Quote Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost
Well, what the exchange demonstrates is not a lack of knowledge of constitutional law, but rather the fact that Gonzales understands full well that such constitutional guarantees do not apply to federal subjects or non-citizens, as was made clear in the Slaughterhouse cases.

I keep trying to explain to you guys the implicit rights waiver connected to the acceptance of the privilege of federal citizenship, as the franchise agreement in a UCC agreement and therefore requires (under sec. 1-207) a reservation of any rights one wishes to retain. Those who have not made their rights reservations in a specific and timely manner have acquiesced to the implicit waiver and instead have only the privileges and immunities that the federal entity wishes to extend. Have you always been careful to make your reservation of rights? Have you ever made a reservation of rights?

For those who still don't follow what I'm saying, allow me to clarify the nature of the Constitution and its limitations on the federal government. The Constitution is the compact between the People of the several republic states. The Constitution's protections are relative to the relationship between the federal entity and the People and their states. Just as it does not apply to the relationship between the federal entity and foreign governments, neither does it apply to the relationship between the federal entity and itself and its subjects, other than to specify that the federal government has sole authority over the District and its possessions and territories. If you identify as a US citizen rather than as a citizen of your state, you are identifying as that special status created by Amendment XIV, Sec. 1. You are then among those specified in the Slaughterhouse cases as being federal subjects and not accruing the direct protections of the Constitution and the natural rights it protects. since pretty much everyone (and particularly every holder of an SSN) is identified as a federal citizen from birth by one or another agreement, if you are an American reading this you are probably a federal subject. Have you ever noticed that almost any agreement you sign now requires that you affirm that you are a "U.S. resident"? Even contests include that stipulation in the rules. The "U.S." that is being referred to is the federal legislative democracy, as defined in Black's.

Okay, so this was a long explanation, but the point is that you should never dismiss a dangerous person like Alberto Gonzales as being ignorant. What may appear to be a case of misunderstanding of the law on his part is in fact a misapprehension of the way that some minor exceptions allowed in the Constitution have been parlayed into a means of subverting the intent of the Constitution without techincally changing or violating a word of it.
Complete nonsense.

First, though, I'll agree that Alberto's claims do not stem from his misapprehension of constitutional law. He probably does understand it, choosing to ignore it for political purposes and convenience and the love of power.

But listen to me. The Uniform Commercial Code in its entirety, including the little-cited reservation of rights clause, simply strives to make uniform the commercial law of the states, including sales, secured transactions, and commercial paper, such as checks, drafts, promissory notes and the like. The aim is to streamline commerce so it's less cumbersome, to the benefit of all.

The UCC has absolutely no, as in "none" "nada" "zippo", application to anything Alberto's concerning himself with or divorcing himself from.

The remainder of your claims truly require an enlargement of the meaning of "bizarre".

Nothing you've set forth in your post is taught in any bar-accredited law school. And should it ever be so, the law school in scenario would be placed on an accelerated fast-track to lose its accredited status.

You could dissuade me of my position were you to supply me with the cite to a single court case, appellate or lower, or a single law review article, from among the 180 or so ABA-accredited law schools, that supports your position.

That is to say, you cannot dissuade me.

But I issue the challenge. What authority, other than the synapitic impulse preceding your typing fingers, do you have to support your position?