World Citizenship

[shikamaru]

A fair point shikamaru.

I was very clear that the passport was for "international travel" only. My understanding, flawed as it may be, is that U.S. passports are for crossing international borders. That is all I want it for. They seem to want to give it more "utility" - at least for them.

Technically, when you cross one US state into another, you are traveling internationally .

We could say one is also traveling intranationally as well given the States have individual (the several States) as well as an aggregate capacity known was the United States of America.

A symbol of the aggregate capacity of the States is the U.S. Constitution .... a compact (treaty) ... and a charter establishing an international public corporation styled government of the United States.

A federal government (as opposed to a national government).

Probably the closest thing to a "passport" within the territorial United States would be a driver's license.

[David Merrill]

That sounds reasonable.

[allodial]

Probably the closest thing to a "passport" within the territorial United States would be a driver's license.

Or "state ID".

[shikamaru]

There are competing theories about the Constitution being a compact or not.

It is the opinion of courts that the Constitution is not a compact, but the majority of the authors of the Federalist Papers refer to the Constitution as a compact.

A compact refers more to the founding document of a confederation such as the Articles of Confederation.

According to Wikipedia, the States were the creators of the Articles of Confederation.
The People of the United States are the creators of the Constitution.

Compact theory

[Working Dog]

Perhaps because there are States of the United States that are creatures of the United States (mainly post 1862/1871) and there are States of America which created the United States and if you dont make the distinction....

Thank you Allodial. I agree. In my request to "renew" I did not use the name of the CORPORATE fictions created post 1862/71. It may not make a difference in the eyes of the man or woman looking at the "Renewal" form. The may only "see" the FICTION.

This was an experiment so I could see what they would object to and cite if they did not want to make any "corrections" to their records or issue a new passort. They seem to be focused on the jurat and under penalty of perjury issue. I will not knowingly make a false statement. The challenge is I am not the Creator and I don't know everything, but only a vanishingly small bit...

Proper name?

Working Knot Dog vs WORKING KNOT DOG

Things that are similar are not the same. At least that is my understanding.

Interestingly, in re-examining the forms (DS-11) vs ( DS-82) the latter has this above the space for name:

"1. Name Last"

The DS-11, original application used to state: "Fill in using all block letters". Now it also reads like the DS-82.

[Working Dog]

Technically, when you cross one US state into another, you are traveling internationally .

We could say one is also traveling intranationally as well given the States have individual (the several States) as well as an aggregate capacity known was the United States of America.

A symbol of the aggregate capacity of the States is the U.S. Constitution .... a compact (treaty) ... and a charter establishing an international public corporation styled government of the United States.

A federal government (as opposed to a national government).

Probably the closest thing to a "passport" within the territorial United States would be a driver's license.

I suppose that is true. However, from a practical perspective no one in a fancy costume is setting at the border with guns when I cross from Kentucky into Tennessee. When I fly to the UK, they are always there to greet me and go through my bags. The same thing when I return home.

My opinion, hardly worth much at this point, is that the Union setup under the Articles of Confederation is still in force. That is where the "more perfect union" comes from in the preamble and I can find no evidence that it was ever repealed. The problems seem to mostly come from the war of 1861 and the continuing emergency, all exacerbated by the undermining of the government by the banking cartel in 1913.

The Constitution gave the power to control the borders to the federal government. One tool they use, along with virtually every other "government" is a passport. I hope there is a way for those of us who understand what has happend to obtain a lawful passport.

[David Merrill]

I lost my wallet recently. The WSA is replacing my passport and World ID Card and expediting for free because I am already a client.

[allodial]

There are competing theories about the Constitution being a compact or not.

It is the opinion of courts that the Constitution is not a compact, but the majority of the authors of the Federalist Papers refer to the Constitution as a compact.

A compact refers more to the founding document of a confederation such as the Articles of Confederation.

According to Wikipedia, the States were the creators of the Articles of Confederation.
The People of the United States are the creators of the Constitution.

Compact theory

The federal system being destitute of both, wants the great vital principles of a Political Constitution. Under the form of such a constitution, it is in fact nothing more than a treaty of amity of commerce and of alliance, between independent and Sovereign States.

From: Vices of the Political System of the United States, James Madison apparently referring to the Article of Confederation. However.. *drum roll*

What if the 1788 Constitution Convention was nothing but a private corporate charter masquerading as a de jure constitutional convention?

[Seosaidh]

From: Vices of the Political System of the United States, James Madison apparently referring to the Article of Confederation. However.. *drum roll*

What if the 1788 Constitution Convention was nothing but a private corporate charter masquerading as a de jure constitutional convention?

How would you discern the difference between a public corporation versus a private one?

[allodial]

How would you discern the difference between a public corporation versus a private one?

#1 Created for a public purpose within the venue of creation or activity
#2 Created according to the will, plan, intent and directives of the public creating the corporation.
#3 Open to public control and public scrutiny.

Now "public" can be a word relative to the venue.

If the delegates at the Constitutional Convention didn't follow the instructions of those delegating them and if they did their own thing, then they weren't delegates with respect to what they did and weren't acting under the authority of any of the united states. If a cop goes and robs a liquor store--he isn't a cop, he's a man robbing a liquor store in disguise. If you and I send attorneys off to negotiate for us according to a specific criteria and they put something together according to their own personal tastes then they were acting for themselves without respect to us. If the us is the public of the united states back then, then the delegates would be much like private incorporators, no?

The convention decided to disregard the amendment procedures prescribed in the Articles of Confederation and instead provided that each state should hold a special election for delegates to a ratifying convention. Alexander Hamilton (Biography)

From a strict technical and legal sense, the 1788 Constitution could not have replaced the Articles of Confederation, IMHO it created something entirely new.

[Seosaidh]

#1 Created for a public purpose within the venue of creation or activity
#2 Created according to the will, plan, intent and directives of the public creating the corporation.
#3 Open to public control and public scrutiny.

Now "public" can be a word relative to the venue.

If the delegates at the Constitutional Convention didn't follow the instructions of those delegating them and if they did their own thing, then they weren't delegates with respect to what they did and weren't acting under the authority of any of the united states. If a cop goes and robs a liquor store--he isn't a cop, he's a man robbing a liquor store in disguise. If you and I send attorneys off to negotiate for us according to a specific criteria and they put something together according to their own personal tastes then they were acting for themselves without respect to us. If the us is the public of the united states back then, then the delegates would be much like private incorporators, no?



From a strict technical and legal sense, the 1788 Constitution could not have replaced the Articles of Confederation, IMHO it created something entirely new.

Oh, I agree a new thing was created. It just seems to me that the old thing was a private corporation as well. But then, I also think that all corporations are private, since people have to either elect to be in one, or are forced to be in one. The distinction between public and private is a meaningless one to me. Corporations are ideas concieved by people, created by people, operated by people, and ultimately dissolved by people.

[shikamaru]

What if the 1788 Constitution Convention was nothing but a private corporate charter masquerading as a de jure constitutional convention?

I have always liked you thinking, allodial .

[shikamaru]

How would you discern the difference between a public corporation versus a private one?

Public corporations are formed via a charter (say .... a constitution which is a power of attorney document) or statute and is funded by tax revenue i.e. the public purse .....

Private corporations are formed via a corporate charter and funds its own operations out of its profits.

Source of funding as well as purpose are the differences here between them.

[David Merrill]

From: Vices of the Political System of the United States, James Madison apparently referring to the Article of Confederation. However.. *drum roll*

What if the 1788 Constitution Convention was nothing but a private corporate charter masquerading as a de jure constitutional convention?

This is why there was only one delegate from New York.


Regards,

David Merrill.
[High Priest of the DEITI.]
Dutch East Indies Trading Industry.

[allodial]

This is why there was only one delegate from New York.


Regards,

David Merrill.
[High Priest of the DEITI.]
Dutch East Indies Trading Industry.

Interestingly, I had been ruminating over a more lucid comprehension over both New York's and Georgia's perspective on the matter.

***

Under the Articles of Confederation, unanimous consent of the states was required. They did not have unanimous consent of the states. However it took only 9 states to admit a new colony.