A DRIVERS LICENSE IS NOT NECESSARY TO TRAVEL STOP USING A DRIVERS LICENSE !!

[FucktheIC]

@FucktheIC

SMH @ you thinkin so called reputable sources are going to snitch on themselves. They make money by propping up this facade. They won't deny it, but they will play word games like a muthfucka.

What you have to do is watch videos, compare case law notes that are brought up and do your own investigation into the matter. The system is propped up by people who are ignorant of the law and their position. By system I mean all of it from the law students all the way up to the SC judge.

Ask questions, make inquiries compare notes. Nobody is gonna hand you an answer all gift wrapped and pre packaged for you, that's lazy scholarship.

I'll start you off:

What are the rights of the people listed in the constitution? Can these rights be taken away or are they inalienable? IS the constitution a document that empowers the people or the government? What is the role of government? What's the balance of power between the people and the state?

Investigate these questions they'll lead to answers and more questions.

It's funny, the questions you asked are more related to our social contract than our government. Stop it, bruh. EVERY single lawyer at EVERY single law school even third tier schools is working to keep the bullshit going. You know how many people that is? There isn't enough Kool Aid in this world to get all those people to buy in. Give me a reputable source or shut up. Don't make an excuse as to why you can't, just proice one.

SMH @ you thinking you can demand something from me.

The Constitution is the most important contract between the people and each other and the people and the state. If you don't understand the spirit and the importance of the constitution then you won't understand how you're being hustled.

I asked you the questions, you can choose to investigate them or not that is completely on you. Your 'reputable' source qualification is just a cop out. DO you think it's going to be found in an article in Time or in a Law Review Quarterly.

Ask the questions you'll find the court cases and the constitutional arguments.

Do you even know the difference between a law and a statute or code?

How about the importance in using the word 'of' in the naming of cities and towns and the like?

How about the legal definition of 'person' and how its used is legislation. Or natural person, or legal fiction?

The importance of addressing items in all capital LETTERS.

You don't have to get people to buy into anything. If they buck what are they gonna do? How are they going to expose the fraud that's been carried on since the mid 1800s? If all you do is give people Kool-Aid eventually their thirst will overwhelm them and they will drink. Most people drink without even that much resistance because the thought process has been conditioned on an individual level instead of a collective one.

It's how you can get 'good' cops to turn a blind eye to those who abuse their powers. Same principle.

I didn't read any thing but the first 3 lines of your post.

The Constitution is not a social contract, the declaration of independence is. The declaration of independence is the foundation of our democracy, not the constitution. That's why when the articles of confederation wasn't working, we scratched it and created the constitution.

There are no youtube vids about this, so I wouldn't expect you to understand it.

 

[lostsamuraisotaku]

....

@FucktheIC

SMH @ you thinkin so called reputable sources are going to snitch on themselves. They make money by propping up this facade. They won't deny it, but they will play word games like a muthfucka.

What you have to do is watch videos, compare case law notes that are brought up and do your own investigation into the matter. The system is propped up by people who are ignorant of the law and their position. By system I mean all of it from the law students all the way up to the SC judge.

Ask questions, make inquiries compare notes. Nobody is gonna hand you an answer all gift wrapped and pre packaged for you, that's lazy scholarship.

I'll start you off:

What are the rights of the people listed in the constitution? Can these rights be taken away or are they inalienable? IS the constitution a document that empowers the people or the government? What is the role of government? What's the balance of power between the people and the state?

Investigate these questions they'll lead to answers and more questions.

It's funny, the questions you asked are more related to our social contract than our government. Stop it, bruh. EVERY single lawyer at EVERY single law school even third tier schools is working to keep the bullshit going. You know how many people that is? There isn't enough Kool Aid in this world to get all those people to buy in. Give me a reputable source or shut up. Don't make an excuse as to why you can't, just proice one.

SMH @ you thinking you can demand something from me.

The Constitution is the most important contract between the people and each other and the people and the state. If you don't understand the spirit and the importance of the constitution then you won't understand how you're being hustled.

I asked you the questions, you can choose to investigate them or not that is completely on you. Your 'reputable' source qualification is just a cop out. DO you think it's going to be found in an article in Time or in a Law Review Quarterly.

Ask the questions you'll find the court cases and the constitutional arguments.

Do you even know the difference between a law and a statute or code?

How about the importance in using the word 'of' in the naming of cities and towns and the like?

How about the legal definition of 'person' and how its used is legislation. Or natural person, or legal fiction?

The importance of addressing items in all capital LETTERS.

You don't have to get people to buy into anything. If they buck what are they gonna do? How are they going to expose the fraud that's been carried on since the mid 1800s? If all you do is give people Kool-Aid eventually their thirst will overwhelm them and they will drink. Most people drink without even that much resistance because the thought process has been conditioned on an individual level instead of a collective one.

It's how you can get 'good' cops to turn a blind eye to those who abuse their powers. Same principle.

I didn't read any thing but the first 3 lines of your post.

The Constitution is not a social contract, the declaration of independence is. The declaration of independence is the foundation of our democracy, not the constitution. That's why when the articles of confederation wasn't working, we scratched it and created the constitution.

There are no youtube vids about this, so I wouldn't expect you to understand it.

^^ blacks invoking "we" when invoking anything constitution related (if you are quote black) is tragic comedy the constitution is a debt document the u.s is still a colony of britian please dont affront anyone in my thread insha this helps

 

[Amotekun]

@FucktheIC

SMH @ you thinkin so called reputable sources are going to snitch on themselves. They make money by propping up this facade. They won't deny it, but they will play word games like a muthfucka.

What you have to do is watch videos, compare case law notes that are brought up and do your own investigation into the matter. The system is propped up by people who are ignorant of the law and their position. By system I mean all of it from the law students all the way up to the SC judge.

Ask questions, make inquiries compare notes. Nobody is gonna hand you an answer all gift wrapped and pre packaged for you, that's lazy scholarship.

I'll start you off:

What are the rights of the people listed in the constitution? Can these rights be taken away or are they inalienable? IS the constitution a document that empowers the people or the government? What is the role of government? What's the balance of power between the people and the state?

Investigate these questions they'll lead to answers and more questions.

It's funny, the questions you asked are more related to our social contract than our government. Stop it, bruh. EVERY single lawyer at EVERY single law school even third tier schools is working to keep the bullshit going. You know how many people that is? There isn't enough Kool Aid in this world to get all those people to buy in. Give me a reputable source or shut up. Don't make an excuse as to why you can't, just proice one.

SMH @ you thinking you can demand something from me.

The Constitution is the most important contract between the people and each other and the people and the state. If you don't understand the spirit and the importance of the constitution then you won't understand how you're being hustled.

I asked you the questions, you can choose to investigate them or not that is completely on you. Your 'reputable' source qualification is just a cop out. DO you think it's going to be found in an article in Time or in a Law Review Quarterly.

Ask the questions you'll find the court cases and the constitutional arguments.

Do you even know the difference between a law and a statute or code?

How about the importance in using the word 'of' in the naming of cities and towns and the like?

How about the legal definition of 'person' and how its used is legislation. Or natural person, or legal fiction?

The importance of addressing items in all capital LETTERS.

You don't have to get people to buy into anything. If they buck what are they gonna do? How are they going to expose the fraud that's been carried on since the mid 1800s? If all you do is give people Kool-Aid eventually their thirst will overwhelm them and they will drink. Most people drink without even that much resistance because the thought process has been conditioned on an individual level instead of a collective one.

It's how you can get 'good' cops to turn a blind eye to those who abuse their powers. Same principle.

I didn't read any thing but the first 3 lines of your post.

The Constitution is not a social contract, the declaration of independence is. The declaration of independence is the foundation of our democracy, not the constitution. That's why when the articles of confederation wasn't working, we scratched it and created the constitution.

There are no youtube vids about this, so I wouldn't expect you to understand it.

You are right about the DOI it was the foundation of breaking away from the British empire, and is the foundation of any right of revolution by the people. I misspoke. However the importance of the constitution lies in the fact that not only do the Bill of Rights list the inalienable or presumed rights of people it also expressly says that people have inalienable rights not specifically listed. One of those rights in particular is the right to travel in a so called free republic. Being that Congress has its limits expressly written in the constitution it has no authority to license or permit people to exercise a right. In fact a Driver's License is only valid under Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. The same can be theorized with Vehicle Registration and Firearm permits. If I'm not mistaken all of these things are licensed by the State but according to the 14th amendment, or case law using the 14th amendment, no state can make a law abridging legal def (abridge (Divest), verb attach, deprive of, dispossess of, disseise, divest of, expropriate, limit, restrict, seize, strip, take away, usurp, wrest from) the people's rights.

@ the emboldened I've read many a case law on the subject of permits and licensing

Federal court decision: "A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right. Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942)." For those who rely on law and commonsense, the possession of firearms is clearly "a constitutionally protected right". Regardless of this truth, most states require a citizen to pay a "fee" (registration or background check "fee") in order to obtain a "license" (concealed carry "license") before keeping and/or bearing a firearm. And, a federal and/or state "tax" (firearms and ammunitions sales "tax" or machine gun "tax" collected by the BATF)is always levied at the time of firearm transaction.

Supreme Court decision: The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944] This rather settles the question concerning the unconstitutionality of licensing, taxation or registration of a constitutional right.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/ (firearm restrictions)
http://www.guncite.com/journals/vanalful.html (firearm restrictions)

 

[lostsamuraisotaku]

@FucktheIC

SMH @ you thinkin so called reputable sources are going to snitch on themselves. They make money by propping up this facade. They won't deny it, but they will play word games like a muthfucka.

What you have to do is watch videos, compare case law notes that are brought up and do your own investigation into the matter. The system is propped up by people who are ignorant of the law and their position. By system I mean all of it from the law students all the way up to the SC judge.

Ask questions, make inquiries compare notes. Nobody is gonna hand you an answer all gift wrapped and pre packaged for you, that's lazy scholarship.

I'll start you off:

What are the rights of the people listed in the constitution? Can these rights be taken away or are they inalienable? IS the constitution a document that empowers the people or the government? What is the role of government? What's the balance of power between the people and the state?

Investigate these questions they'll lead to answers and more questions.

It's funny, the questions you asked are more related to our social contract than our government. Stop it, bruh. EVERY single lawyer at EVERY single law school even third tier schools is working to keep the bullshit going. You know how many people that is? There isn't enough Kool Aid in this world to get all those people to buy in. Give me a reputable source or shut up. Don't make an excuse as to why you can't, just proice one.

SMH @ you thinking you can demand something from me.

The Constitution is the most important contract between the people and each other and the people and the state. If you don't understand the spirit and the importance of the constitution then you won't understand how you're being hustled.

I asked you the questions, you can choose to investigate them or not that is completely on you. Your 'reputable' source qualification is just a cop out. DO you think it's going to be found in an article in Time or in a Law Review Quarterly.

Ask the questions you'll find the court cases and the constitutional arguments.

Do you even know the difference between a law and a statute or code?

How about the importance in using the word 'of' in the naming of cities and towns and the like?

How about the legal definition of 'person' and how its used is legislation. Or natural person, or legal fiction?

The importance of addressing items in all capital LETTERS.

You don't have to get people to buy into anything. If they buck what are they gonna do? How are they going to expose the fraud that's been carried on since the mid 1800s? If all you do is give people Kool-Aid eventually their thirst will overwhelm them and they will drink. Most people drink without even that much resistance because the thought process has been conditioned on an individual level instead of a collective one.

It's how you can get 'good' cops to turn a blind eye to those who abuse their powers. Same principle.

I didn't read any thing but the first 3 lines of your post.

The Constitution is not a social contract, the declaration of independence is. The declaration of independence is the foundation of our democracy, not the constitution. That's why when the articles of confederation wasn't working, we scratched it and created the constitution.

There are no youtube vids about this, so I wouldn't expect you to understand it.

You are right about the DOI it was the foundation of breaking away from the British empire, and is the foundation of any right of revolution by the people. I misspoke. However the importance of the constitution lies in the fact that not only do the Bill of Rights list the inalienable or presumed rights of people it also expressly says that people have inalienable rights not specifically listed. One of those rights in particular is the right to travel in a so called free republic. Being that Congress has its limits expressly written in the constitution it has no authority to license or permit people to exercise a right. In fact a Driver's License is only valid under Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. The same can be theorized with Vehicle Registration and Firearm permits. If I'm not mistaken all of these things are licensed by the State but according to the 14th amendment, or case law using the 14th amendment, no state can make a law abridging legal def (abridge (Divest), verb attach, deprive of, dispossess of, disseise, divest of, expropriate, limit, restrict, seize, strip, take away, usurp, wrest from) the people's rights.

@ the emboldened I've read many a case law on the subject of permits and licensing

Federal court decision: "A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right. Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942)." For those who rely on law and commonsense, the possession of firearms is clearly "a constitutionally protected right". Regardless of this truth, most states require a citizen to pay a "fee" (registration or background check "fee") in order to obtain a "license" (concealed carry "license") before keeping and/or bearing a firearm. And, a federal and/or state "tax" (firearms and ammunitions sales "tax" or machine gun "tax" collected by the BATF)is always levied at the time of firearm transaction.

Supreme Court decision: The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944] This rather settles the question concerning the unconstitutionality of licensing, taxation or registration of a constitutional right.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/ (firearm restrictions)
http://www.guncite.com/journals/vanalful.html (firearm restrictions)

GOOD POST MOOR, ISLAM

 

[Amotekun]

@FucktheIC

SMH @ you thinkin so called reputable sources are going to snitch on themselves. They make money by propping up this facade. They won't deny it, but they will play word games like a muthfucka.

What you have to do is watch videos, compare case law notes that are brought up and do your own investigation into the matter. The system is propped up by people who are ignorant of the law and their position. By system I mean all of it from the law students all the way up to the SC judge.

Ask questions, make inquiries compare notes. Nobody is gonna hand you an answer all gift wrapped and pre packaged for you, that's lazy scholarship.

I'll start you off:

What are the rights of the people listed in the constitution? Can these rights be taken away or are they inalienable? IS the constitution a document that empowers the people or the government? What is the role of government? What's the balance of power between the people and the state?

Investigate these questions they'll lead to answers and more questions.

It's funny, the questions you asked are more related to our social contract than our government. Stop it, bruh. EVERY single lawyer at EVERY single law school even third tier schools is working to keep the bullshit going. You know how many people that is? There isn't enough Kool Aid in this world to get all those people to buy in. Give me a reputable source or shut up. Don't make an excuse as to why you can't, just proice one.

SMH @ you thinking you can demand something from me.

The Constitution is the most important contract between the people and each other and the people and the state. If you don't understand the spirit and the importance of the constitution then you won't understand how you're being hustled.

I asked you the questions, you can choose to investigate them or not that is completely on you. Your 'reputable' source qualification is just a cop out. DO you think it's going to be found in an article in Time or in a Law Review Quarterly.

Ask the questions you'll find the court cases and the constitutional arguments.

Do you even know the difference between a law and a statute or code?

How about the importance in using the word 'of' in the naming of cities and towns and the like?

How about the legal definition of 'person' and how its used is legislation. Or natural person, or legal fiction?

The importance of addressing items in all capital LETTERS.

You don't have to get people to buy into anything. If they buck what are they gonna do? How are they going to expose the fraud that's been carried on since the mid 1800s? If all you do is give people Kool-Aid eventually their thirst will overwhelm them and they will drink. Most people drink without even that much resistance because the thought process has been conditioned on an individual level instead of a collective one.

It's how you can get 'good' cops to turn a blind eye to those who abuse their powers. Same principle.

I didn't read any thing but the first 3 lines of your post.

The Constitution is not a social contract, the declaration of independence is. The declaration of independence is the foundation of our democracy, not the constitution. That's why when the articles of confederation wasn't working, we scratched it and created the constitution.

There are no youtube vids about this, so I wouldn't expect you to understand it.

You are right about the DOI it was the foundation of breaking away from the British empire, and is the foundation of any right of revolution by the people. I misspoke. However the importance of the constitution lies in the fact that not only do the Bill of Rights list the inalienable or presumed rights of people it also expressly says that people have inalienable rights not specifically listed. One of those rights in particular is the right to travel in a so called free republic. Being that Congress has its limits expressly written in the constitution it has no authority to license or permit people to exercise a right. In fact a Driver's License is only valid under Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. The same can be theorized with Vehicle Registration and Firearm permits. If I'm not mistaken all of these things are licensed by the State but according to the 14th amendment, or case law using the 14th amendment, no state can make a law abridging legal def (abridge (Divest), verb attach, deprive of, dispossess of, disseise, divest of, expropriate, limit, restrict, seize, strip, take away, usurp, wrest from) the people's rights.

@ the emboldened I've read many a case law on the subject of permits and licensing

Federal court decision: "A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right. Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942)." For those who rely on law and commonsense, the possession of firearms is clearly "a constitutionally protected right". Regardless of this truth, most states require a citizen to pay a "fee" (registration or background check "fee") in order to obtain a "license" (concealed carry "license") before keeping and/or bearing a firearm. And, a federal and/or state "tax" (firearms and ammunitions sales "tax" or machine gun "tax" collected by the BATF)is always levied at the time of firearm transaction.

Supreme Court decision: The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944] This rather settles the question concerning the unconstitutionality of licensing, taxation or registration of a constitutional right.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/ (firearm restrictions)
http://www.guncite.com/journals/vanalful.html (firearm restrictions)

GOOD POST MOOR, ISLAM

Appreciate the daps but I'm no Moor. Moors, if what I'm researching holds true were the vanguard for much the conquest of africa, and were also involved with the slave trade.

 

[lostsamuraisotaku]

@FucktheIC

SMH @ you thinkin so called reputable sources are going to snitch on themselves. They make money by propping up this facade. They won't deny it, but they will play word games like a muthfucka.

What you have to do is watch videos, compare case law notes that are brought up and do your own investigation into the matter. The system is propped up by people who are ignorant of the law and their position. By system I mean all of it from the law students all the way up to the SC judge.

Ask questions, make inquiries compare notes. Nobody is gonna hand you an answer all gift wrapped and pre packaged for you, that's lazy scholarship.

I'll start you off:

What are the rights of the people listed in the constitution? Can these rights be taken away or are they inalienable? IS the constitution a document that empowers the people or the government? What is the role of government? What's the balance of power between the people and the state?

Investigate these questions they'll lead to answers and more questions.

It's funny, the questions you asked are more related to our social contract than our government. Stop it, bruh. EVERY single lawyer at EVERY single law school even third tier schools is working to keep the bullshit going. You know how many people that is? There isn't enough Kool Aid in this world to get all those people to buy in. Give me a reputable source or shut up. Don't make an excuse as to why you can't, just proice one.

SMH @ you thinking you can demand something from me.

The Constitution is the most important contract between the people and each other and the people and the state. If you don't understand the spirit and the importance of the constitution then you won't understand how you're being hustled.

I asked you the questions, you can choose to investigate them or not that is completely on you. Your 'reputable' source qualification is just a cop out. DO you think it's going to be found in an article in Time or in a Law Review Quarterly.

Ask the questions you'll find the court cases and the constitutional arguments.

Do you even know the difference between a law and a statute or code?

How about the importance in using the word 'of' in the naming of cities and towns and the like?

How about the legal definition of 'person' and how its used is legislation. Or natural person, or legal fiction?

The importance of addressing items in all capital LETTERS.

You don't have to get people to buy into anything. If they buck what are they gonna do? How are they going to expose the fraud that's been carried on since the mid 1800s? If all you do is give people Kool-Aid eventually their thirst will overwhelm them and they will drink. Most people drink without even that much resistance because the thought process has been conditioned on an individual level instead of a collective one.

It's how you can get 'good' cops to turn a blind eye to those who abuse their powers. Same principle.

I didn't read any thing but the first 3 lines of your post.

The Constitution is not a social contract, the declaration of independence is. The declaration of independence is the foundation of our democracy, not the constitution. That's why when the articles of confederation wasn't working, we scratched it and created the constitution.

There are no youtube vids about this, so I wouldn't expect you to understand it.

You are right about the DOI it was the foundation of breaking away from the British empire, and is the foundation of any right of revolution by the people. I misspoke. However the importance of the constitution lies in the fact that not only do the Bill of Rights list the inalienable or presumed rights of people it also expressly says that people have inalienable rights not specifically listed. One of those rights in particular is the right to travel in a so called free republic. Being that Congress has its limits expressly written in the constitution it has no authority to license or permit people to exercise a right. In fact a Driver's License is only valid under Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. The same can be theorized with Vehicle Registration and Firearm permits. If I'm not mistaken all of these things are licensed by the State but according to the 14th amendment, or case law using the 14th amendment, no state can make a law abridging legal def (abridge (Divest), verb attach, deprive of, dispossess of, disseise, divest of, expropriate, limit, restrict, seize, strip, take away, usurp, wrest from) the people's rights.

@ the emboldened I've read many a case law on the subject of permits and licensing

Federal court decision: "A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right. Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942)." For those who rely on law and commonsense, the possession of firearms is clearly "a constitutionally protected right". Regardless of this truth, most states require a citizen to pay a "fee" (registration or background check "fee") in order to obtain a "license" (concealed carry "license") before keeping and/or bearing a firearm. And, a federal and/or state "tax" (firearms and ammunitions sales "tax" or machine gun "tax" collected by the BATF)is always levied at the time of firearm transaction.

Supreme Court decision: The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944] This rather settles the question concerning the unconstitutionality of licensing, taxation or registration of a constitutional right.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/ (firearm restrictions)
http://www.guncite.com/journals/vanalful.html (firearm restrictions)

GOOD POST MOOR, ISLAM

Appreciate the daps but I'm no Moor. Moors, if what I'm researching holds true were the vanguard for much the conquest of africa, and were also involved with the slave trade.

o sorry insha alaah i did not offend bismillah ar rahman ir rahim salam u alykum allaah hafiz

 

[FucktheIC]

@FucktheIC

SMH @ you thinkin so called reputable sources are going to snitch on themselves. They make money by propping up this facade. They won't deny it, but they will play word games like a muthfucka.

What you have to do is watch videos, compare case law notes that are brought up and do your own investigation into the matter. The system is propped up by people who are ignorant of the law and their position. By system I mean all of it from the law students all the way up to the SC judge.

Ask questions, make inquiries compare notes. Nobody is gonna hand you an answer all gift wrapped and pre packaged for you, that's lazy scholarship.

I'll start you off:

What are the rights of the people listed in the constitution? Can these rights be taken away or are they inalienable? IS the constitution a document that empowers the people or the government? What is the role of government? What's the balance of power between the people and the state?

Investigate these questions they'll lead to answers and more questions.

It's funny, the questions you asked are more related to our social contract than our government. Stop it, bruh. EVERY single lawyer at EVERY single law school even third tier schools is working to keep the bullshit going. You know how many people that is? There isn't enough Kool Aid in this world to get all those people to buy in. Give me a reputable source or shut up. Don't make an excuse as to why you can't, just proice one.

SMH @ you thinking you can demand something from me.

The Constitution is the most important contract between the people and each other and the people and the state. If you don't understand the spirit and the importance of the constitution then you won't understand how you're being hustled.

I asked you the questions, you can choose to investigate them or not that is completely on you. Your 'reputable' source qualification is just a cop out. DO you think it's going to be found in an article in Time or in a Law Review Quarterly.

Ask the questions you'll find the court cases and the constitutional arguments.

Do you even know the difference between a law and a statute or code?

How about the importance in using the word 'of' in the naming of cities and towns and the like?

How about the legal definition of 'person' and how its used is legislation. Or natural person, or legal fiction?

The importance of addressing items in all capital LETTERS.

You don't have to get people to buy into anything. If they buck what are they gonna do? How are they going to expose the fraud that's been carried on since the mid 1800s? If all you do is give people Kool-Aid eventually their thirst will overwhelm them and they will drink. Most people drink without even that much resistance because the thought process has been conditioned on an individual level instead of a collective one.

It's how you can get 'good' cops to turn a blind eye to those who abuse their powers. Same principle.

I didn't read any thing but the first 3 lines of your post.

The Constitution is not a social contract, the declaration of independence is. The declaration of independence is the foundation of our democracy, not the constitution. That's why when the articles of confederation wasn't working, we scratched it and created the constitution.

There are no youtube vids about this, so I wouldn't expect you to understand it.

You are right about the DOI it was the foundation of breaking away from the British empire, and is the foundation of any right of revolution by the people. I misspoke. However the importance of the constitution lies in the fact that not only do the Bill of Rights list the inalienable or presumed rights of people it also expressly says that people have inalienable rights not specifically listed. One of those rights in particular is the right to travel in a so called free republic. Being that Congress has its limits expressly written in the constitution it has no authority to license or permit people to exercise a right. In fact a Driver's License is only valid under Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. The same can be theorized with Vehicle Registration and Firearm permits. If I'm not mistaken all of these things are licensed by the State but according to the 14th amendment, or case law using the 14th amendment, no state can make a law abridging legal def (abridge (Divest), verb attach, deprive of, dispossess of, disseise, divest of, expropriate, limit, restrict, seize, strip, take away, usurp, wrest from) the people's rights.

@ the emboldened I've read many a case law on the subject of permits and licensing

Federal court decision: "A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right. Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942)." For those who rely on law and commonsense, the possession of firearms is clearly "a constitutionally protected right". Regardless of this truth, most states require a citizen to pay a "fee" (registration or background check "fee") in order to obtain a "license" (concealed carry "license") before keeping and/or bearing a firearm. And, a federal and/or state "tax" (firearms and ammunitions sales "tax" or machine gun "tax" collected by the BATF)is always levied at the time of firearm transaction.

Supreme Court decision: The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944] This rather settles the question concerning the unconstitutionality of licensing, taxation or registration of a constitutional right.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/ (firearm restrictions)
http://www.guncite.com/journals/vanalful.html (firearm restrictions)

Dude, that's incorrect on so many levels.

First, Congress has nothing to do with your driver's license, so your entire first paragraph is moot. We have a federal system. meaning we have sovereign states that are able to govern themselves. Meaning Maryland has its licensing process, virginia has its own, etc.

I did my research, the case you're referring to was about religion and unfair licenses and fees against jehovah's witnesses. The right to travel, is a right. The right to travel within a state, is a legal right. The mode of transportation, however, is not. You can walk any fucking place you want to. But on issues completely unaddressed by the constitution, States have the right to govern them. There are pressures exerted on those states by the federal government(usually threatening to withold grants and other money in order to get them to do what they want, but at the end of the day it's a state issue.

What you're saying sounds cool I suppose, but it would never hold up in court.

 

[lostsamuraisotaku]

@FucktheIC

SMH @ you thinkin so called reputable sources are going to snitch on themselves. They make money by propping up this facade. They won't deny it, but they will play word games like a muthfucka.

What you have to do is watch videos, compare case law notes that are brought up and do your own investigation into the matter. The system is propped up by people who are ignorant of the law and their position. By system I mean all of it from the law students all the way up to the SC judge.

Ask questions, make inquiries compare notes. Nobody is gonna hand you an answer all gift wrapped and pre packaged for you, that's lazy scholarship.

I'll start you off:

What are the rights of the people listed in the constitution? Can these rights be taken away or are they inalienable? IS the constitution a document that empowers the people or the government? What is the role of government? What's the balance of power between the people and the state?

Investigate these questions they'll lead to answers and more questions.

It's funny, the questions you asked are more related to our social contract than our government. Stop it, bruh. EVERY single lawyer at EVERY single law school even third tier schools is working to keep the bullshit going. You know how many people that is? There isn't enough Kool Aid in this world to get all those people to buy in. Give me a reputable source or shut up. Don't make an excuse as to why you can't, just proice one.

SMH @ you thinking you can demand something from me.

The Constitution is the most important contract between the people and each other and the people and the state. If you don't understand the spirit and the importance of the constitution then you won't understand how you're being hustled.

I asked you the questions, you can choose to investigate them or not that is completely on you. Your 'reputable' source qualification is just a cop out. DO you think it's going to be found in an article in Time or in a Law Review Quarterly.

Ask the questions you'll find the court cases and the constitutional arguments.

Do you even know the difference between a law and a statute or code?

How about the importance in using the word 'of' in the naming of cities and towns and the like?

How about the legal definition of 'person' and how its used is legislation. Or natural person, or legal fiction?

The importance of addressing items in all capital LETTERS.

You don't have to get people to buy into anything. If they buck what are they gonna do? How are they going to expose the fraud that's been carried on since the mid 1800s? If all you do is give people Kool-Aid eventually their thirst will overwhelm them and they will drink. Most people drink without even that much resistance because the thought process has been conditioned on an individual level instead of a collective one.

It's how you can get 'good' cops to turn a blind eye to those who abuse their powers. Same principle.

I didn't read any thing but the first 3 lines of your post.

The Constitution is not a social contract, the declaration of independence is. The declaration of independence is the foundation of our democracy, not the constitution. That's why when the articles of confederation wasn't working, we scratched it and created the constitution.

There are no youtube vids about this, so I wouldn't expect you to understand it.

You are right about the DOI it was the foundation of breaking away from the British empire, and is the foundation of any right of revolution by the people. I misspoke. However the importance of the constitution lies in the fact that not only do the Bill of Rights list the inalienable or presumed rights of people it also expressly says that people have inalienable rights not specifically listed. One of those rights in particular is the right to travel in a so called free republic. Being that Congress has its limits expressly written in the constitution it has no authority to license or permit people to exercise a right. In fact a Driver's License is only valid under Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. The same can be theorized with Vehicle Registration and Firearm permits. If I'm not mistaken all of these things are licensed by the State but according to the 14th amendment, or case law using the 14th amendment, no state can make a law abridging legal def (abridge (Divest), verb attach, deprive of, dispossess of, disseise, divest of, expropriate, limit, restrict, seize, strip, take away, usurp, wrest from) the people's rights.

@ the emboldened I've read many a case law on the subject of permits and licensing

Federal court decision: "A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right. Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942)." For those who rely on law and commonsense, the possession of firearms is clearly "a constitutionally protected right". Regardless of this truth, most states require a citizen to pay a "fee" (registration or background check "fee") in order to obtain a "license" (concealed carry "license") before keeping and/or bearing a firearm. And, a federal and/or state "tax" (firearms and ammunitions sales "tax" or machine gun "tax" collected by the BATF)is always levied at the time of firearm transaction.

Supreme Court decision: The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944] This rather settles the question concerning the unconstitutionality of licensing, taxation or registration of a constitutional right.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/ (firearm restrictions)
http://www.guncite.com/journals/vanalful.html (firearm restrictions)

Dude, that's incorrect on so many levels.

First, Congress has nothing to do with your driver's license, so your entire first paragraph is moot. We have a federal system. meaning we have sovereign states that are able to govern themselves. Meaning Maryland has its licensing process, virginia has its own, etc.

I did my research, the case you're referring to was about religion and unfair licenses and fees against jehovah's witnesses. The right to travel, is a right. The right to travel within a state, is a legal right. The mode of transportation, however, is not. You can walk any fucking place you want to. But on issues completely unaddressed by the constitution, States have the right to govern them. There are pressures exerted on those states by the federal government(usually threatening to withold grants and other money in order to get them to do what they want, but at the end of the day it's a state issue.

What you're saying sounds cool I suppose, but it would never hold up in court.

what are you talking about?? ,its being done!!! ^^ this is only your ego buffering the fact that it learned something it didnt know

 

[Amotekun]

@FucktheIC

SMH @ you thinkin so called reputable sources are going to snitch on themselves. They make money by propping up this facade. They won't deny it, but they will play word games like a muthfucka.

What you have to do is watch videos, compare case law notes that are brought up and do your own investigation into the matter. The system is propped up by people who are ignorant of the law and their position. By system I mean all of it from the law students all the way up to the SC judge.

Ask questions, make inquiries compare notes. Nobody is gonna hand you an answer all gift wrapped and pre packaged for you, that's lazy scholarship.

I'll start you off:

What are the rights of the people listed in the constitution? Can these rights be taken away or are they inalienable? IS the constitution a document that empowers the people or the government? What is the role of government? What's the balance of power between the people and the state?

Investigate these questions they'll lead to answers and more questions.

It's funny, the questions you asked are more related to our social contract than our government. Stop it, bruh. EVERY single lawyer at EVERY single law school even third tier schools is working to keep the bullshit going. You know how many people that is? There isn't enough Kool Aid in this world to get all those people to buy in. Give me a reputable source or shut up. Don't make an excuse as to why you can't, just proice one.

SMH @ you thinking you can demand something from me.

The Constitution is the most important contract between the people and each other and the people and the state. If you don't understand the spirit and the importance of the constitution then you won't understand how you're being hustled.

I asked you the questions, you can choose to investigate them or not that is completely on you. Your 'reputable' source qualification is just a cop out. DO you think it's going to be found in an article in Time or in a Law Review Quarterly.

Ask the questions you'll find the court cases and the constitutional arguments.

Do you even know the difference between a law and a statute or code?

How about the importance in using the word 'of' in the naming of cities and towns and the like?

How about the legal definition of 'person' and how its used is legislation. Or natural person, or legal fiction?

The importance of addressing items in all capital LETTERS.

You don't have to get people to buy into anything. If they buck what are they gonna do? How are they going to expose the fraud that's been carried on since the mid 1800s? If all you do is give people Kool-Aid eventually their thirst will overwhelm them and they will drink. Most people drink without even that much resistance because the thought process has been conditioned on an individual level instead of a collective one.

It's how you can get 'good' cops to turn a blind eye to those who abuse their powers. Same principle.

I didn't read any thing but the first 3 lines of your post.

The Constitution is not a social contract, the declaration of independence is. The declaration of independence is the foundation of our democracy, not the constitution. That's why when the articles of confederation wasn't working, we scratched it and created the constitution.

There are no youtube vids about this, so I wouldn't expect you to understand it.

You are right about the DOI it was the foundation of breaking away from the British empire, and is the foundation of any right of revolution by the people. I misspoke. However the importance of the constitution lies in the fact that not only do the Bill of Rights list the inalienable or presumed rights of people it also expressly says that people have inalienable rights not specifically listed. One of those rights in particular is the right to travel in a so called free republic. Being that Congress has its limits expressly written in the constitution it has no authority to license or permit people to exercise a right. In fact a Driver's License is only valid under Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. The same can be theorized with Vehicle Registration and Firearm permits. If I'm not mistaken all of these things are licensed by the State but according to the 14th amendment, or case law using the 14th amendment, no state can make a law abridging legal def (abridge (Divest), verb attach, deprive of, dispossess of, disseise, divest of, expropriate, limit, restrict, seize, strip, take away, usurp, wrest from) the people's rights.

@ the emboldened I've read many a case law on the subject of permits and licensing

Federal court decision: "A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right. Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942)." For those who rely on law and commonsense, the possession of firearms is clearly "a constitutionally protected right". Regardless of this truth, most states require a citizen to pay a "fee" (registration or background check "fee") in order to obtain a "license" (concealed carry "license") before keeping and/or bearing a firearm. And, a federal and/or state "tax" (firearms and ammunitions sales "tax" or machine gun "tax" collected by the BATF)is always levied at the time of firearm transaction.

Supreme Court decision: The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944] This rather settles the question concerning the unconstitutionality of licensing, taxation or registration of a constitutional right.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/ (firearm restrictions)
http://www.guncite.com/journals/vanalful.html (firearm restrictions)

Dude, that's incorrect on so many levels.

First, Congress has nothing to do with your driver's license, so your entire first paragraph is moot. We have a federal system. meaning we have sovereign states that are able to govern themselves. Meaning Maryland has its licensing process, virginia has its own, etc.

I did my research, the case you're referring to was about religion and unfair licenses and fees against jehovah's witnesses. The right to travel, is a right. The right to travel within a state, is a legal right. The mode of transportation, however, is not. You can walk any fucking place you want to. But on issues completely unaddressed by the constitution, States have the right to govern them. There are pressures exerted on those states by the federal government(usually threatening to withold grants and other money in order to get them to do what they want, but at the end of the day it's a state issue.

What you're saying sounds cool I suppose, but it would never hold up in court.

I never said Congress had anything to do with the licensing process, but it is clear as day that the 14th amendment prohibits states from passing or upholding legislation that contradicts the constitution. State laws may vary, but there is a ceiling for how much they can.

The ability to freely travel using available means is a right. There is nothing in the constitution that gives congress nor states the power to arbitrarily prohibit, restrict, or license a certain way to travel on public roads and high ways.

 

[Amotekun]

DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.

To go from one place to another at a distance; to journey; spoken of voluntary change of place.

Read more: TRAVEL | Definition of TRAVEL (Black's Law Dictionary)

These are the legal definitions for a driver and a traveler. As you can see driver is a corporate term it refers to a person who uses a vehicle by means of deriving compensation or income. It is very different from Travel.

So if you're not using your vehicle for commercial purposes then you are not a driver you are a traveler. Why do you need a Driver's License?

The mere fact of a person obtaining a DL signing that application they waive their constitutional rights because they have contracted themselves to the state in that purpose.

statutes and codes use language that has one legal definition and then another common everyday usage. The law applies to the legal definition but most people are unaware of that or that there is even a difference.

I'm looking for the case law but I saved it somewhere. It details that when it comes to legislation it must be readily understandable by the average layman. It can't be secret legal code that has one common understood definition and then a legal one that supercedes it. Any legislation that falls under this ruling is basically considered invalid as if it had never been a a law or statute int he first place.

I'm looking for this though and will add the edit when I find it.

Edit: The case is Connally vs general construction co

the primary ruling is that

1. A criminal statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ as to its application lacks the first essential of due process of law. P. 269 U. S. 391.

this is the void for vagueness concept, and it applies to much of the statutes and codes being enforced today. The only reason that people are subject to these gross infringements is because they unknowingly waived away their rights by signing adhesion contracts

Birth certificates

SS cards

DL license

Gun Permit

Bills

Basically anything where your name appears in all capital letters as a means to tie the natural person to the legal fiction which is a person a corporation bound to corporate statutes and not constitutional law.

 

[UPTOWN]

there is merit to this thread because what he is saying is true

however

what he's not telling you about is status ..... which is what gives you rights instead of privledges. if your black (like me) and didnt come here willingly from africa just forget about any of this ... you have no status LOL

 

[Amotekun]

there is merit to this thread because what he is saying is true

however

what he's not telling you about is status ..... which is what gives you rights instead of privledges. if your black (like me) and didnt come here willingly from africa just forget about any of this ... you have no status LOL

I mean yea but isn't that because we classify ourselves as a color instead of a nation of people? Black isn't a nation, it's a color which doesn't even describe us.

Which is why I was all for that Moor talk until I found out the part those dudes played in the conquest of Africa and the slave trade. Don't sit to well with me. I don't fly an american flag, and I don't fly a moorish flag for the same reason.

You are right though, we need status, and that only comes with declaring a nationality. Fortunately, we cannot be kept from declaring a nationality or changing it under UN law.

So this means several things which I am not prepared to discuss over an open forum.

 

[UPTOWN]

there is merit to this thread because what he is saying is true

however

what he's not telling you about is status ..... which is what gives you rights instead of privledges. if your black (like me) and didnt come here willingly from africa just forget about any of this ... you have no status LOL

I mean yea but isn't that because we classify ourselves as a color instead of a nation of people? Black isn't a nation, it's a color which doesn't even describe us.

not only that, but we have no land or flag, nor have we established a treaty with any other sovereign nation. not mention a bloodline (family names) to give us a historical record.

Which is why I was all for that Moor talk until I found out the part those dudes played in the conquest of Africa and the slave trade. Don't sit to well with me. I don't fly an american flag, and I don't fly a moorish flag for the same reason.

i see it the exact same way, however, in their defense its only right to tell the truth regardless. the moors were fighting amongst themselves in europe. one of the sides in that fight was losing and purposely taught europeans certain things just in spite of the other side. being that both sides were weakened, europeans were able to gain power in spain. the moors even helped the british pilgrims etc establish the US govt in spite of the europeans in spain and britian. hence john henson being the first u.s. president and then years later george washington being the first president of the US under the constitution .

You are right though, we need status, and that only comes with declaring a nationality. Fortunately, we cannot be kept from declaring a nationality or changing it under UN law.

So this means several things which I am not prepared to discuss over an open forum.

exactly right. maintain that knowledge enemigo you get more and more informed everytime i talk to you!!! we can easily become a sovereign nation right here in north america if we all just band together with these certain goals in mind we could take a whole state or two back within 10 - 20 years if we all used what we have to our advantage. its way easier than it sounds. theres only what 40 million of us over here. two states (well maybe three lol) and we would have enuff room for everyone that would actually be willing to come LOL

 

[Amotekun]

there is merit to this thread because what he is saying is true

however

what he's not telling you about is status ..... which is what gives you rights instead of privledges. if your black (like me) and didnt come here willingly from africa just forget about any of this ... you have no status LOL

I mean yea but isn't that because we classify ourselves as a color instead of a nation of people? Black isn't a nation, it's a color which doesn't even describe us.

not only that, but we have no land or flag, nor have we established a treaty with any other sovereign nation. not mention a bloodline (family names) to give us a historical record.

Which is why I was all for that Moor talk until I found out the part those dudes played in the conquest of Africa and the slave trade. Don't sit to well with me. I don't fly an american flag, and I don't fly a moorish flag for the same reason.

i see it the exact same way, however, in their defense its only right to tell the truth regardless. the moors were fighting amongst themselves in europe. one of the sides in that fight was losing and purposely taught europeans certain things just in spite of the other side. being that both sides were weakened, europeans were able to gain power in spain. the moors even helped the british pilgrims etc establish the US govt in spite of the europeans in spain and britian. hence john henson being the first u.s. president and then years later george washington being the first president of the US under the constitution .

You are right though, we need status, and that only comes with declaring a nationality. Fortunately, we cannot be kept from declaring a nationality or changing it under UN law.

So this means several things which I am not prepared to discuss over an open forum.

exactly right. maintain that knowledge enemigo you get more and more informed everytime i talk to you!!! we can easily become a sovereign nation right here in north america if we all just band together with these certain goals in mind we could take a whole state or two back within 10 - 20 years if we all used what we have to our advantage. its way easier than it sounds. theres only what 40 million of us over here. two states (well maybe three lol) and we would have enuff room for everyone that would actually be willing to come LOL

That info don't come easy connex. Fortunately there are some great master teachers out'chea Dr. Ben Jochannan, Booker T Coleman, Aswei, Phil Valentine, and John Henry Clarke.

We only need one state. However our problem is going to be the Black boule. The watch dogs of white supremacy/imperialism

They'll either try to co-opt and redirect the efforts or outright misinform and divide the people.

 

[fiat_money]

DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals...

Since automobiles aren't actually powered by horses, mules, or other animals; doesn't this mean that this definition does not cover drivers of automobiles?

 

[Amotekun]

DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals...

Since automobiles aren't actually powered by horses, mules, or other animals; doesn't this mean that this definition does not cover drivers of automobiles?

The means isn't the operative phrase or word, 'Employed' is.

Legal definition of employee: employee n. a person who is hired for a wage, salary, fee or payment to perform work for an employer. This is important to determine if one is acting as employee when injured (for worker's compensation) or when he/she causes damage to another, thereby making the employer liable for damages to the injured party.

 

[fiat_money]

DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals...

Since automobiles aren't actually powered by horses, mules, or other animals; doesn't this mean that this definition does not cover drivers of automobiles?

The means isn't the operative phrase or word, 'Employed' is.

Legal definition of employee: employee n. a person who is hired for a wage, salary, fee or payment to perform work for an employer. This is important to determine if one is acting as employee when injured (for worker's compensation) or when he/she causes damage to another, thereby making the employer liable for damages to the injured party.

The "with horses, mules, or other animals" part would exclude all drivers of automobiles, even if they are employed.

Using this definition: cab drivers, school bus drivers, mailmen, pizza boys, and others employed driving automobiles, would not qualify as "drivers".

The only actual "drivers" would be people like this:

Seems like an outdated definition.

 

[Amotekun]

May seem outdated but it is still what stands. The definition can be fixed to include motorized vehicles. However, we're still talking about the intent or spirit of the law.

The intent is to regulate the commercial use of vehicles by setting standards for the driver of such vehicles.

It doesn't pertain to joe blow who is traveling of their own accord for personal reasons.

Intent is just as important in judicial decisions as anything else.

 

[fiat_money]

May seem outdated but it is still what stands. The definition can be fixed to include motorized vehicles. However, we're still talking about the intent or spirit of the law.

The intent is to regulate the commercial use of vehicles by setting standards for the driver of such vehicles.

It doesn't pertain to joe blow who is traveling of their own accord for personal reasons.

Intent is just as important in judicial decisions as anything else.

If the law still stands, then no one using an automobile is a "driver".

Considering intent: As far as I know, the only reason to use a carriage, wagon, or coach back in the day was to transport multiple people or to transport goods. While an individual like Joe Blow could simply use a single horse to get somewhere.

So, back then, the usage of "vehicle" was likely intended to go "hand-in-hand" with commercial usage; because it involved the potential liability for passengers/goods. This differs from the modern usage of vehicles; since individuals now use them for transportation instead of horses.

Seems like an outdated definition.

 

[Amotekun]

People used coaches for personal travel as well as transporting. If Joe Blow is traveling with his family of 3 he's not going to fit them all on the back of a horse, not to mention if they have their personal items.

Vehicle usage for commercial purposes and personal non commercial purposes are covered.

If it's commerce then it falls under the regulation powers of the state.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

However, states, being the great hustlers that

they are understand the amount of money to be made by requiring people to have a license, tags, stickers is in the billions. so

Joe Blow in the 20th century is regarded as a person or a corporation. As a corporation, JOE BLOW requires licensing to operate

a vehicle because corporations fall under the commercial regulation powers of the state. JOE BLOW status is that of a

corporation not a natural person.

It's a beautiful hustle if one stands back and looks at it from afar. From the moment a Birth Certificate is issued and signed

the natural person Joe Blow is from then on regarded as the legal fiction JOE BLOW subject to all statutes and codes of the

UNITED STATES CORPORATION unlike Joe Blow, the natural person, who is only subject to the laws of the constitution and the state he is in.

It's a Catch-22.