In any case, if you fail to object to the government’s view of your citizenship
status, then the federal government will PRESUME that you agree with their view and
that you are subject to the acts-statutes of the federal government. That means you
have waived your rights, and now possess only privileges as granted by the federal
government. Therefore, the most practical method for a man to retain his rights as a individual sovereign is to reject the title of “citizen” and to state explicitly that one is NOT a “citizen of the United States” or a “citizen of a State”; and that one does NOT consent to federal jurisdiction and waives all benefits and privileges resulting from being a “citizen of the United States” or a “citizen of a State”.....
And, for goodness sake, do NOT ever claim to be a “sovereign citizen” – an obvious contradiction in terms, since one cannot possibly be a “citizen” and still retain one’s sovereignty...
The fact is that the United States of America was NEVER intended to be a democracy. Rather, it was intended to be a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, with the central (federal) government having very few and limited powers and extremely limited jurisdiction; and the States having all other powers not delegated to the central government in the Constitution. Even Alexander Hamilton, arguing in the Federalist Papers that a “Bill of Rights” was NOT needed, wrote that the Federal Government could NEVER exercise any power or authority that was not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.
Republic: A government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by thewhole body of free citizens directly, or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 388
Of course, the federal government has greatly expanded its powers, at the expense of the States and the People. But the most fundamental principle of any written constitution is that government CANNOT do whatever it chooses! The U.S. never was intended to be, never was and is still NOT a democracy.
“The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what are the liberties of the people, must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves–the government, or the people; because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. If the authority be vested in the government, the government is absolute, and the people have no liberties except such as the government sees fit to indulge them with.” Lysander Spooner
“The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are FEW and DEFINED [explicitly stated within the Constitution]. Those which remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The powers reserved to the States will extend to all the objects which concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people.” James Madison “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” Alexander Hamilton “Do not separate text [of the Constitution] from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” James Madison
Ninth Amendment (Bill of Rights)– “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.” (re: RIGHTS)
Tenth Amendment – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.” (re: POWERS; and NOT RIGHTS)
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy. One’s right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly may NOT be submitted to vote; they depend on no elections.” Robert H. Jackson, Justice, U.S. Supreme Court
“The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” (John Marshall, Chief Justice of U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison)
“The several states composing the United States of America are NOT united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for the special purposes [and] delegated to that government certain definite (defined) powers and whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. To this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming, as to itself, the other party. The government created by this compact was NOT made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers.” Thomas Jefferson: Delegated, Defined and Limited Powers by U.S. Constitution (in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798)
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps… and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots.” — Thomas Jefferson – Ultimate Arbiters of All Constitutional Questions: NOT Judges
[in opposition to Marbury v Madison decision by Supreme Court]
“On every question of construction [interpretation] [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” Thomas Jefferson
“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an AMENDMENT in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be NO change by usurpation [“power grabs”]; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
*********(((What is Sovereignty)))*********
In old England the land was owned by the king (the sovereign), who would grant permission to select people to use this land in exchange for political, financial and military support. In modern legal terms we would say that the king possessed “allodial title” to all land and the nobles possessed “equity title” – the nobles could use the land, but all land was ultimately owned by the king. (In America prior to 1993 the people, as individual sovereigns, possessed “allodial title” to land they owned. Since 1993 Americans – with the exception of some parts of Texas – possess their land under “equity title” only, as their land was seized by the United States municipal corporation ) Under English law ALL land must be owned by a someone (a man or corporation); there is no such thing as un-owned land, (English law can be contrasted with some other cultures where there is no concept of private, personal land ownership, e.g., American Indians throughout the Americas, various cultures of the South Pacific prior to colonization by Europeans.) In turn these nobles (along with a very few freemen landowners or “freeholders”) rented this land to tenant farmers. If a non-landowner wished to cultivate land, he was forced to rent this land by:
1.) swearing an oath of allegiance to his landlord;
2.) agreeing to turn over rental payments to his landlord; and
3.) agreeing to the rules as set forth by his landlord.
The concept of swearing an oath is extremely important in English and American law. In old England, “swearing an oath” or “pledging” was considered a contract, provided “consideration” was exchanged between the parties to the oath – such as allegiance and rent to one’s landlord in exchange the use of land and protection. Breaking that oath or contract was considered a “dishonoring” of the offended party and created a “cause of action” for the offended under commercial law, who then had the right to seek remedy in court. (One should be cognizant of the fact that all contract-commercial law is based on the system of “honor” and “dishonor”. In American courts today a man who swears an oath under penalty of perjury has created a contract between himself and the court – he has pledged to tell the truth in exchange for the legal protection of the court.) Prior to swearing allegiance, the English freeman possessed all the rights and protections of Natural Law (often called Fundamental Law) and Common Law; he was NOT subject to the rules (“private law”) of the landlord. However, having sworn an oath to the landlord, the man became a tenant and “subject” of his landlord or “lord”. In short, by contract (i.e., what we now call “commercial law”) a freeman would surrender some of his Common Law rights in exchange for the privilege of farming the lord’s land[i], thereby making himself a “subject” of the lord – that is, the tenant was waiving the exercise of his Natural rights and placing himself under the jurisdiction of the rules or “private law” of his landlord. Similarly, “sovereignty in government” is most properly interpreted as the individual man being subject to the private rules of conduct (“private contract law”) set forth by the lord or a government, but ONLY because he knowingly and freely consented to be governed by these rules, i.e., “consent of the governed”.
The English Common Law was based on custom and precedent rather than by written code or statutes. Equity Law, initially involving royal edicts, had evolved from the royal power to order or prohibit specific acts (Chancery Law) into the power to legislate “private law”: acts, codes and statutes for those who voluntarily engage via contracts in commerce. This last point must be emphasized: since all valid contracts are voluntary and require informed consent of all parties, then the contractual “private law” created by legislated statutes, acts, codes, regulations, etc. requires the voluntary consent of all parties – “consent of the governed”. Just as a man was subject to a landlord only after he voluntarily consented to contract (“private law”) as a tenant, under the “consent of the governed” principle, so too is voluntary consent required from a man in order for him to be subject to (under the “jurisdiction” of ) legislated statutes, acts, codes and regulations. Therefore, it is vital to understand that “consent of the governed” originally meant the informed and voluntary consent of EACH individual man to a contract (such as a constitution, statute, act, code, ordinance, by-law, etc.) for and by a government. In addition, it is essential to understand that “consent of the governed” also meant the consent of EACH individual man to any changes in that contract for government and/or to the rules of that government, such as acts-statutes, codes, regulations and ordinances. Finally, since each man is an individual sovereign, that man may Every man in colonial America, Britain and the early United States of America understood this concept. Sadly, in today’s America most people have accepted the distorted concept of a collective “consent of the governed” – that through elections a majority (or even a plurality) of the people somehow have granted consent for ALL of the people. We see clearly that “consent of the governed” meant individual man’s consent; and NOT some ethereal type of collective consent.
Following the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution the people were and forever remain “individual sovereigns”. The concept of individual sovereignty stands on its own as a respected and valid concept, at least to those sufficiently educated and informed to understand it. As a king is a sovereign, so each man is an individual sovereign – and just as a sovereign king may consent to restrictions on his rights, so may each man so consent. But the king and the individual retain their sovereignty, which is not forfeited by any contracts or agreements. Therefore, a sovereign (either a King or an individual man) can withdraw his consent at any time for any reason.
“…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereignty.”sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the Chisholm v. Georgia (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472
“The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to those restrictions which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the U.S.”
Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York)
“D.” = Decennial Digest
Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89
10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228;
37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1`67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.
NOTE: Am.Dec.=American Decision, Wend. = Wendell (N.Y.)
“There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States …. In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld.” — Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421
“The very meaning of ‘sovereignty’ is that the decree of the sovereign makes law.” American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.
“‘Sovereignty’ means that the decree of sovereign makes law, and foreign courts cannot condemn influences persuading sovereign to make the decree.” Moscow Fire Ins. Co. of Moscow, Russia v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 294 N.Y.S. 648, 662, 161 Misc. 903.
The concept of individual sovereignty  stands on its own as a respected and valid concept – at least to those sufficiently educated and informed to understand it. As a king is a sovereign, so each man is an individual sovereign – and just as a sovereign king may consent to restrictions on his rights, so may each man so consent. But the king and the individual retain their sovereignty, which is not forfeited by any contracts or agreements.
 SOVEREIGNTY (Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition) “The power to do everything in a state without accountability,–to make laws, to execute and to apply them, to impose and collect taxes and levy contributions, to make war or peace, to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like.” Story, Const. Sec 207
“Sovereignty in government is that public authority which directs or orders what is to be done by each member associated in relation to the end of the association. It is the supreme power by which any citizen is governed and is the person or body of persons in the state to whom there is politically no superior. The necessary existence of the state and that right and power which necessarily follow is “sovereignty.””
Today “sovereignty in government” in its most expansive sense is meant as“supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern. The word which by itself comes nearest to being the definition of “sovereignty” is will or volition as applied to political affairs.”City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 52 Ariz. 1, 78 P.2d 982, 986.
RESERVATION OF SOVEREIGNTY: “ (b) Even if the Tribe’s power to tax were derived solely from its power to exclude non-Indians from the reservation, the Tribe has the authority to impose the severance tax. Non-Indians who lawfully enter tribal lands remain subject to a tribe’s power to exclude them, which power includes the lesser power to tax or place other conditions on the non-Indian’s conduct or continued presence on the reservation. The Tribe’s role as commercial partner with petitioners should not be confused with its role as sovereign. It is one thing to find that the Tribe has agreed to sell the right to use the land and take valuable minerals from it, and quite another to find that the Tribe has abandoned its sovereign powers simply because it has not expressly reserved them through a contract. To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head. MERRION ET AL., DBA MERRION & BAYLESS, ET AL. v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE ET AL. 1982.SCT.394 , 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 U.S.L.W. 4169 pp. 144-148.