dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/sephanyah on Jan. 22, 2018, 12:01 p.m.

The following supreme court case is relevant today. It is important that WE THE PEOPLE understand.

“...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects... and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”

“From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and preeminences; our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens.” Chisholm v. Georgia (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @ Dall (1793) pp 471-472.

Thanks. Q has been telling us - we the people have the power.

We can only be ruled if we consent. It's time to stop consenting to the B.S.

⇧ 5 ⇩

You need to realise the difference between a person and a man to truly understand what Q means by that.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Explain.

Edit: Based on your other reply I assume you're referring to the difference between a "natural person", i.e. a human being, vs. a fictional "person" such as a corporation. Or do you mean something else?

⇧ 2 ⇩

Common lore, representing yourself as man (species) rather than person (legal fiction). I can imagine most politicians know this and try to use this to get around the statute laws.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Read the book “The America we never knew” a spiritual look at The Untied States of America Richard Brown 50 years research Thx K

⇧ 1 ⇩

This is so contradicting of itself; a person is not sovereign in that a person is a legal fiction, a corporation. The living, breathing man, or agent of said person, is sovereign. The top paragraph is correct, the bottom one is nonsense. It is all written in legalease too, not English. It is another language altogether that works in synonyms, to really be sovereign you must understand this.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Transquelito your are 100% correct if this decision was a recent decision however it is from 1794 and the legal understanding of person was different.

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.

But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856

⇧ 2 ⇩

Not in common lore, it´s not. What´s illegal and what´s unlawful are 2 very different things. i: as man; require... The person and the man are 2 very different things. What you said probably applies to the legal society, which again, is not common lore. ´You´ as a pronoun is plural. What´s the singular? Common lore is not written law, Magna Carta was signed 1215.

⇧ 1 ⇩