The term “Sovereign Citizen” has worked its way into the vernacular of law enforcement (thank you FBI *sarcasm*) and of the general populace. In my quest to teach people to consider the words they use and to have a comprehension of language that is better overall, we shall define this term.
A sovereign exercises supreme governmental authority, a sovereign could be defined as a monarch, a king, a queen, a ruler, a head of state, or a national ruling council. A sovereign could also be a chief, exercising more limited power. The term sovereign, in Black’s Law 2nd edition, also refers to the Sovereign People. Sovereign people refers to a political body of citizens or an assembly of people acting as electors and exercising their authority and power through courts or by representatives. A state could only legitimately be referred to as a sovereign state when exercising semi-sovereignty in the interests of its creators and authority: The People, who enumerated the legal powers of said government…and may choose to rescind them. These people domicile on the land and soil within the geographical boundaries of the pertinent physical State, born there on the soil, or, naturalized for a year and a day.
Point of interest: A state cannot claim sovereignty on the land of the paramount state when the aforementioned lesser state is animated by foreign people acting as foreign Citizens or agents, (notably undeclared foreign agents) or when the lesser State is incorporated, bankrupt, and using private commercial paper as tender. A bankrupt entity, such as the U.S corporation, cannot claim sovereign authority. (Actually, under bankruptcy law, the debtors property and assets may be seized by the creditors.) No state can exercise any alleged authority if the aforementioned facts are true, as compared to the De Jure authority of a nation, and when concerning intercourse between nations.
What about the word citizen? A citizen is one capable of entering civil service, a citizen is, by birth or naturalization, a member of a free city or jural society, in general, possessing rights (such as civil rights) or privileges which can be exercised under their state’s constitution or government. A man or woman may be an inhabitant of a state without being a citizen, and vice versa. Citizen, in Black’s Law 2nd, may be synonymous with a resident. Resident: From early 15c. as “stay in a place in discharge of some duty, where one’s occupation is properly carried on” originally ecclesiastical, and may be read as related to commercial activity when referring to U.S. Citizen residents. See Civitas in Latin, originally in the context of a city-dweller, who may have held civil responsibilities and duties, see also “citisein,” an inhabitant of a city or town.
So does it really make sense that a citizen, having rights or privileges under something, can be blended with a sovereign, while having duties to their state by birth or naturalization, yet being a sovereign ruling authority with inherent immunities and powers that go with such a status? I do not want civil rights, or human rights that can be bickered about and changed by politicians and bureaucrats, I want my unalienable rights inherent in mankind, thank you. The term Sovereign Citizen, or “SC,” is a synonym for “domestic terrorist” in the eyes of such agencies as the FBI. (Although, purportedly so are parents who speak out against transgender surgery for children and drag-queen story hour.) So, in my view, one may claim to be a sovereign (ignoring legitimacy of said claim for sake of argument) or, you can act as a citizen, the Citizen of a specific State entity.
Note: The word “citizen” may mean a freeman or such inhabitant of a country, but can mean a member of a state or a nation who was born or naturalized in/on that state or nation, hence why the term must be defined for comprehension. In Article 1 of the Maine 1820 Constitution, “citizens” uncapitalized is used at times to refer to the entire populace in general, for example.
Where did the SC or Sovereignty even come from? Long story short, recognition of sovereignty was bestowed upon European Nobles by the ex officio sovereign Pope, the sovereign pontiff, supreme patriarch of Rome (allegedly). The Vatican entity, the Holy See, or the Pope, holds the power of the crowns. Without recognition by this alleged authority, the Royal families cannot claim their version of sovereignty in the eyes of members of the other family bloodlines, see Robert the Bruce, who was excommunicated by Pope clement V, but was declared “king of commons” by the people, but was seen as an outlaw by recognized sovereigns like Edward I. Without recognition from Rome, you lacked standing in international business as a head of state.
“Dude, get to the point!” I’m getting there, believe me this is a cliff-notes version. The story goes like this: A sovereign may bestow sovereignty upon others, presumably a limited form of sovereignty. This is what occurred with William the conqueror and his knights, William, a Norman, was also known as “William the Bastard” due to being an illegitimate child of Robert I, after his conquest of England in the 11th century. Perhaps it was the stigma around his origin and this title that irked him so, and this may have helped motivate him to reward his knights as a way to stick it to the other Nobles, but I do not know. Regardless, one of the Knightly Houses that served William were the Belchers. About seven-hundred years later, some of the Belcher family were living in Colonial America. If I recall correctly, it was Jonathan Belcher, once a governor of Massachusetts and of New Hampshire, who acted as a head of state for America, negotiating in international business as a sovereign. (Without France, Spain, and Russia, the USA would probably not exist, by the way.) The Belchers bestowed upon the Continental army and all men and women born on American soil the gift of sovereignty, in likeness to the gift from William to his forefather. And you can bet the Aristocrats and blue-bloods did not like this very much.
So that is the story, an extremely condensed version. But why am I not a fan of the sovereignty argument? A few points.
1: There is but one Universal Sovereign, and it is not a man in a priest of Dagon hat, it is The Almighty Living and Eternal to Eternal God on the sapphire throne.
2: The Living God bestowed stewardship and dominion upon his imagers, the race of mankind, over the air, water, and earth, and the inhabitants thereof.
3: The sovereignty from the Pope is just that, a decree by a mortal, created being, for mortal rulers and princes of men.
4: Y’shua Hamashiach has raised mankind up to be seated alongside him in the Third Heaven (in spirit) as Priests and Children of The Father. He made us free from sin and death, not a Pope, or a Belcher.
“A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none, a Christian man is the most dutiful servant to all, and subject to everyone.” -Martin Luther.
“[Jesus said] whoever wants to be first must take last place and be the servant of everyone else.” Mark 9:35.
“Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles [Nations] lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Matthew 20:25-28.
-Without Prejudice, T. Jas. J, AKA: The Mad Mainer.