TubeNet

Here's a cool article I just read about the Declaration of Independence. Apparently, they were able to use some advanced imaging technology to reveal that Jefferson initially wrote the word "subjects," then wiped the ink away and replaced it with citizens. Cool stuff, showing the moment when TJ made the decision to stop thinking of himself as a British subject.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_declarati ... dependence

ERII still has a few hundred million "subjects" spread around the world. The Royals still think they have a god given right to reign over the humble masses.

Ken Herrick wrote:ERII still has a few hundred million "subjects" spread around the world. The Royals still think they have a god given right to reign over the humble masses.

Uh, No. The last gasp of this concept was after the Restoration when King James II tried to re-assert the "divine rights of kings." That, and his Catholic leanings (not to mention his being too friendly with France), got him run out of town on a rail. These events, which culminated in the abdication of James II, the invitation of William and Mary to be joint sovereigns, and (among other things) the passage of the British "Bill of Rights," is called, "The Glorious Revolution," and established the UK as a constitutional monarchy with power in Parliament and a sovereign who reigns, but does not rule. This is somewhat oversimplified, but is the essence of it. Because power resides in Parliament, even in the UK persons with full civil rights and residency are called "citizens" now, not "subjects."

bloke wrote:

iiipopes wrote:...Because power resides in Parliament, even in the UK persons with full civil rights and residency are called "citizens" now, not "subjects."

Until a country's written down legal definition of itself guarantees complete freedom of speech rights, I will consider those who dwell in such a country as "subjects". The UK has not yet progressed to that point, and neither has Canada for that matter.

http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/charter/charter.text.html" target="_blank

HTH

Jeff "Canuckistan ain't the U.S.A." Benedict

This may be slightly off topic, but It's still relevant. Talking about the land:money ratio in the UK, and who technically owns what.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oogQgUwv8Y" target="_blank

As recently as 1975, the prime minister of Australia was dismissed by the governor general who is an appointee of the queen (on her ministers'advice). Parliament was disolved, a caretaker prime minister appointed and an election called. All this required the consent of the queen of England.

Even today almost all mineral rights are vested in "the crown" with the state governments, all still subject to royal assent, being able to decide who can totally ruin the land you hold title to with the "owner" having to just put up with it.

In the UK the royal family still owns whole towns.

If you consider the behaviour of soome of the royals over the years you will be more likely to agree that they still look upon people as "subjects". Despite the Queen being one of the world's super rich she still receives a handsome income from her loyal subjects. And...royal assent is required for acts of parliament to become "law".

Well, the fact you all are criticizing everything to the point of being ludicrous, and that Sean is allowing a thread on a quirk of American History to border on a geopolitical discussion, should, in and of itself, be sufficient to show you all are exercising true citizenship. If you don't like something, as bloke as expressed, get the vote out to the next election and change it.

As to the comments about my knowledge of UK and Commonwealth law, you may have your observations, but I took Legal History and International Law from the dean of Downing College, Cambridge University, and have been a pupil to a barrister, incuding up to helping him argue a case in the House of Lords; in other words, the equivalent of arguing a case before the United States Supreme Court. So I know a little about how the UK and commonwealth countries work in practice, not just theory.

Since 1975, which the incident referred to above is known as "The Crisis," Australia has its true independence with the passage of the Australia Act of 1986, and the prime minister is elected by Australia, not appointed or consulted by the UK. Out of courtesy they respect the monarch, but that is all.

The reason that the crown holds so much property in the UK dates to the original land laws from the year 1290, up until which the crown owned everything, and gave out a form of ownership (analogous to "a piece of the pie") to the lords as their perogative, who then gave out a form of ownership to those below them, etc., ad infinitum. This method of owning a piece of the pie, which the ownership is rather a hybrid between what we think of as land ownership and a long term lease, is called "Subinfeudation." With the passage of the quia emptoris statute at that time, then the folks who owned the land under the crown could then sell it or do with it as they pleased (the technical term is alienation) without necessarily having to get permission of the crown, but could not further divide the ownership chain or avoid taxes; in other words, no more subinfeudation. So as the chains of title dropped out, as if there were no heirs-at-law, or the owner committed treason, or such, then title reverted to the next step up the ladder of the former subinfeudation, eventually to the crown. So today, most people in the UK who own real property hold directly from the crown, and not from some intermediate land lord (yes, that is the origin of that term). Again, for the sake of bandwidth, that is somewhat oversimplified, but the essence of it. That situation does not exist in the USA, which all USA land owners own real property directly. But the law that if the chain of title fails and land title reverts to the government if no heirs or others with a legal claim to the property, still exist, either in the form of general common law, or as reenacted as postive statutory law in most states. The concept is called "Escheat."

And none of this has anything to do with the definition of "citizenship" verses the definition of "subject," which can be batted about ad nauseum, but the bottom line is if a person of a country has been granted certain civil rights, including suffrage, that by definition makes them citizens, as opposed to living their existence at the fiat of a higher person, which makes them subject.

Now, in reality, most of the discussion above is in reference to the quality of citizenship. If you don't like where you are, by all means, exercise your First Amendment rights and complain directly to your elected and appointed officials to get it changed, which is an exercise by citizens of civil rights to the fullest extent.

God Bless the United States of America!

Mcordon1 wrote:This may be slightly off topic, but It's still relevant. Talking about the land:money ratio in the UK, and who technically owns what.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oogQgUwv8Y" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

See who holds the wealth in the USA:

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/facult ... wealth.htm" target="_blank" target="_blank

From a "a corporate subject"

I'm looking forward to the theocratic monarchy that will be coming to earth in the very near future.

Zechariah 6:12

Behold, the Man whose name is the BRANCH!
From His place He shall branch out,
And He shall build the temple of the LORD;
13 Yes, He shall build the temple of the LORD.
He shall bear the glory,
And shall sit and rule on His throne;
So He shall be a priest on His throne,
And the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

Revelation 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
10 And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth.”

Dylan King wrote:I'm looking forward to the theocratic monarchy that will be coming to earth in the very near future.

Aren't we all?!

yes...and by the time you get somewhere into that "3rd 20%" those people pay no income tax.

I don't disagree with this yet, but can someone tell me what annual income range that 3rd 20% earns?

iiipopes wrote:

Dylan King wrote:I'm looking forward to the theocratic monarchy that will be coming to earth in the very near future.

Aren't we all?!

Not particularly. Check with people who have lived under an ayatollah or such. I think it would get old fast. Neither theocracy nor monarchy for me.

Plus, "coming to earth" suggests that the monarch is not from around here, which could mean some uncomfortable culture clash. "Well that's not how we do it on the planet Zetsor!" is not the kind of thing you want to hear from your monarch, in the already disagreeable event that you should have one.

bloke wrote:post pictures of food below...

Brisket


Pork