sovereignty

What is sovereignty?  What does it imply?  Why does it matter?

This issue paper answers those questions.  It will, in order, address the following:

  • The standard dictionary definition
  • Historical Philosophy
  • The Declaration of Independence (segue to Creator’s design)
  • Our Creator’s design
  • Catwoman’s counsellor’s sage wisdom (Huh?  Oh Yeah!)
  • Unleashing The Secret Garden

Standard Dictionary Definition

Merriam-Webster defines sovereignty as a supreme power especially over a body politic, freedom from external control (autonomy), controlling influence, and one that is sovereign – especially an autonomous state.  These definitions emphasize the implementation of sovereignty at the group, or community, level. 

Implementation at the individual level is an afterthought.  Most Merriam-Webster examples of the use of sovereignty are in the context of community.  It would likely be accurate to state that most people would have the same mindset.  Sovereignty exists only at the community level.  Few would think of applying it to individuals.  In particular, having the thought that each individual has freedom from external control (autonomy) when it comes to making their own personal choices, those that don't affect anyone else or those between consenting parties.

Historical Philosophy

In an entry to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Sovereignty,” author Daniel Philpott covers the philosophy  of sovereignty extensively including the topics of A Definition of Sovereignty; The Rise of the Sovereign State:  Theory and Practice; and the Circumscription of the Sovereign State:  Theory and Practice.

Sovereignty, though its meanings have varied across history, also has a core meaning, supreme authority within a territory. It is a modern notion of political authority. Historical variants can be understood along three dimensions — the holder of sovereignty, the absoluteness of sovereignty, and the internal and external dimensions of sovereignty. The state is the political institution in which sovereignty is embodied. An assemblage of states forms a sovereign states system.

The history of sovereignty can be understood through two broad movements, manifested in both practical institutions and political thought. The first is the development of a system of sovereign states, culminating at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Contemporaneously, sovereignty became prominent in political thought through the writings of Machiavelli, Luther, Bodin, and Hobbes. The second movement is the circumscription of the sovereign state, which began in practice after World War II and has since continued through European integration and the growth and strengthening of laws and practices to protect human rights.

Mr. Philpott’s entry is very detailed, informative and interesting.  However, The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica composed a more concise statement of the historical philosophy of sovereignty.  It comports with key items mentioned by Mr. Philpott but omits other interesting actors along the way.

In 16th-century France Jean Bodin (1530–96) used the new concept of sovereignty to bolster the power of the French king over the rebellious feudal lords, facilitating the transition from feudalism to nationalism. The thinker who did the most to provide the term with its modern meaning was the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), who argued that in every true state some person or body of persons must have the ultimate and absolute authority to declare the law; to divide this authority, he held, was essentially to destroy the unity of the state. The theories of the English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) at the end of the 17th century and the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78) in the 18th century—that the state is based upon a formal or informal compact of its citizens, a social contract through which they entrust such powers to a government as may be necessary for common protection—led to the development of the doctrine of popular sovereignty that found expression in the American Declaration of Independence in 1776. Another twist was given to this concept by the statement in the French constitution of 1791 that “Sovereignty is one, indivisible, unalienable and imprescriptible; it belongs to the Nation; no group can attribute sovereignty to itself nor can an individual arrogate it to himself.” Thus, the idea of popular sovereignty exercised primarily by the people became combined with the idea of national sovereignty exercised not by an unorganized people in the state of nature, but by a nation embodied in an organized state. In the 19th century the English jurist John Austin (1790–1859) developed the concept further by investigating who exercises sovereignty in the name of the people or of the state; he concluded that sovereignty is vested in a nation’s parliament. A parliament, he argued, is a supreme organ that enacts laws binding upon everybody else but that is not itself bound by the laws and could change these laws at will. This description, however, fitted only a particular system of government, such as the one that prevailed in Great Britain during the 19th century.

Significant points is this brief survey of history are:

  • Sovereignty was a new concept to bolster the power of the French king over rebellious feudal lords.  That’s still true.  The Federal government now claims full sovereignty over the individual sovereign States even though the States (Colonies) granted the Federal government limited powers when the U.S. was created.
  • In the 17th and 18th centuries a notion was introduced that the sovereignty of a higher power is based upon a social contract, formal or informal, through which powers necessary for common protection are entrusted to the higher power.  You’ve probably heard about the existence of a social contract before.  That’s the excuse used to pressure us to submit to whatever decrees the higher powers issue.  But, did you sign a contract?  I know I didn’t?  Why should we be bound to some fictitious contact we’ve never seen or, more significantly, never signed?
  • The French constitution of 1791 states that an individual cannot arrogate sovereignty to himself.
  • Sovereignty is vested in a nation’s legislative body “that enacts laws binding upon everybody else but that is not itself bound by the laws.” 

Now we know why Congress has no pangs of conscience when it enacts laws we must obey but exempts itself.

Austin’s notion of legislative sovereignty did not entirely fit the American situation. The Constitution of the United States, the fundamental law of the federal union, did not endow the national legislature with supreme power but imposed important restrictions upon it. A further complication was added when the Supreme Court of the United States asserted successfully in Marbury v. Madison (1803) its right to declare laws unconstitutional through a procedure called judicial review. Although this development did not lead to judicial sovereignty, it seemed to vest the sovereign power in the fundamental document itself, the Constitution. This system of constitutional sovereignty was made more complex by the fact that the authority to propose changes in the Constitution and to approve them was vested not only in Congress but also in states and in special conventions called for that purpose. Thus, it could be argued that sovereignty continued to reside in the states or in the people, who retained all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution or expressly prohibited by it under the terms of the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment. Consequently, the claims by advocates of states’ rights that states continued to be sovereign were bolstered by the difficulty of finding a sole repository of sovereignty in a complex federal structure; and the concept of dual sovereignty of both the union and the component units found a theoretical basis. Even if the competing theory of popular sovereignty—the theory that vested sovereignty in the people of the United States—was accepted, it still might be argued that this sovereignty need not be exercised on behalf of the people solely by the national government but could be divided on a functional basis between the federal and state authorities.

The above may be accurate in theory.  But, in reality, it’s mostly a pipe dream.  As pointed out in the Freedom issue paper, the Federal government has eviscerated the Constitution.  It not only ignores the Constitution, Supreme Court rulings have nullified the Amendments added for our protection from the government.  So much for the social contract.  But then, why should we have any expectation that the Federal government would honor any contract given its long, well documented history of violating the Constitution, International Laws it agreed to and treaties it has established.

The Declaration of Independence

In “Why Does Sovereignty Matter to America,” Steven Groves asserted that “The Declaration of Independence tells us why sovereignty mattered to American’s Founders.”

When America declared its independence in 1776, the Declaration described Americans as “one people” who had the right “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”

With these words, the United States declared its sovereignty. It became a separate nation, entitled to all the rights of existing nations. It therefore claimed the “full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”

But the existing nations of the world were mostly monarchies. The Founding Fathers had a different vision for America. The United States is legitimately sovereign not because of a monarch’s decree, but because, in America, the people rule.

The purpose of government is to secure the people’s rights. Legitimately sovereign governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Thus, American sovereignty is justified by the inherent, God-given right of self-government.

 

Grove's shows that the Declaration of Independence is based upon a community level concept of sovereignty, "one people."  Groves' own view of sovereignty is tainted by the statement that "in America, the people rule."

While the Declaration of Independence has many valid assertions, the assertion that “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” is not one of them.  As cited on the About page, I disagree with this assertion because it’s not self-consistent.  A government cannot secure a person’s rights when it is, of necessity, a higher power.  As a higher power it can always rule against an individual with regard to personal choices thereby abridging that person’s right to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitles them.

This notion that America’s existence is justified because its powers are derived from the consent of the governed is a lie from the pit of Hell.  America has never had the consent of the governed.  That’s obvious today when citizens can’t tolerate each other’s political views and as a consequence civil war is about to break out.  But, it also wasn’t true in 1789 when America began.  At that time 49% of the colonists didn’t want another layer of government.  But because 51% did want it, the other 49% were forced to submit against their wills.  The unvarnished truth is that America’s government is not, has never been and will never be legitimate.  It has always derived its legitimacy at gunpoint.

The Declaration cataloged the ways in which King George III had infringed upon American liberties and denied the right of Americans to consent to the laws by which they were governed. Through his “repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny,” the King had treated the American colonists as mere subjects to be ruled.

Groves lists the “repeated Injuries and Usurpations” of interest to him.  Those interest to me are:

  • He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
  • He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
  • He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
  • For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
  • For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
  • For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
  • For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
  • He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
  • He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

You can see from the points of interest to me that the Federal government is guilty of the same transgressions with respect to us that the King of Great Britain was with respect to the Colonists.  If as the Declaration of Independence states “all men are created equal” and possess the “separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,” then why can’t we as individual use the same justification as did the colonists to declare our independence from the Federal government?  In fact, we do possess that entitlement.  It’s way past time to declare our independence and demand that our Creator endowed birthright of freedom be restored.

Our Creator’s design

On the About page I mention that Judge Napolitano is a person who I listened to when he speaks.  He’s written about the Creator’s design in “Individuals are sovereign – not the government” reprinted below.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. And yet, the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a break on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.

As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free, just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government, and as our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior – like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy – immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.

The essence of humanity is freedom. Government – whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force – is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up. From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John’s forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.

The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution. Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty – the personal dominion over self – by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government. This constitutes liberty permitting power.

But we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether or not to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.

To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.

There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century – from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad – have disarmed their people, and only because some of those people resisted the disarming were they eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.

The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties; they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.

Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?

I can answer the Judge’s question.  I did not empower the government to impair the freedom of all of us for any reason.  I’m in agreement with the Judge that:

As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free, just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government, and as our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us.

Thus, I come at the issue of sovereignty from a theological viewpoint consulting what the Creator has told us that is his unchanging design versus what men have schemed up in their minds over the centuries which is subject to change as aforementioned.

If you’re inclined to learn more about the Creator’s design which includes endowment of our birthright of sovereignty, Team Law has an article Sovereignty 101 that explains the three key elements of sovereignty; dominion, agency and possession.

People around the world recognize the United States of America as a sovereign nation; however, it is far more rare for them to realize the principle of law that provides sovereignty to our nation comes from the fact that the country is “a nation of sovereign people”; and, today, so little is taught about sovereignty in the schools that the people rarely seem to understand the natural effect of their actual individual sovereignty either as a matter of their inherent rights or as an element of political power.

Though the people may identify themselves as “Sovereign”, they rarely comprehend the effect their sovereign nature has on their actual standing either personally or in the community of people that surround them; accordingly, they rarely properly comprehend the terms: “sovereign nation” or “sovereign state”.

Thus, to understand sovereignty we must go to back to man’s creation and notice, from the first instance of man’s existence on this planet, the Creator granted man the three key elements that define sovereignty: “Dominion, Agency and Possession”.  Thus, to understand sovereignty, we must first understand those three key elements of sovereignty.

The bottom line is that each of us is a sovereign individual.  It's our birthright granted to us by our Creator who created us in his very image.  To accept anything less could be construed as a lack of faith in our Creator.  And He has said, "Without faith it is impossible to please Him."  Not only will He not do miracles for people who do not believe He can do them, He cannot do them because He will not violate the sovereignty He's endowed to us.  But, with faith nothing is impossible, including restoring our sovereignty which has been totally usurped by our criminal government that uses it to further enslave and pillage us.

Catwoman’s counsellor’s sage wisdom

Given Hollywood’s reputation for its propensity to embrace all things morally degenerate, it’s amazing when something emerges out of the slime that is a profound truth.  But, believe it or not a profound truth was spoken in the film Catwoman.  It makes one wonder if the script writer even had a clue that a select few of the thousands of words in the script expressed a profound truth and purposely inserted them or just thought they were cute.

The fact that the movie was a financial bust and panned by the critics doesn’t negate the profound truth packaged in a few words repeated twice in the movie.

A synopsis of the plot is that a young woman, Patience, dies but is brought back to life by a cat named Midnight that has special powers that are given only to a few deserving women after they die.  Patience located the cat’s owner, Ophelia, who I refer to as her counselor.  Ophelia explains to Patience that she died but had been brought back to life with new catlike powers.

Patience, not surprisingly, was skeptical about what she was being told by her counselor.  She was reluctant to accept such an unbelievable claim that she is now both Patience and Catwoman in one body.  Finally her counselor (at about 42 minutes into the movie) uttered words of profound truth that finally convinced a skeptical Patience.

Upon hearing the words my spirit was immediately quickened.  But, in thinking about them too much time went by to go back and replay them in order to put them on paper exactly as stated.  I decided to wait until the movie was finished before going back.  But, at 1 hour and 22 mintues into the movie, when Patience was in jail as an innocent falsely charged, the counselor’s sage wisdom came back to her.  I immediately stopped the movie put down all the words down on paper.  What Ophelia told Patience that finally convinced her to accept her new self was:  “By accepting who you are, all of who you are, you can be free.  And freedom is POWER.

Did that bit of sage wisdom quicken your spirit as it did mine?  Or were the words just another typical set of words and your reaction was nothing here, let’s move on?  If the words don’t move you all, then let me “splain” them.

By accepting who you are.”  Who are you?  Do you know?  Well, you are a person created in the very image of your Creator.  The Creator is a spirit.  Therefore, you are a spirit.  There’s nothing more real than spirit.  Your body is not you.  Your body is merely a container for your spirit.  Spirits must occupy a body (it could even be a pig’s body) in order to function on earth.  As long as your body works you can function on earth.  When it becomes nonfunctional you don’t die, your spirit just departs for the appropriate waiting place until the day when all human beings will appear before the Creator to give an account of their life on earth.  That’s why I don’t care to say someone died.  I prefer to say they passed on.

Not only are you a spirit like the Creator, you were created with a higher rank than angels.  You rank just below your Creator.  You’ve been endowed with many of the attributes of your Creator, including the ability to create whatever you desire.  That’s consistent with one of the Bob Proctor quotes on the About page, “Thoughts become things.  If you see it in your mind, you will hold it in your hand.”  The Creator has endowed you with all the power you need to achieve whatever your desire plus, if necessary, he will provide what you may think you lack upon request.  You don’t have to be trapped under the circumstances.  You aren’t some insignificant blob of physical matter.  You matter.

All of who you are.”  Do you know all of who you are?  Can you guess?  Well, not only are you a spirit just like your Creator, you have been endowed by your Creator with supreme authority over yourself and your property.  You are a sovereign individual.  The “all of who you are” is that not only are you a spirit but you've also been endowed with sovereignty to exercise all the creative abilities and powers you been given to take dominion over the earth, as our Creator commanded, and prosper for the benefit of not only yourself but your fellow man.

Because we have sovereignty over ourselves and our property, we have the freedom to create whatever we desire.  Because we are free, we have the power to make it happen.  We have the power of control, not some other person.

Our invisible, unaccountable Deep State/Shadow Government enslaving and pillaging overlords understand freedom is power as Patience’s counselor declared.  They want us powerless.  That’s why over the years they’ve steadily continued to diminish our freedom and, as I explain on the Home page, as of 5 June 2017 they've now usurped all of our freedom with not even a crumb left for us.  They've rendered us powerless in violation of our Creator's plan.

Once you understand "who you are, all of who you are," and accept "who you are, all of who you are," "you can be free" by taking action in accordance with "who you are, all of who you are."  Once you understand "who you are, all of who you are" you will never ever be satisfied will anything less than having the total sovereignty (100% freedom) endowed to you as a birthright by your Creator and the power inherent in it that belongs to you, not some man or group of men with the biggest guns.  

Do you see now why the counselor’s sage wisdom is a most profound truth?  If you can grasp it’s profoundness you will never be satisfied with possessing anything less than 100% of the sovereignty your Creator endowed to you as your birthright.  If you want it back, then you must send me back to Washington, DC as your U.S Senator.  I’m the only candidate who has the passion for freedom, or even recognizes that our freedom has been totally usurped by over overlords, to vigorously and steadfastly wrest our birthright back from our overlords.

Unleashing The Secret Garden

Under Construction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Privacy Terms Print Page
Paid for by Lee Olson for Senate 2018 FEC: C00667212
Campaign Websites by Online Candidate