What is a "civil right" except an attempt to limit inalienable rights or empower the government and create two classes of citizen?
Voting would be an example of a civil right, but not a fundamental right. This is because if the government did not exist (if we were "back to nature") then there would be no government jobs to vote for.
So, it is not a fundamental right. There are many types of rights: fundamental (aka natural, aka God-given), constitutional, civil, contractual.
Contractual rights are between parties, but are not fundamental to all. The right to contract is a fundamental right, but once parties create a contract, then the rights created within that contract are contractual rights of the parties, and not to anyone else.
Civil rights are similar. However, you are correct that civil rights are probably going to create two classes of citizen. Certainly, 4-year olds could be considered a 2nd class because they cannot vote, but we also have to consider the question: Should they?
The eminent domain clause creates two classes of people.
Yes, it sure does. And the Supreme Court's decision in London (Connecticut) was an abomination, basically saying that the state can take property if doing so benefits individuals and not the public in general, so long as the property taxes go up (which is claimed will benefit the public).
This is why the IRS can come and take your property whenever the fuck they want just on suspicion of a "tax crime"
Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it. Not saying I have all the info on that, but I know that the IRS always (as in ALWAYS) violates the law when they attempt to do so, which opens them up to counter action.
This is why the recent court ruling stating that the SEC "court" could not issue orders on SEC claims (because doing so is a conflict of interest) is an extremely important one. The same should be applied to tax "court" (a fake court that sides with the IRS 99% of the time).
While the Right to Property may not be a "God Given Right"
It IS a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. It is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, generally, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acqured, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed. The rights are associated with the property, not the individual, and a particular individual(s) has possession of those rights at any given time.
When I sold my property to you, the rights that belong to the property WERE mine, but NOW they are yours.
Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness. But notice: it is the right to PURSUE happiness, not the right TO happiness. This is where the leftwing nutjob dimwits have everything wrong.
There is no "right to healtcare," for example, because such a "right" would necessarily mean that the doctors and nurses must become slaves in order to provide it. Rather, there is a right to PURSUE healthcare, provided one can honestly acquire it -- and the government has no lawful authority to stop anyone from that pursuit.
Which brings us back to the 9th Amendment: Did Americans in 1789 have a right to pursue health care? Did they have that right in 1776? If yes, then we do today, as well.
Sovereign
This word can have different meanings. The sovereignty of the People is collective, not individual. The sovereignty of the government is a sovereignty vis-a-vis other governments, but not something that is superior to the People, who (collectively) hold sovereignty over the government.
Sovereignty of the individual is, likewise, vis-a-vis other individuals. My right to swing my arms stops at your face. Provided I am not harming you or your property (a natural extension of you), nor engaging in force (or fraud, a form of force), then I have the right to swing my arms as much as I want.
But if I cross that rubicon, then I am the one in the wrong.
As the Non-Aggression Principle states: He who FIRST aggresses against another is the one who has violated the law (of mankind or God, no matter what the law of the legislature says -- because that is written mostly by morons and assholes).
What is a "civil right" except an attempt to limit inalienable rights or empower the government and create two classes of citizen?
Voting would be an example of a civil right. It is not a fundamental right, because if the government did not exist (if we were "back to nature") then there would be no government jobs to vote for.
So, it is not a fundamental right. There are many types of rights. Contractual rights are between parties, but are not fundamental to all. The right to contract is a fundamental right, but once parties create a contract, then the rights created within that contract are contractual rights of the parties.
Civil rights are similar. However, you are correct that civil rights are probably going to create two classes of citizen. Certainly, 4-year olds could be considered a 2nd class because they cannot vote, but we also have to consider the question: Should they?
The eminent domain clause creates two classes of people.
Yes, it sure does. And the Supreme Court's decision in London (Connecticut) was an abomination, basically saying that the state can take property if doing so benefits individuals and not the public in general, so long as the property taxes go up (which is claimed will benefit the public).
This is why the IRS can come and take your property whenever the fuck they want just on suspicion of a "tax crime"
Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it. Not saying I have all the info on that, but I know that the IRS always (as in ALWAYS) violates the law when they attempt to do so, which opens them up to counter action.
This is why the recent court ruling stating that the SEC "court" could not issue orders on SEC claims (because doing so is a conflict of interest) is an extremely important one. The same should be applied to tax "court" (a fake court that sides with the IRS 99% of the time).
While the Right to Property may not be a "God Given Right"
It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acqured, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.
Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committee changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness. But notice: it is the right to PURSUE happiness, not the right TO happiness. This is where the leftwing nutjob dimwits have everything wrong.
There is no "right to healtcare," for example, because such a "right" would necessarily mean that the doctors and nurses must become slaves in order to provide it. Rather, there is a right to PURSUE healthcare, provided one can honestly acquire it -- and the government has no lawful authority to stop anyone from that pursuit.
And that brings us back to the 9th Amendment. Did Americans in 1789 have a right to pursue health care? Did they have that right in 1776? If yes, then we do today, as well.
Sovereign
This word can have different meanings. The sovereignty of the People is collective, not individual. The sovereignty of the government is a sovereignty vis-a-vis other governments, but not something that is superior to the People, who (collectively) hold sovereignty over the government.
Sovereignty of the individual is, likewise, vis-a-vis other individuals. My right to swing my arms stops at your face. Provided I am not harming you or your property (a natural extension of you), nor engaging in force (or fraud, a form of force), then I have the right to swing my arms as much as I want.
But if I cross that rubicon, then I am the one in the wrong.
As the Non-Aggression Principle states: He who FIRST aggresses against another is the one who has violated the law (of mankind or God, no matter what the law of the legislature says -- because that is written mostly by morons and assholes).
What is a "civil right" except an attempt to limit inalienable rights or empower the government and create two classes of citizen?
Voting would be an example of a civil right. It is not a fundamental right, because if the government did not exist (if we were "back to nature") then there would be no government jobs to vote for.
So, it is not a fundamental right. There are many types of rights. Contractual rights are between parties, but are not fundamental to all. The right to contract is a fundamental right, but once parties create a contract, then the rights created within that contract are contractual rights of the parties.
Civil rights are similar. However, you are correct that civil rights are probably going to create two classes of citizen. Certainly, 4-year olds could be considered a 2nd class because they cannot vote, but we also have to consider the question: Should they?
The eminent domain clause creates two classes of people.
Yes, it sure does. And the Supreme Court's decision in London (Connecticut) was an abomination, basically saying that the state can take property if doing so benefits individuals and not the public in general, so long as the property taxes go up (which is claimed will benefit the public).
This is why the IRS can come and take your property whenever the fuck they want just on suspicion of a "tax crime"
Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it. Not saying I have all the info on that, but I know that the IRS always (as in ALWAYS) violates the law when they attempt to do so, which opens them up to counter action.
This is why the recent court ruling stating that the SEC "court" could not issue orders on SEC claims (because doing so is a conflict of interest) is an extremely important one. The same should be applied to tax "court" (a fake court that sides with the IRS 99% of the time).
While the Right to Property may not be a "God Given Right"
It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acqured, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.
Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committe changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness. But notice: it is the right to PURSUE happiness, not the right TO happiness. This is where the leftwing nutjob dimwits have everything wrong.
There is no "right to healtcare," for example, because such a "right" would necessarily mean that the doctors and nurses must become slaves in order to provide it. Rather, there is a right to PURSUE healthcare, provided one can honestly acquire it -- and the government has no lawful authority to stop anyone from that pursuit.
And that brings us back to the 9th Amendment. Did Americans in 1789 have a right to pursue health care? Did they have that right in 1776? If yes, then we do today, as well.
Sovereign
This word can have different meanings. The sovereignty of the People is collective, not individual. The sovereignty of the government is a sovereignty vis-a-vis other governments, but not something that is superior to the People, who (collectively) hold sovereignty over the government.
Sovereignty of the individual is, likewise, vis-a-vis other individuals. My right to swing my arms stops at your face. Provided I am not harming you or your property (a natural extension of you), nor engaging in force (or fraud, a form of force), then I have the right to swing my arms as much as I want.
But if I cross that rubicon, then I am the one in the wrong.
As the Non-Aggression Principle states: He who FIRST aggresses against another is the one who has violated the law (of mankind or God, no matter what the law of the legislature says -- because that is written mostly by morons and assholes).
What is a "civil right" except an attempt to limit inalienable rights or empower the government and create two classes of citizen?
Voting would be an example of a civil right. It is not a fundamental right, because if the government did not exist (if we were "back to nature") then there would be no government jobs to vote for.
So, it is not a fundamental right. There are many types of rights. Contractual rights are between parties, but are not fundamental to all. The right to contract is a fundamental right, but once parties create a contract, then the rights created within that contract are contractual rights of the parties.
Civil rights are similar. However, you are correct that civil rights are probably going to create two classes of citizen. Certainly, 4-year olds could be considered a 2nd class because they cannot vote, but we also have to consider the question: Should they?
The eminent domain clause creates two classes of people.
Yes, it sure does. And the Supreme Court's decision in London (Connecticut) was an abomination, basically saying that the state can take property if doing so benefits individuals and not the public in general, so long as the property taxes go up (which is claimed will benefit the public).
This is why the IRS can come and take your property whenever the fuck they want just on suspicion of a "tax crime"
Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it. Not saying I have all the info on that, but I know that the IRS always (as in ALWAYS) violates the law when they attempt to do so, which opens them up to counter action.
This is why the recent court ruling stating that the SEC "court" could not issue orders on SEC claims (because doing so is a conflict of interest) is an extremely important one. The same should be applied to tax "court" (a fake court that sides with the IRS 99% of the time).
While the Right to Property may not be a "God Given Right"
It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acqured, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.
Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committe changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness. But notice: it is the right to PURSUE happiness, not the right TO happiness. This is where the leftwing nutjob dimwits have everything wrong.
There is no "right to healtcare," for example, because such a "right" would necessarily mean that the doctors and nurses must become slaves in order to provide it. Rather, there is a right to PURSUE healthcare, provided one can honestly acquire it -- and the government has no lawful authority to stop anyone from that pursuit.
And that brings us back to the 9th Amendment. Did Americans in 1789 have a right to pursue health care? Did they have that right in 1776? If yes, then we do today, as well.
Sovereign
This word can have different meanings. The sovereignty of the People is collective, not individual. The sovereignty of the government is a sovereignty vis-a-vis other governments, but not something that is superior to the People, who (collectively) hold sovereignty over the government.
Sovereignty of the individual is, likewise, vis-a-vis other individuals. My right to swing my arms stops at your face. Provided I am not harming you or your property (a natural extension of you), nor engaging in force (or fraud, a form of force), then I have the right to swing my arms as much as I want.
But if I cross that rubicon, then I am the one in the wrong.
As the Non-Aggression Principle states: He who FIRST aggresses against another is the one who has violated the law (of mankind or God, not the law of the legislature -- which is mostly made up of moron and assholes).
What is a "civil right" except an attempt to limit inalienable rights or empower the government and create two classes of citizen?
Voting would be an example of a civil right. It is not a fundamental right, because if the government did not exist (if we were "back to nature") then there would be no government jobs to vote for.
So, it is not a fundamental right. There are many types of rights. Contractual rights are between parties, but are not fundamental to all. The right to contract is a fundamental right, but once parties create a contract, then the rights created within that contract are contractual rights of the parties.
Civil rights are similar. However, you are correct that civil rights are probably going to create two classes of citizen. Certainly, 4-year olds could be considered a 2nd class because they cannot vote, but we also have to consider the question: Should they?
The eminent domain clause creates two classes of people.
Yes, it sure does. And the Supreme Court's decision in London (Connecticut) was an abomination, basically saying that the state can take property if doing so benefits individuals and not the public in general, so long as the property taxes go up (which is claimed will benefit the public).
This is why the IRS can come and take your property whenever the fuck they want just on suspicion of a "tax crime"
Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it. Not saying I have all the info on that, but I know that the IRS always (as in ALWAYS) violates the law when they attempt to do so, which opens them up to counter action.
This is why the recent court ruling stating that the SEC "court" could not issue orders on SEC claims (because doing so is a conflict of interest) is an extremely important one. The same should be applied to tax "court" (a fake court that sides with the IRS 99% of the time).
While the Right to Property may not be a "God Given Right"
It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acqured, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.
Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committe changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness. But notice: it is the right to PURSUE happiness, not the right TO happiness. This is where the leftwing nutjob dimwits have everything wrong.
There is no "right to healtcare," for example, because such a "right" would necessarily mean that the doctors and nurses must become slaves in order to provide it. Rather, there is a right to PURSUE healthcare, provided one can honestly acquire it -- and the government has no lawful authority to stop anyone from that pursuit.
And that brings us back to the 9th Amendment). Did Americans in 1789 have a right to pursue health care? If yes, then we do today, as well.
Sovereign
This word can have different meanings. The sovereignty of the People is collective, not individual. The sovereignty of the government is a sovereignty vis-a-vis other governments, but not something that is superior to the People, who (collectively) hold sovereignty over the government.
Sovereignty of the individual is, likewise, vis-a-vis other individuals. My right to swing my arms stops at your face. Provided I am not harming you or your property (a natural extension of you), nor engaging in force (or fraud, a form of force), then I have the right to swing my arms as much as I want.
But if I cross that rubicon, then I am the one in the wrong.
As the Non-Aggression Principle states: He who FIRST aggresses against another is the one who has violated the law (of mankind or God, not the law of the legislature -- which is mostly made up of moron and assholes).
What is a "civil right" except an attempt to limit inalienable rights or empower the government and create two classes of citizen?
Voting would be an example of a civil right. It is not a fundamental right, because if the government did not exist (if we were "back to nature") then there would be no government jobs to vote for.
So, it is not a fundamental right. There are many types of rights. Contractual rights are between parties, but are not fundamental to all. The right to contract is a fundamental right, but once parties create a contract, then the rights created within that contract are contractual rights of the parties.
Civil rights are similar. However, you are correct that civil rights are probably going to create two classes of citizen. Certainly, 4-year olds could be considered a 2nd class because they cannot vote, but we also have to consider the question: Should they?
The eminent domain clause creates two classes of people.
Yes, it sure does. And the Supreme Court's decision in London (Connecticut) was an abomination, basically saying that the state can take property if doing so benefits individuals and not the public in general, so long as the property taxes go up (which is claimed will benefit the public).
This is why the IRS can come and take your property whenever the fuck they want just on suspicion of a "tax crime"
Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it. Not saying I have all the info on that, but I know that the IRS always (as in ALWAYS) violates the law when they attempt to do so, which opens them up to counter action.
This is why the recent court ruling stating that the SEC "court" could not issue orders on SEC claims (because doing so is a conflict of interest) is an extremely important one. The same should be applied to tax "court" (a fake court that sides with the IRS 99% of the time).
While the Right to Property may not be a "God Given Right"
It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acqured, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.
Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committe changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the right to pursue happiness. But notice: it is the right to PURSUE happiness, not the right TO happiness. This is where the leftwing nutjob dimwits have everything wrong.
There is no "right to healtcare," because such a "right" would necessarily mean that the doctors and nurses must become slaves in order to provide it. Rather, there is a right to PURSUE healthcare, provided one can honestly acquire it.
Sovereign
This word can have different meanings. The sovereignty of the People is collective, not individual. The sovereignty of the government is a sovereignty vis-a-vis other governments, but not something that is superior to the People, who (collectively) hold sovereignty over the government.
Sovereignty of the individual is, likewise, vis-a-vis other individuals. My right to swing my arms stops at your face. Provided I am not harming you or your property (a natural extension of you), nor engaging in force (or fraud, a form of force), then I have the right to swing my arms as much as I want.
But if I cross that rubicon, then I am the one in the wrong.
As the Non-Aggression Principle states: He who FIRST aggresses against another is the one who has violated the law (of mankind or God, not the law of the legislature -- which is mostly made up of moron and assholes).
What is a "civil right" except an attempt to limit inalienable rights or empower the government and create two classes of citizen?
Voting would be an example of a civil right. It is not a fundamental right, because if the government did not exist (if we were "back to nature") then there would be no government jobs to vote for.
So, it is not a fundamental right. There are many types of rights. Contractual rights are between parties, but are not fundamental to all. The right to contract is a fundamental right, but once parties create a contract, then the rights created within that contract are contractual rights of the parties.
Civil rights are similar. However, you are correct that civil rights are probably going to create two classes of citizen. Certainly, 4-year olds could be considered a 2nd class because they cannot vote, but we also have to consider the question: Should they?
The eminent domain clause creates two classes of people.
Yes, it sure does. And the Supreme Court's decision in London (Connecticut) was an abomination, basically saying that the state can take property if doing so benefits individuals and not the public in general, so long as the property taxes go up (which is claimed will benefit the public).
This is why the IRS can come and take your property whenever the fuck they want just on suspicion of a "tax crime"
Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it. Not saying I have all the info on that, but I know that the IRS always (as in ALWAYS) violates the law when they attempt to do so, which opens them up to counter action.
This is why the recent court ruling stating that the SEC "court" could not issue orders on SEC claims (because doing so is a conflict of interest) is an extremely important one. The same should be applied to tax "court" (a fake court that sides with the IRS 99% of the time).
While the Right to Property may not be a "God Given Right"
It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acqured, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.
Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence said "... life, liberty and property," but the committe changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the rigth to pursue happiness. But notice: it is the right to PURSUE happiness, not the right to happiness. This is where the leftwing nutjob dimwits have everything wrong.
There is no "right to healtcare," because such a "right" would necessarily mean that the doctors and nurses must become slaves in order to provide it. Rather, there is a right to PURSUE healthcare, provided one can honestly acquire it.
Sovereign
This word can have different meanings. The sovereignty of the People is collective, not individual. The sovereignty of the government is a sovereignty vis-a-vis other governments, but not something that is superior to the People, who (collectively) hold sovereignty over the government.
Sovereignty of the individual is, likewise, vis-a-vis other individuals. My right to swing my arms stops at your face. Provided I am not harming you or your property (a natural extension of you), nor engaging in force (or fraud, a form of force), then I have the right to swing my arms as much as I want.
But if I cross that rubicon, then I am the one in the wrong.
As the Non-Aggression Principle states: He who FIRST aggresses against another is the one who has violated the law (of mankind or God, not the law of the legislature -- which is mostly made up of moron and assholes).
What is a "civil right" except an attempt to limit inalienable rights or empower the government and create two classes of citizen?
Voting would be an example of a civil right. It is not a fundamental right, because if the government did not exist (if we were "back to nature") then there would be no government jobs to vote for.
So, it is not a fundamental right. There are many types of rights. Contractual rights are between parties, but are not fundamental to all. The right to contract is a fundamental right, but once parties create a contract, then the rights created within that contract are contractual rights of the parties.
Civil rights are similar. However, you are correct that civil rights are probably going to create two classes of citizen. Certainly, 4-year olds could be considered a 2nd class because they cannot vote, but we also have to consider the question: Should they?
The eminent domain clause creates two classes of people.
Yes, it sure does. And the Supreme Court's decision in London (Connecticut) was an abomination, basically saying that the state can take property if doing so benefits individuals and not the public in general, so long as the property taxes go up (which is claimed will benefit the public).
This is why the IRS can come and take your property whenever the fuck they want just on suspicion of a "tax crime"
Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it. Not saying I have all the info on that, but I know that the IRS always (as in ALWAYS) violates the law when they attempt to do so, which opens them up to counter action.
This is why the recent court ruling stating that the SEC "court" could not issue orders on SEC claims (because doing so is a conflict of interest) is an extremely important one. The same should be applied to tax "court" (a fake court that sides with the IRS 99% of the time).
While the Right to Property may not be a "God Given Right"
It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acqured, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.
Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independece said "... life, liberty and property," but the committe changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the rigth to pursue happiness. But notice: it is the right to PURSUE happiness, not the right to happiness. This is where the leftwing nutjob dimwits have everything wrong.
There is no "right to healtcare," because such a "right" would necessarily mean that the doctors and nurses must become slaves in order to provide it. Rather, there is a right to PURSUE healthcare, provided one can honestly acquire it.
Sovereign
This word can have different meanings. The sovereignty of the People is collective, not individual. The sovereignty of the government is a sovereignty vis-a-vis other governments, but not something that is superior to the People, who (collectively) hold sovereignty over the government.
Sovereignty of the individual is, likewise, vis-a-vis other individuals. My right to swing my arms stops at your face. Provided I am not harming you or your property (a natural extension of you), nor engaging in force (or fraud, a form of force), then I have the right to swing my arms as much as I want.
But if I cross that rubicon, then I am the one in the wrong.
As the Non-Aggression Principle states: He who FIRST aggresses against another is the one who has violated the law (of mankind or God, not the law of the legislature -- which is mostly made up of moron and assholes).
What is a "civil right" except an attempt to limit inalienable rights or empower the government and create two classes of citizen?
Voting would be an example of a civil right. It is not a fundamental right, because if the government did not exist (if we were "back to nature") then there would be no government jobs to vote for.
So, it is not a fundamental right. There are many types of rights. Contractual rights are between parties, but are not fundamental to all. The right to contract is a fundamental right, but once parties create a contract, then the rights created within that contract are contractual rights of the parties.
Civil rights are similar. However, you are correct that civil rights are probably going to create two classes of citizen. Certainly, 4-year olds could be considered a 2nd class because they cannot vote, but we also have to consider the question: Should they?
The eminent domain clause creates two classes of people.
Yes, it sure does. And the Supreme Court's decision in London (Connecticut) was an abomination, basically saying that the state can take property if doing so benefits individuals and not the public in general, so long as the property taxes go up (which is claimed will benefit the public).
This is why the IRS can come and take your property whenever the fuck they want just on suspicion of a "tax crime"
Actually, they cannot, but most people do not know how to fight it. Not saying I have all the info on that, but I know that the IRS always (as in ALWAYS) violates the law when they attempt to do so, which opens them up to counter action.
This is why the recent court ruling stating that the SEC "court" could not issue orders on SEC claims (because doing so is a conflict of interest) is an extremely important one. The same should be applied to tax "court."
While the Right to Property may not be a "God Given Right"
It is a God-given (or "natural" or "fundamental") right. But it is not a right to a specific property, but rather a right to own property, provided one can honestly acquire it. Once honestly acqured, then the rights that go with that property shall not be infringed.
Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independece said "... life, liberty and property," but the committe changed it to "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," with ownership of property necessarily being understood to be included within the rigth to pursue happiness. But notice: it is the right to PURSUE happiness, not the right to happiness. This is where the leftwing nutjob dimwits have everything wrong.
There is no "right to healtcare," because such a "right" would necessarily mean that the doctors and nurses must become slaves in order to provide it. Rather, there is a right to PURSUE healthcare, provided one can honestly acquire it.
Sovereign
This word can have different meanings. The sovereignty of the People is collective, not individual. The sovereignty of the government is a sovereignty vis-a-vis other governments, but not something that is superior to the People, who (collectively) hold sovereignty over the government.
Sovereignty of the individual is, likewise, vis-a-vis other individuals. My right to swing my arms stops at your face. Provided I am not harming you or your property (a natural extension of you), nor engaging in force (or fraud, a form of force), then I have the right to swing my arms as much as I want.
But if I cross that rubicon, then I am the one in the wrong.
As the Non-Aggression Principle states: He who FIRST aggresses against another is the one who has violated the law (of mankind or God, not the law of the legislature -- which is mostly made up of moron and assholes).