Talk:Sovereign citizen movement

Merger?

The page Sovereign Citizens was redirected here, then the redirect was undone, so it seems we need to discuss whether or not it really is a separate concept from this movement. Personally, I'm not sure I see evidence that it is. Thoughts anyone? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE BY CYNICAL PATRIOT - PAGE ORIGINATOR ====

No Merger - The Founding Father's meant the Concept of Sovereign Citizens as a paradigm from previous forms of government. In previous forms of government, 1 or a few people were the sovereigns. (Devine Right of Kings) The Founding Fathers envisioned Each Citizen as an independent Sovereign in a Constitutional Republic.

As such, certain fundamental rights could not be taken from them by a majority except in criminal matters and times of National Emergency, and then only temporarily.(10th Amendment) The Founding Father's concept of government provided that Elected officials would be Servants of the Citizens, rather than royalty or aristocrats.

The Sovereign Citizen movement believes that they are not subject to any law they did not agree to.

Two Totally different concepts,

The first, Founding Father Sovereign Citizenship, subscribing to the Laws of the Constitutional Republic.

The second, the Sovereign Citizen Movement, subscribing to a philosophy of anarchy, refusing to submit to any law they don't agree with.

Obviously the Founding Fathers concept, taught to me in public schools in the 1970's and referenced by Ronald Reagan in Speeches given in 1964 predate the more recent usurpation of the term by the anarchist Sovereign Citizenship Movement. [Sovereign Citizens As our Founding Father's intended! 2:59m-6:25m http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY ] The beginning of the Sovereign Citizen movement is referenced as the Posse Comatatus which began in 1969. Though I dispute the alleged logicial linear relationship of the Posse Comatatus to the Sovereign Citizenship movement, even if we accept it as the beginning of said movement, it was 5 years after this speech, 190 years after the revolution and 180 years after the constitution and Locke, etc.

And I haven't been running around telling people I am not subject to any law because i did not agree to it. It is an insult to the Founding Father's that someone would attribute anarchy to them.

This seems to be a thinly veiled attempt to rewrite history.

Or, don't they teach you folks anything about American History and the Revolution in High School any more?

CynicalPatriot, (CynicalPatriot (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)) the original poster of the this article.

============================

comment on civility - I reserve the right to get upset when the uneducated, or worse, the duplicituous attempt to rewrite history. It was an insult that this person denied that which I learned in high school civics and in my own studies. 7/27/2009 Cynical Patriot (CynicalPatriot (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

===========================

I propose we remove the term "Sovereign Citizenship movement" from Wikipedia and lump in whatever philosphy the usurpers of the terms Posse Comatatus or White Supremecists or tax protesters. 07/27/2009 Cynical Patriot(CynicalPatriot (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

===========================

In the radical anarchist version of "Sovereign Citizen Movement" the author cites some article written in 2008 as his cite for referring to "Sovereign Citizenship Movement" How does a publication written in 2008 usurp a term used by the founding fathers 200 years earlier and a reference to that term by former president Reagan in 1964? That article needs to be completely removed or rewritten... it is an attempt to rewrite history. or is that the intent of Wikipedia? Unless the someone can demonstrate "real" as opposed to "usurped" connection of the alleged "Sovereign Citenship Movement" to the Sovereign Citizenship the Founding Fathers intended and former President Ronald Reagan referred to in the 1964 speech, I am going to delete reference to Posse Comitatus, montana freemen and self ownership from the Sovereign Citizens entry I originated. These were added after I created teh entry. The usurpation of the Founding fathers concept of Sovereign Citizenship concept seems to be both an attempt to gain credibility by the various groups espousing Anarchy and attempt to discredit Citizens who wish Elected officials to adhere to the Founding Father's Intentions that Elected officials be Public Servants and not Sovereigns of WE THE PEOPLE ========================================(CynicalPatriot (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)) 07/27/2009

—Preceding unsigned comment added by CynicalPatriot (talk • contribs) 02:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't Agree With Merger

There is a difference between the concept of sovereign citizenship and the Sovereign Citizen movement, particularly here in the U.S., as a worthwhile subject. Unless there was some other reason behind the original merger. Njsamizdat (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This matter is now at WP:AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sovereign Citizens. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to be re-evaluated. The first paragraph is total garbage. The word "Anarchist" or "Anarchy" is much too strong, and immediately sends the topic in the wrong direction. Thanks, and sorry if I am not doing this the proper way.

–

Slander

There is nothing inherently racist about this ideology. And citing fear mongers like the ADL and SPLC is a violation of wikipedia's rules. These groups are openly anti-sovereign citizen and make no secret of their bias against the ideology. Neither of those is a valid source.

The whole end of the article needs to be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.14.126 (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) and SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) would be considered reliable third party sources for purposes of Wikipedia. Clue: In Wikipedia, there is no requirement that the source itself be "unbiased" or that a source "not make a secret of its bias." Please review Wikipedia rules on Neutral Point of View (NPOV). Even if these groups are "openly anti-sovereign citizen", that would not in and of itself be a valid objection for using the source in a Wikipedia article. Famspear (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Claim vs Declare

You don't apply or make a claim for being sovereign. You DECLARE sovereignty. Please reword the first paragraph if you can grasp this. 68.28.105.227 (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This article states "In March of 2010 a group calling itself the Guardians of the Free Republics issued letters to at least 30 US state governors threatening violence if they did not leave office within 3 days" - attributed to the Huufuington Post. Yet the AP story cited by Huffington states "Investigators do not see threats of violence in the group's messageItalic text, but fear the broad call for removing top state officials could lead others to act out violently." [Emphasis added.] Generously, this could be the fallacy of extension, but in any case, it is a clear misstatement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.151.200 (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Racism Smear

I am removing this section as it appears to simply be unverifiable claim made in an "intelligence report", extrapolated to denigrate anyone who associates themselves with this group of people. Even if a couple people in the 70s used this term, that needs to be clearly and specifically stated instead of attempting to discredit the entire movement with allegations of racism.--82.43.47.6 (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)