Pants-of-dog wrote:Then you do not believe in the right to land that is advocated in the charter.
I find a lot of right wing libertarians think freedom and land is paramount, unless it is for women, Indigenous people, and non-whites.
You are contradicting yourself here.
Either they sold the land legally, or there is no way to determine what happened. You cannot simultaneously argue both unless you abandon logic.
I guess it was destiny that you pay income taxes and lose your rights to government then. Too bad for you.
Prove it. Where do you live? How was that land legally purchased or otherwise taken into US possession?
That depends. Why does this matter?
Sure, and since we are talking about groups like the Haudenosaunee (you would cal them Mohawks), the Lakota (aka the Sioux), and the Dene (i.e. Apache) who are still alive and still making land claims, we can say that we are not discussing the past but instead what is happening right now.
What part of the Constitution says we should keep depriving these people of their land rights?
I'm going to start ignoring these multi quote posts and pass them by just like the foreign guy that proclaims his love of communism. Pay attention:
If you have problems understanding the English language, you would be well advised to remain silent rather than to lie, misrepresent, and read into my replies statements I did not make. That's part ONE.
Now, continuing on, I have stated how the colonists came by the land. It was either purchased, fought for (because the land was not colonized and no real owner could be determined) and / or acquired because it was uninhabited.
IF anyone had a claim to the land, they should have tried to litigate the matter when the matter was in dispute.
IF such claims were made and the courts arrived at the wrong decision, you can always appeal. If not, too bad. You lose. That is why free people institute government.
What your problem is, you want to fit me into categories when
you've been told, repeatedly, I'm not in those categories. Consequently, nothing I've posted on this board is inconsistent with The Charter, the law, or a Right to own private property. You are projecting out of fear and I'm getting bored out of having the same discussion. You ask questions, hoping for a "gotcha" answer; you are then outmaneuvered, and you get pissed off and make false allegations. I question your sanity. Damn you're stupid! Pay attention. When the colonists got ownership of the land, it was never ONE thing that happened. SOME OF THE LAND WAS NOT OCCUPIED; SOME OF THE LAND WAS NOT COLONIZED; SOME OF THE LAND WAS PURCHASED; SOME OF THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY RIGHT OF CONQUEST.
I want you to get the matter out of your eyes, put up that whiskey bottle and use your brain for five minutes. I live in the United States of America under the pretext that we have a constitutional form of government. In that document, the Constitution of the United States, are guaranteed Rights. The first of those Rights is that the federal government will guarantee to "
every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." What that means, in plain English, is that the government will acknowledge and hold the Bill of Rights
inviolate. The majority of voters cannot over-rule the
unalienable Rights of the individual. That is what it means.
In practice, the government illegally and dishonestly passed the Fourteenth Amendment on the pretext that it gave blacks citizenship. In fact, every time an individual Right came under the gun, the SCOTUS attacked the Right and reduced it into a mere privilege. Sir, you can make your silly ass arguments all day long, but I live under a social contract with the entity that calls itself the United States government. That contract doesn't have shit to do with what happened under the rule of King George. So, whatever beef you have with me, my family, or my ancestors ends with the Declaration of Independence and 1776. Then, we did not have a functioning government until 1789. Most of the wars between Indians and settlers / colonists / subject of the Crown happened before we had a United States. At one point, the Indians joined the British to fight the colonists for control of the land. When they did that, they inadvertently acknowledged that they lost the war to the British - because if they had won, the British would be in control of the Indians. You can't blame me or my ancestors for that. Do you understand that?
The logic used by the colonists in coming here (i.e. to establish a New Jerusalem) may not be popular with you; however, America uses the same, identical justification to put the Palestinians out on their ass in the middle East on the erroneous presupposition that the old Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem are one and the same. Dude, I didn't write the freaking rules. My forefathers founded a nation, conceived in Liberty, and from that point, forward, we lived under the presupposition that man has
unalienable Rights. I'm not going to waste day after day after day after day after day arguing it with you. The acknowledgement that man has
unalienable Rights cannot be enforced from time immemorial throughout every country on the globe. When the Constitution was ratified, the guarantees were made to the Posterity of the framers of the Constitution.
The United States has no jurisdiction to force their views on other countries. But, we do go and fight for the Right of other people to be free and have the same Rights that we claim for our own. Insofar as the Right to property: Despite what the founders and framers intended, the
powers that be never treated property as an
unalienable Right, but rather as an
inalienable right. Then again, when the courts started making distinctions between
unalienable Rights and
inalienable rights, they may have been looking for a balance. I cannot say. The purpose of The Charter is to force the government to make good on the guarantees per Article IV Section 4 and the Bill of Rights. If they don't, the people reserve the Right to alter or abolish that government and, as free people, we are not required to submit to a yoke of tyranny. The government has the
POWER to enforce unconstitutional laws, but it does NOT have the
AUTHORITY.
Dude, if you don't want to sign The Charter, don't. You cannot convince me not to sign or support it. Either way, we get a definitive answer. It's ridiculous to live under a form of government that is a daily lie; one wherein you have no Rights, just a piece of paper making promises that the political propaganda prostitutes in Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption wipe their ass on before they flush the commode each day. The Charter is the standard procedure (at least in Anglo Saxon law) that establishes the bounds of government so that a free people can agree to be serfs OR take the discussion to a different level. I have a Right, according to the SCOTUS, to disobey unconstitutional laws. So, we give them a chance to uphold the law and if the government wants to be in breach of the contract, we cross that bridge when we get there.
Another of your multi quotes and we're done.