the operations of the Fourteenth Amendment, you have submitted yourself
to the general jurisdiction of the federal government. This has been accomplished through various operations of law, your silence, and also by overt acts that you have done. BUT HERE IS THE UNCONSCIONABLE OVERT ACT! You may refer to it as the SET-UP! It is a fact that you have to be a ‘new’ citizen of the United States (federal citizen) to vote in elections. You may verify that fact by searching your [S]tate statutes regarding voting. Now, although it is hard to see — as the language is intentionally written to confuse people — if
you decipher Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, you will see that the de facto states or
governments truly only represent people who are voting, with others being put in a perilous
limbo-land. Remember earlier in this article it was mentioned that it is a crime to vote. Now
we can take a look at how this is done. The pertinent text found in Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment illustrates to us that it is a crime to vote. This is so evil it is beyond belief: “. . .the right to vote at any election. . . is denied. . . except for participation in rebellion, or other crime.

d

>>136380765
>>136380871
Fascinating concept. It's amazing how a majority of people today just gloss over the fact that the civil war was actually an international war. It's amazing how much power the civil war gave the federal government.

>>136382203
I know its genius the real red pill goes deep and its roots in history only a few really woke people really know at the moment.