REBUTTAL: “State National” is an oxymoron. States of the Union are not “nations”
FALSE STATEMENT:
“State National” is an oxymoron. States of the Union are not “nations”
All the rights of the States as independent nations were surrendered to the United States. The States are not nations, either as between themselves or towards foreign nations. They are sovereign within their spheres, but their sovereignty stops short of nationality. Their political status at home and abroad is that of States in the United States. They can neither make war nor peace without the consent of the national government. Neither can they, except with like consent, “enter into any agreement or compact with another State.” Art. 1, sec. 10, cl. 3.
REBUTTAL:
A “state national” is merely someone born within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state and whose allegiance as a “national” is owed to the “United States of America” under the Articles of Confederation. It doesn’t mean that states of the Union are “nations” under the law of nations.
The person making that statement obviously hasn’t read our definition of “state national”. See:
SEDM Disclaimer, Section 4.24
https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm#4.24._State_National
The above definition never refers to states of the Union as “nations” under the law of nations. It instead refers to “state nationals” as “nationals” under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21) owing allegiance to the PEOPLE of the United States of America, who are the true SOVEREIGNS, and not the GOVERNMENT that SERVES them and is NOT “sovereign”:
“State. A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other communities of the globe. United States v. Kusche, D.C.Cal., 56 F.Supp. 201 207, 208. The organization of social life which exercises sovereign power in behalf of the people. Delany v. Moralitis, C.C.A.Md., 136 F.2d 129, 130. In its largest sense, a “state” is a body politic or a society of men. Beagle v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indemnification Corp., 44 Misc.2d 636, 254 N.Y.S.2d 763, 765. A body of people occupying a definite territory and politically organized under one government. State ex re. Maisano v. Mitchell, 155 Conn. 256, 231 A.2d 539, 542. A territorial unit with a distinct general body of law. Restatement, Second, Conflicts, §3. Term may refer either to body politic of a nation (e.g. United States) or to an individual government unit of such nation (e.g. California).
[…]
The people of a state, in their collective capacity, considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed; the public; as in the title of a cause, “The State vs. A.B.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1407]
Notice that the “State” is NOT the same as the “GOVERNMENT”. The U.S. Supreme Court pointed out the difference between these two terms in Poindexter v. Greenhow:
“In the discussion of such questions, the distinction between the government of a State and the State itself is important, and should be observed. In common speech and common apprehension they are usually regarded as identical; and as ordinarily the acts of the government are the acts of the State, because within the limits of its delegation of power, the government of the State is generally confounded with the State itself, and often the former is meant when the latter is mentioned. The State itself is an ideal person, intangible, invisible, immutable. The government is an agent, and, within the sphere of the agency, a perfect representative; but outside of that, it is a lawless usurpation. The Constitution of the State is the limit of the authority of its government, and both government and State are subject to the supremacy of the Constitution of the United States, and of the laws made in pursuance thereof. So that, while it is true in respect to the government of a State, as was said in Langford v. United States, 101 U.S. 341, that the maxim, that the king can do no wrong, has no place in our system of government; yet, it is also true, in respect to the State itself, that whatever wrong is attempted in its name is imputable to its government, and not to the State, for, as it can speak and act only by law, whatever it does say and do must be lawful. That which, therefore, is unlawful because made so by the supreme law, the Constitution of the United States, is not the word or deed of the State, but is the mere wrong and trespass of those individual persons who falsely speak and act in its name. It was upon the ground of this important distinction that this court proceeded in the case of Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, when it adjudged that the acts of secession, which constituted the civil war of 1861, were the unlawful acts of usurping State governments, and not the acts of the States themselves, inasmuch as “the Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States;” and that, consequently, the war itself was not a war between the States, nor a war of the United States against States, but a war of the United States against 291*291 unlawful and usurping governments, representing not the States, but a rebellion against the United States. This is, in substance, what was said by Chief Justice Chase, delivering the opinion of the court in Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1, 9, when he declared, speaking of the Confederate government, that “it was regarded as simply the military representative of the insurrection against the authority of the United States.” The same distinction was declared and enforced in Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U.S. 176, 192, and in Horn v. Lockhart, 17 Wall. 570, both of which were referred to and approved in Keith v. Clark, 97 U.S. 454, 465.
There are actually TWO political bodies and “social compacts” one can be a “member” (citizen) OR a “subject” of , as we point out below. The purpose of us inventing the custom term “state national” that appears in no court ruling we have found is to clarify which of these TWO political bodies one falls under:
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002, Section 7.5: TWO Social Compacts in America
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf
On the other hand, if you the reader HAVE found anyplace on this site that identifies states of the Constitutional Union as “nations” under the Law of Nations, please point it out so that we may correct it promptly.
The least he could do is read our definitions before attacking our position. That’s what sophists do to deceive and enslave innocent people.
https://sedm.org/an-introduction-to-sophistry/
Sophists can only win an argument that starts without definitions or by trying to change the CONTEXT for the definitions that are used in the argument. By doing this, they engage in their main tactic for dishonestly winning an argument: Equivocation, which is a logical fallacy that takes terms out of the context intended by the speaker or tries to make multiple contexts APPEAR to the the same.
The reason this site has extensive definitions in the Disclaimer is to ensure that it is IMPOSSIBLE for sophist to try to distort or take out of context the most important terms or words used on this site in order to discredit us. So next time you want to throw rocks at an innocent party, which is us, read the definitions FIRST, or you will look like an idiot or a sophist or both, as you do in this case.
We also for extensively define “state national” in the following presentation to deflect “sophists” like this guy:
How State Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024, pp. 27-32
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf