Recently we’ve heard horror stories about law enforcement conflicts with people who call themselves “Sovereign Citizens”. This a bunch of people who align to a specific anti-government/anarchistic philosophy and not a formal movement. They deny state command authority over themselves and others. A recent example might be Korryn Gaines and her tragic death in a police shootout (though at the time this is being written there is more rumor that fact). While much has written of the history of this “movement” as well as important criticisms of the individuals involved and their conduct already something has been overlooked which is what I hope to address in this posting.
The sad irony here is that the private U.S. citizens are, in fact, sovereign. This is a direct finding of the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in the landmark case Chisholm v. Georgia 1793 (2 U.S. 419, 2 Dallas 419) which found that the U.S. was a popular sovereignty in which the authority of the state which had been previously vested in the person of a monarch had been distributed equally and individually (not collectively either!) to the citizens of the United States as a result of the American Revolution and that the “ministers of government” (public officers, employees, and contractors working on the behalf of government) do not “partake in that sovereignty except as private citizens”, and that U.S. citizens are not subjects in any sense except by their consent. Further the Chief Justice, John Jay (our 1st Chief Justice) pointed out that the U.S. Constitution and the several state constitutions were compacts of the people of their respective jurisdictions. If we take his cue and look at the most readily available historic compact (which has often cited as the model for our Constitution), the Mayflower Compact we find this interesting clause after the describe the governments they were going to create: “to which we promise all due obedience and submission”. The people of that colony were subjugating themselves to the authority of the government they were creating (within a reasonable limit; hence the word “due”) but no similar language appears anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. Even if such were to appear in state constitutions it would be nullified by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2).
When I first encountered this case 10 years ago I was presenting a draft argument in support of same-sex marriage under the Constitution to a group of professional and lay constitutional scholars (one of whom practiced before the U.S. Supreme Court and publicly defended me as “polite and well reasoned” — pats self on back :D ). I was looking for a previous federal case in order to cite it and Chisholm popped up in an internet search on a fringe political site. I looked at the site, shrugged, and looked at the language of this curious SCOTUS case to find where the site owner went south but I didn’t dwell on it other than reporting the case to the group and noting that the Court seemed to have made a finding in support of one of my paper’s several arguments. I saw the “sovereignty” argument made by the Court and fully expected that if I looked hard enough something that major would be used in a later case and rebutted by the Court. I looked and did not find this to be true. And other recent constitutional scholars have reached the same conclusion. The only reason suggested by anyone for this dearth of case law is that this particular finding is “unorthodox” — but it still stands.
What does this all mean? A ton! It means that the various governments have no legal jurisdiction to bring civil or criminal claims against any U.S. citizen or their property on the state’s behalf or on the behalf of any other part (but a private citizen or jury can), that the courts have no power to issue summons, that issues of fact involving private U.S. citizens can only be determined by an impartial jury of our peers and not a judge or prosecutor, that U.S. citizens may not be treated criminal suspects or as threats to any person or community by the state (but, again, a jury or private citizen do not have this limitation), that the state is obligated to provide for any citizen’s food, shelter, or medical needs if they cannot provide such for themselves without such support, and that the definition of criminal or civil conduct is defined by existing principles of law that relate to equal co-sovereignties and not public statute when it comes to citizens. This is not an exhaustive list by any means and I have cause to believe that there is reason for people on both ends of the political spectrum to take interest.
The full argument here is quite lengthy and I’ve been working hard to bring it to maturity and establish standing in court to present it but I’m providing this as an introduction to the public hoping for feedback and constructive criticism. I will be closely monitoring any comments and will hopefully address such in future postings.