“The poorest man may in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England may not enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.”

Can subscribers receive the citation for these quotations--date, document, occastion, book etc.?

True - unless the King and his armed forces have a mandate like George W Bush claimed on his re-election - that is "a mandate to do whatever he pleases." And, it appears, to whomsoever he pleases. GWB certainly knows how to power-trip!

We do our level best to cite all quotes. Whatever we know about a quote, we send in the Quote-A-Day email. The source has been updated. Thanks.

Perhaps the Supreme Court should read this quote and comprehend what it means!

Ahhh, that such sentiment and/or mentality still existed.

A romantic statement that sounds lofty except for the fact that such a tenement exists because the forces of society, inequality, oppression and poor governance have already intruded thereon. The King may not be seated in the parlour but he is there in spirit.

King George may not enter, but he may send the BATFE to break down your door without a warrant. And if you don't exit your home to be arrested in a timely manner the FBI may burn you out.

When the people forget their rights, they no longer have them.

Strong words there, I like 'em.

Joe, Rochester, is right, and don't forget the good old DEA who may break your door down and shoot you dead.

We our Soverign in our homes unless they of course get a warrant. We are not soverign in the streets and public places, neither were the English.

Waffler, who determined this distinction? You? It must've been because nothing in our Constitution and its intent say that.

Waffler, what is the lawful nexus that converts a porch sovereign into a street slave? By what legal nexus is a sovereign's servant superior to his master in simile to royalty over their chattel or otherwise servants? What lawful nexus removes unalienable rights endowed by a Creator when the porch sovereign steps into the street of slaves? I smile at all your made up definitions to words justifying your happy slaveness ;-)

If there is a significant difference between the UK and the USA, this quote captures it. Everyman's home is his castle! We have forgotten the concept of "everyman." We have allowed our government to cross this fundamental line in the sand, and it is our loss. Civilization across the ages remains an attempt to delineate the rights of the individual, the duties of a citizen, and the power of the state. Christ said, "Render unto caesar the things that are caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." He fails in this doctrine to address the right's of man. At age 66 I suddenly and for the first time find this curious. I will stop right there!

A soveriign can do anything he or she wants to without consequence. You can do this in your home unless you abuse others or violate building codes. In the street you must drive on the right side, may not spit on the sidewalk etcetera. You are not soverign. Mike often avows Christianity and religion. The word religion conotes rules, laws, The Ten Commandments. Someone who is under the Ten Commandments is not at all soverign, but beholding to THE KING! Will you guys ever get it!

Waffler, thanks, those are brand new definitions and applications to me. I've written, here in this blog, the original legal definitions out of official law dictionaries, early Supreme Court cases and otherwise, and they are all different from yours. Once you redefine all the terms, the original understanding vanishes so, you can make up what ever fits your slave's justification and religion. OK, now I get it. "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe) for: "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." (Lenin)

Oh, and by the way Waffler, religiously, as was a major founding principle of the United States (setting that domicile apart from the rest of the world), yours and mine rights derive from the King of the universe, we being heirs to our Father in heaven's kingdom. As children to the Eternal King, We The People, each and every, any and all are sovereign by birth, in totality, everywhere, and at all times in this temporal domain.

Whoe is sovereign Mike you or The Lord. Now don't double talk, only one of you can be sovereign, make your choice.

Waffler, I'll go with the Lord's, the founder's, the law dictionary's, the original court's and historical understanding of sovereignty, not yours; The Lord is sovereign, and, I, as one of God's children, are both sovereign. You can be a slave in whatever tyrannical state you choose. You can even give up your individual sovereignty in favor of what the mob tells you to do. Have fun.

Waffler says "A soveriign can do anything he or she wants to without consequence." No, that is not sovereignty, that is omnipotence -- you seem to have trouble making the distinction between power and rights. Up until the American Revolution, all Englishman, were 'subjects' of the Crown, the Sovereign. They did not own land but some were given title to land by the Crown for their loyalty and to tax those living on the land, as well the Crown could take whatever properties any of his subjects had, too, and send them to the Tower on whatever charges he wanted. A hierarchy of power evolved with each man being lorded over another and lording over others. The American colonies declared the separation from this system (obviously 'illegal' from the point of view of the King) and the American Revolution was the fight for that declaration and that separation. What ensued was the Treaty of Paris in which the King signed away any claim to those lands and the American people. Each colony became an independent state with the land patents in hand. FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, the common man could OWN land outright, just like the Crown used to, with no power for anyone to tax it or take it -- he of course was responsible just as any sovereign is responsible for defending it. You see, with freedom comes responsibility -- this is a Law of Nature, no one is free from the consequences of his own actions. An American sovereign HAS NO SUBJECTS and must respect the sovereignty of his fellow Americans as well. He is responsible for his own survival and productivity, and he is responsible for partnering with fellow sovereigns to help protect his lands/property as well as his fellow man's -- he does not give up his sovereignty to defend his sovereignty! Once a sovereign accepts payment for specific services, he must KEEP HIS WORD. Freedom requires the highest standards of virtue and honor. So what governs a sovereign? His honor, his integrity, his responsibility to his family, his community, and his state. Americans have not lived like this for a long time. We should be wary when some politician comes around saying, "vote for me, and I will seize the property of those richer than you and me, and I will redistribute it to us." If we were to give a man such power over us, how could he be trusted? He can't! And he shouldn't. But those that have become debtors, that have gambled and lost, that have squandered their inheritance, or merely covet their neighbors goods, use their collective power to twist the law to prey upon others because it is 'fair.' Nature's God has his work, and Man has his -- and to rule over other men is not a right in a Republic -- we hire government administrators to follow the rules set forth for them, and a public officer operating in his official capacity is accountable for his actions, not because he is not a sovereign, but because keeping his word and obeying the Constitution is a REQUIREMENT for the position of trust, and if he is found to use his office for personal gain, it is treasonous and the punishment for such is usually quite harsh. At least that is the way it is supposed to be.

Archer, thanks, you know I'm smiling and shaking my head. Even though what you said couldn't be said more accurately, with more truth, or more clearly, Waffler won't get it.

I won't get it because I won't read it!

Those were the days.

Waffler, no one ever learns unless they read or listen.

Waffler, will you please tell us the blissfulness of ignorance, lies and slavery ?

Five stars for the quote ...
I think poor Waffler has a drinking (or some other substance) problem. That would explain quite a bit.

Mike, it comes down to this, you are only as sovereign as the arbitrary will of an unchecked power -- in this case, whatever Waffler believes is so, IS so. ;-)

Forget about your natural born rights, your rights are subject to the dictates of government officials. You can't be permitted to knock out a wall in your house without a building permit -- the reason is simple, the property is not yours! Same for the driving rules -- you have to obey because it is not your car.

I agree with you, Mike, that we are free, sovereign, and responsible -- however, the State does not recognize us as such. The primary reason is the merging of common law and commercial law jurisdictions into one in the New Deal. According to the jurisprudence of the common law, all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are acknowledged as inherent in every living person. The commercial law jurisdiction does not acknowledge any 'rights' of its commercial entities (now called 'persons').

Commercial law is the law of contracts -- when promises are not kept, disputes are handled in a commercial court -- there are no criminal penalties in a commercial court. As a result, now people are treated as commercial entities with signed contracts with the State. We must wear seat belts because that was one of the terms agreed to when getting a drivers license, which was only required for commercial transport over public roads. In our mortgage agreements we agree to obey the commercial laws pertaining to real estate, so we have to follow the building code laws. Essentially, the sovereign citizen has signed away his common law rights in exchange for commercial privileges.

A return to common law principles solves the sovereign citizen problem. It will, however, require the restoration of gold and silver as money (or at the very least, certificates backed by hard commodities). The reason being, that as long as we are using commercial paper (IOUs) for financial transactions, we are operating not as common law sovereign citizens, but trading commercial paper for profit.

It would be a big break for the Common Law if those decrying the 'corporate take-over of America' to realize that it is the commercial takeover of American law that is the true cause of our mountain of debt representing a mountain of unfulfilled promises. And if the Occupy Wall Street movement had managed to properly identify the real cause of economic meltdown, a big step could have been made in the right direction.

Well said Archer :)

Archer why are you not in the public realm as a representative or like ilk.?

Won't the king ask: what good is it being king if I can't oppress at least the poor tenement owner?