Just when I feel comfortable in opposing some crazy theory and idea you have, you go and get all legit... <---meant to be funny! hahah
Seriously, because you're not Shirley, you are absolutely right on the "Whole whose fault is it" topic.
I believe that US citizens have this entitlement idea that we do not have to do hard labor any more, or at least the hard labor we don't want to do. I know Ruffian probably works her ass off, as well as Mr. Fix and many others.
But way to many have gotten comfortable with the idea that "they" should not have to do something and just go to school and learn something else. Problem, Supply and demand... Jobs available are not jobs young people want. TRADES!!!!!
Trades and agricultural work. Who is doing it? Immigrants, no different than the way it was done 200 years ago.
Irish, Mexicans, Chinese ---- all immigrants and all cheap labor! Second and third generation wanted to get edumucated and not have to work hard long hours making peasnuts... So, how did we get here?!?!
Let the good times roll baby, let the good times roll. We have more than enough (cough cough) and LBJ opened the spicket to feed the masses, yeah on the Edumucation department too...
I lay the blame squarely on our parents who voted for this crap in the 60's and 70's. Or I could lay it on the people who stole in the 1910's... Or maybe......... Anyway, you get it.
Clean it up by taking it away. Gonna have a lot of pissed off people... Making these people work to eat, what kind of ass are you?!?!?
So….this guy doesn’t have much anything new on ETs – as far as I’m concerned. He’s a perfect example of com-part-mental-ization in the blk ops. And he clearly was not in that deep. The deep ones never get out. But, he does make a statement that supports what I’ve been told personally by the guy who designed the radar mentioned. The Roswell UFOs, were brought-down by us, probably accidently on that occasion. Quite on purpose on all following occasions.
OBTW, it was most likely their “ground following” radar that we messed-up. And, it was definitely the ''ground following radar'' that the Iranians messed up, on that top secret USAF drone they captured intact, that we got so fkn bent out-of-shape about.
I start the video at the place where he mentions that we brought them down with radar
Ruffian wrote: No one has a right to come here. You earn your right to be one. Hoover, FDR, 41 changed that and now we find ourselves in this mess.
No one has a right to come here. You earn your right to be one. Hoover, FDR, 41 changed that and now we find ourselves in this mess.
I'd open this question to those who have studied this issue of Freedom of Movement. Freedom of movement not to be interpreted as the right to enter private property or allow anybody to come in that represents a security or health threat. If you advocate that only government has the right to permit people to enter or leave, and you are an advocate for state rights, that would make it permissible for states to limit your freedom of movement.
If you want Mexican's to stop coming to America, stop the geopolitical and financial causes that create the demand for them to come here. If you want Muslims to stop coming here, the same. And then it's only a question of how to rectify the destruction of property perpetrated by the West, no different than if I went to your home and destroyed it. Based on early common law, I'd be responsible for making amends for the amount that I destroyed. Jail benefits the state. NOt the victim.
Chinese weren't a problem in this country as long as they were subjucated to slavery building the railroads. They were often tolerated if not welcome. President Chester Arthur was the first President to pass a law as Trump has just passed outlawing immigration of Chinese. It lasted until 1943. It was the republican's that repealed the act. Do you know why they blocked chinese from coming into this country? Gold.
As the gold rush was dying down, the Chinese proved to be unwanted competition for domestic miner's. So it was an act of trade protectionism. When the United States wanted to create good relationships with China, they repealed the act. Trade protectionism-war. A more open policy-good relations.
For 8 years, the right screamed at Obama for violation of Article one of the constitution and his constant executive orders. That cry has suddenly disappeared.
Trump has one out. Declare war time. Announce the enemy and they are engaged in a civil war and that would give him the constitutional right to declare martial law or pass emergency acts to protect our borders from the outside.
Trump has many lucrative properties in the Middle East in Muslim Countries. So he knows like many travelers that not all Muslims cut of female parts.
The issue of allowing a flood of war refugee's in like Europe is not an issue of freedom of movement when government is shipping them in and destroying their homes at the same time.
1st ...read your laws, they hide everything in plain site
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law. In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain national acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with national law. In this respect, the Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them." A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, at least when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself. No matter what the federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of the whole American political structure.
Ultra vires treaties
A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic laws. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a "manifest violation" is required such that it would be "objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision.
Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.
According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under international law, the act will not assume international legality even if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with domestic law, international law will always prevail.[1
2nd The nations of the earth have worked hard setting the ground rules and the courts and judges know this. There is plausible deniability for the judiciary to not over rule governments that run countries, as it is a well established principle of law that courts will PRESUME that domestic law conforms to international law. This is rebuttable but the onus is on the person whose rights have been infringed to bring the infringement to the courts attention.
3rd you don't have rights unless you protect them and the system is set up so that a third party can't defend your rights, you must know the law. Turn off the telly and study or don't the choice is yours.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the USA is a signatory and has ratified
1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.
2. There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.
1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
Hey, the Nations of the world agreed that you can come and go as you please from the country of your birth. They have not guaranteed that you can go live in other countries as a right ( unless I have misinterpreted the treaties/covenants).I would argue that Trump is within international law as the Chief Executive of the USA feels that he needs to protect National Security which is allowed by the ICCPR
4th I don't make the rules but they are there to be used to free you from the system.
5th The government has built a system of extraction that is evil but elegant in its efficiency. There is remedy and they do not let you access the remedy without putting up a fight. But then again emancipation should be hard to achieve so that the sweetness of your victory is commiserate with the effort of the fight
Silver66 Rage against the dying of the light
It's been a long day, and I just got your reply from this morning.
The presidents personal counsel is called a solicitor Gen. He's the one that is suppose to tell the president's legal options.
I am certain that Donald Trump has adequate legal counsel. He always has, and just like he's replaced the secret service with his own private mercenaries, he's not using a government issued lawyer to determine his choices.
I have no idea who his solicitor Gen. is.
The attorney general, is the chief prosecutor in the United States. This is the person who theoretically should be prosecuting crimes against the United States. For example, when our attorney general was Loretta Lynch, it didn't matter how much evidence was presented against Hillary, apparently, the FBI had something like 33,000 counts of treason on her, but nobody to prosecute it. Loretta Lynch was much too busy prosecuting White police officers for violating the rights of the blacks they arrested, or killed.
Draining the swamp would be impossible without an Atty. Gen. willing to take on the job.
Speaking of prosecutors,
In my particular case, I went to the court just prior to my hearing, and requested the "Oath of office" of the judge, and the prosecuting attorney.
The prosecutor did not have one on file, and finally filled one out after I requested it. Technically speaking, the thousands of prosecutions he performed over the past few years were all illegal. I had taken him out before the game even began.
The police officer did not have his documentation either, and never filed his sworn affidavit, and of course, I brought one of my own.
My next step would have been to sue the police officer, and sue the prosecutor, since neither of them were performing their duties legally.
I also had already proven that the records officer at the County sheriffs Department lied when he told me that the recording of the incident did not exist.
With a copy of the tape that they gave me, and a copy of the owners manual of the squad cars dashboard camera, I was able to prove that the incident in question had been edited out. I had them all on perjury.
I also had the county clerk on perjury, when she told me that the police officers supporting deposition was not a requirement. It was.
The whole lot of them cleared the courthouse when I came up, and had a private session in the judges chamber, before she finally through out the case.
Technically, at that point, I didn't have anything on the judge yet, but if she had preceded any further, it would've been malicious prosecution without any evidence on her part. She has no legal way to deny my motion to dismiss.
I would've happily argued it myself in front of a jury, by filing my own case against them in a higher court.
You could say she made the right choice, but I doubt if it was from a sense of higher morality.
It was the only way she could save herself and the rest of her criminal cohorts.
In America, you can't win these cases, unless you have leverage over the criminals in charge.
I did my homework, and I got lucky.
Yes yes, sniffing-out the true nature of the moooslim religulous brothers, is all terribly interesting (yawn), but if yur looking for a good bed-time story, this guy is pretty damn interesting. I got interested in his logic when he gave his view, right at the beginning, on Ed Snowden and Julian Assange; SeeEyeAye certified and approved for publication. Nice application of logic - now I'm perking up. See if you agree. Good presentation on the very old TR-3B, ( our first big home-grown triangular type interplanetary vehicle -not a UFO- by any means~!), NASA, Moon bases, Mars bases, etc, enjoy.
Thanks for the ready-made bedtime story, I just love that kind of stuff.
I will post a synopsis when I wake up.
Can you have both?
Mr. Fix said that there is a way to win any argument through the use of knowledge of rhetoric. Sure, Dr. Jerome and many others have written on that subject.
So I’m going to help you out and reveal the hole in my argument that nobody has pointed out. It’s not my job, but for the good of the whole, I”m going to help out the Pro-Trump peeps this just one time.
It all starts with a questioned posed by Abe Lincoln.
“Must a government, of necessity,be too strong for the liberties of its own people or too weak to maintain its own existence?” Abraham Lincoln said those words.
Isn’t not obvious we are now faced with the same predicament that Abraham Lincoln faced during the civil war?
The question we are facing here is one of form vs outcomes. I am arguing form and in some cases consequences of not adhering to the form set up by our founders.
You guys are trying to find a way to tell me that form does not take precedence, outcomes do and probably due to a little political correctness about the constitution, you either won’t say fuck the constitution or you want to try to say that the constitution doesn’t say what you are saying it says. That would be a very bad argument to take up against my argument. Anybody who takes the time to consider the issue on a constitutional basis only at best can only conclude, I disagree with the interpretation of the constitution or say it's antiquated and it doesn't apply in these times. Are you sure?
There is indeed a higher law than the Constitution. And that is where the constitution comes from. It would take a profoundly deeply connected person to ignore the Constitution and adhere to divine or natural law. Possible? Sure. But one in a million.
You want to take yourself out of the frame of the constitutional argument and use the high ground maneuver and reframe it as outcomes or divine rights which the Constitution is supposed to protect but because it is a written law, it can only go so far and I’ve said in the past.in some ways, the Constitution is nothing but a series of mob checks and checks so government employee's don't abuse their positions. You want to make a case that the circumstances that our country faces at this time merit at least a temporary restrain on the Constitution to pursue a higher good. Here would be an example.
Lincoln made extraordinary use of his powers during wartime, including suspending the writ of habeas corpus, shutting down opposition newspapers, arresting antiwar agitators and issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, all of which seemed to go well beyond the more limited powers of a constitutional executive. Lincoln characteristically defended these decisions on the grounds of “military necessity,” measures he deemed necessary to save the Union.
What good is the Constitution if it prohibits you from taking down all the criminals? Soro’s? Clinton? Stopping the flow of illegal immigrants, could be terrorists? Now that you quoted Abe Lincoln, you awkwardly take me out of my frame and reframe it both that it is legitimate in certain situations and that it has been done. Do not even try to make the argument that it is constitutional because you'll only get frustrated and curse me. And you'll be forced to make the argument that the Constitution is just dead weight.
Once you have necessity as his motive. You'll have to answer the following.
who is to judge the necessity? Does invoking the necessity doctrine not invest the president with the powers of a dictator?
You're on the ropes again. It's unclear to me if Trump is having the deep moments of quiet contemplation that Lincoln had, or if he is just being a bull in a China shop and forgoing all thoughts of a constitutional basis and just saying, I will do this by sheer force. That's what it looks like to me, and that was the commentary prior to the election by Austin Fitts. But how do I know what he is thinking. I can only see his actions and doesn't look like to me that he is considered this paradox. Let's see how Lincoln dealt with it.
When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, he knew that he was doing something deeply radical and that he was vulnerable from those who were prepared to wage war to defend the Union but would balk at the idea of a war to emancipate slaves. But there were also those who believed from the outset that the Emancipation Proclamation had not gone far enough. It applied only to those states then in rebellion, but said nothing about slavery in the border states where slavery was still permitted. Lincoln’s secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, for example, favored more radical measures. Responding to Chase, Lincoln wrote on Sept. 2, 1863 that “if I take the step must I not do so, without the argument of military necessity, and so, without any argument, except the one that I think the measure politically expedient and morally right? Would I not thus give up all footing upon constitution or law? Would I not thus be in the boundless field of absolutism?”
Unless one can both lead through self-restrained, a quality Trump seems to lack, lead with boldness and with Constitutional restraint. Do we not see this predicament by the mob protesting outside that they want to secede and deny Trump as their president. Michael Moore has proposed a coupe. We've been in a similar predicament before.
A second case of Lincoln’s exercise of constitutional restraint concerned the principle of election. His rejection of the secessionist thesis was that it made the operation of free government impossible. If a minority could secede every time it disapproved of the outcome of the vote of the majority, the result would be a swift descent into anarchy. To be sure, the vote of the majority does not confer an absolute power to do what it wanted. But the principle of regular election, Lincoln believed, could provide a check on what popular majorities would be prepared to do. In any case, to give to the minority a permanent veto over the majority was the negation of self-government. “A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people,” Lincoln told his audience in the First Inaugural Address.
To his infinite credit, Lincoln realized that free elections should not, even in principle, be sacrificed even if the cost might be the end of constitutional government. For constitutional leadership, the ends do not justify the means. Constitutional leadership is necessarily limited or bounded leadership. It is in this possibility of a leader operating within the limits of constitutional restraint that the hope of our republic rests.
I know the hatred that exists here on Lincoln. But from all my reading on him, besides being a flawed man, he was a genius. He knew that he must make changes slowly otherwise the mob would erupt into chaos. And there is where I reach the conclusion that the mob can't handle too much information for the result will be what we have now. Lincoln knew that. Trump, may and not care or he simply doesn't understand it.
Silver66: What makes international law a higher priority than Constitutional or Sovereign Law? Because government agreed to it? Because it is sanctioned by the UN? Isn’t Divine Rights and Privileges under natural law higher than all of them?
A person gives himself freedom by not encroaching upon the freedom’s or being a burden on another human being.
Trump not only has a right but he has an obligation to protect the borders and the people. But Does he have a right to revoke a privilege that was bestowed on others who have not broken their covenant of those rights by anything other than their place of birth?
Refugee’s create a burden on others when they cannot pay their way. Our government created that debt and wants to pass that burden on to you. And you’re pissed about it. Can our government fulfill their burden of making reparation without burdening you or do you also have a burden under natural law?
Mexican’s can be either a burden or an asset. When they are working and creating production, creating profits for their owners and other people, contributing to GNP, they are an asset. Right? If they are accepting welfare or taking more from the system, then they are giving they are drain. What caused that drain? Our government and people’s desire for free stuff.
Green Lantern you said Jim Sinclair was running a Ponzi. Where is your evidence?
You say you qualify everything you state. Where is your evidence.
Was that statement just hot air, pure fabrication on your part? You know, what is commonly known as a LIE?
... but you should still watch this because she is an even dirtier whore than you thought.
sengfarmer wrote: Jim Sinclair was running a Ponzi.
Jim Sinclair was running a Ponzi.
What do you guys think, angry old man looking for resolution in his life?
Based on the cognitive data provided here is Sengfarmer's above statement an effective persuasion tool? If so, for who, him or me?
How successful is sengfarmer in establishing an alternative fact?
Would somebody here like to help him out?
GL you answered your question within your question. International law recognizes the rights of the Human being. Here is the preamble to the ICCPR
The States Parties to the present Covenant,
Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,
Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,
Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms,
Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant,
Agree upon the following articles:
If something is recognized then it must already exist. Therefore the State parties (which are not the political parties running government) agreed that there are rights that are antecedent to the creation of any state.
The protection of these rights by the state party has been agreed upon thru international law. These protections are brought into domestic law one of three ways; through the constitutional process, through statutes and regulations or other. Other is a polite way to say the common law.
The Canadian Judicial Council published a paper in May 2016 titled Why Is Judicial Independence Important To You? On page 9, 3rd paragraph, first sentence is the following;
The judicial power refers to the types, levels and hierarchy of courts whose responsibility it is to interpret and apply the law, including the Constitution, statutes and regulations, jurisprudence and leading precedents.
It is clear that three different law systems are being brought forth in this sentence. Most importantly when we read Article 52 (1) of the Charter and the word of the court in Attorney General vs Sam Lévy et Associés Inc. We see that Constitutional Law can be used to rule on Civil Law or settle matters of Civil Law but it is not Civil Law. Likewise, Constitutional Law can rule on Common Law or settle matters of Common Law but it is not Common Law.
Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),  1 SCR 3, 2002 SCC 1 (CanLII)
The inquiry into the principles of fundamental justice is informed not only by Canadian experience and jurisprudence, but also by international law, including jus cogens. This takes into account Canada’s international obligations and values as expressed in “[t]he various sources of international human rights law — declarations, covenants,
Németh v. Canada (Justice),  3 SCR 281, 2010 SCC 56 (CanLII)
340 I also accept, of course, that, where possible, statutes should be interpreted in a way which makes their provisions consistent with Canada’s international treaty obligations and principles of international law.
Here is a recent case where the Justice confirms this principle:
R. v. Hynes,  3 SCR 623, 2001 SCC 82
53 Another tenet of our law is that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms rights belong to all Canadians. They are not rights granted by the court. The court’s function is to identify them.
How do we know the State party is different from the political party in power which forms the government at the time. We need just look to the laws that have been passed and see what they say:
R.S.C., 1985, c. 22 (4th Supp.)
WHEREAS the safety and security of the individual, the protection of the values of the body politic and the preservation of the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the state are fundamental obligations of government;
AND WHEREAS the fulfilment of those obligations in Canada may be seriously threatened by a national emergency and, in order to ensure safety and security during such an emergency, the Governor in Council should be authorized, subject to the supervision of Parliament, to take special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times;
AND WHEREAS the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency;
Domestic courts recognize there are rights that are not created by the government and here is a Canadian court using US law to make a point
Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission
While individuals as a rule have full legal capacity by the operation of law alone, artificial persons are creatures of the state and enjoy civil rights and powers only upon the approval of statutory authorities.
The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
The first paragraph above is the judge discussing fundamental rights and civil rights. The second is from later in the judgement where he refers to US case law. (anyone is free to look this up).
Enough for now, let me finish with this. You have rights, the courts know this, it is hard to access the correct court and level to protect your rights.Once you decipher the language you will see that the responsibility to protect the “natural law” is written into all legislation. It is just really well hidden. Why, because if people understood how to protect their rights from intrusion by the government there would be a whole lot less revenue for the beast !!
silver66 wrote: Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,
Most excellent Silver66!!
So if I apply what you have discovered, which was always there, that means the rights of Syrian refugee's, including those who were previously granted Visa's and then were revoked, enjoy inalienable civil and political freedom, that can never be revoked, including from fear of being forced out of their country by carpet bombing their homes. And any country who either participated in, or supported these actions now has a responsibility to rememdy the situation? Or does international law not deal with remedies?
If there is some form of precedence on resitution, which I believe there is because I posted it before, are we able to go look through early common law or international law to determine the restitution for violating somebodies God given rights?
And what is the level of proof necessary for pre-emptive action against an unknown threat? For instance, can we jail every Japanese in this country through executive order because somebody determines they are a threat or is that a violation of international law? And by the terms of natural law, must the country, government and citizenship, provide restitution to the victims?
Lastly, Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Lindsey Graham all suggested that the United States Military invade Syria and create safe zones without the permission of the sovereign state. This would require an invading force, and occupying troops. It has now been decided by Donald Trump that HIllary Clinton's idea was a good one and with the agreement of Russia and Turkey which have also flip flopped on the issue now that Trump is President, have all agreed that they will participate in the invading force or support it. Without invoking any believe's or emotions or party partisanship, do these countries have an obligation or right to do this?
Silver66 is off the wall Smhat.
Lastly, Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Lindsey Graham all suggested that the United States Military invade Syria and create safe zones without the permission of the sovereign state. This would require an invading force, and occupying troops. It has now been decided by Donald Trump that HIllary Clinton's idea was a good one and with the agreement of Russia and Turkey which have also flip flopped on the issue now that Trump is President, have all agreed that they will participate in the invading force or support it. Without invoking any believe's or emotions or party partisanship, do these countries have an obligation or right to do this? McCain and Graham, our favorite neo-cons, also endorsed this strategy under Bush. I beleieve they call it country building. What does natural law have to say about this form of action. Encroachment or not?
Let's be careful with language GL (and no I am not being a smartass) You have several different ideas going on here. IMO you do not want civil rights. See my post with reference to Thompson Newspapers. Individuals can operate in different legal capacities hence why everyone is guaranteed the security of the person. Artificial person are creatures of the state and enjoy only CERTAIN rights and privileges. Let's also be careful that in law in Canada, a citizen is a certain class of person and I believe in the US citizen in law means something else depending on the context ( how is that for being wishy washy).
The courts have been clear that individual must defend their rights and the onus is on the individual to show exactly what right has been limited and abridged. A blanket suit against the government has been tried for protection from something that could happen in the future and the courts are very clear that does not fly. Shitty, but thems' the rules of the game. To go biblical Hosea 4:6. The system has been put in place that if an individual truly knows his rights he is free.
Here is a court case explain the above point
This statement of claim was struck, notwithstanding the general hesitancy of the courts to strike, because the facts disclosed no reasonable cause of action (1) under s. 24(1) of the Charter, (2) under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 or (3) under the common law power to grant declaratory relief. To succeed in their claim for relief under s. 24 of the Charter the plaintiffs would have to establish a violation or threat of violation of their right under s. 7 of the Charter. To obtain a declaration of unconstitutionality under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, the plaintiffs would have to show that the government's decision to test the cruise missile in Canada was inconsistent with their right under s. 7. To obtain declaratory relief at common law, they would have to establish a violation or threatened violation of their right under s. 7.
The government's decision to test the cruise missile in Canada does not give rise to a violation or threatened violation of the plaintiffs' right under s. 7. Even an independent, substantive right to life, liberty and security of the person cannot be absolute. It must take account of the corresponding rights of others and of the right of the state to protect the collectivity as well as the individual against external threats. The central concern of the section is direct impingement by government upon the life, liberty and personal security of individual citizens. It does not extend to incidental effects of governmental action in the field of inter‑state relations.
There is at the very least a strong presumption that governmental action concerning the relation of the state with other states, and not directed at any member of the immediate political community, was never intended to be caught by s. 7 even although such action may incidentally increase the risk of death or injury that individuals generally have to face.
The individual is incompatible with society, but society can accommodate the individual.
As for your question about remedy and restitution happening because of aggression between two state parties. I have no idea but would highly doubt that would be possible, again shitty but reality.
Now if a Syrian refugee was in the USA and the government took action at the destruction of one of his inalienable rights/fundamental rights then he would have recourse through a court of competent jurisdiction to seek protection. First he would have to know that his rights were violated, then he would have to know how to access the courts ....Hell the courts have told us exactly what we must do to win a claim against them
Gauthier (Gisborn) v. The Queen, 2006 TCC 290 (CanLII)
 For the Appellants' claim to succeed they must plead:
(i) the exact nature of the right claimed;
(ii) the actions taken by the party pursuant to that right;
(iii) the infringing statute; and
(iv) the historical background to establish the right.
Simple ..right. Not at all but once you figure out the game, its game on
Again enough for now
Silver66, Thanks for the really awesome reply. I am going to read and study later. Your efforts are truly appreciated!!
Goldtop: My deepest sympathies if the loss that made the news today is close to home.
Where is the evidence? Why did you ask others to supply the evidence when you made the statement Jim Sinclair was running a Ponzi?
Was it just hot air? Were you lying, or do you have evidence?
I noticed how you wrote that I said "Jim Sinclair was running a Ponzi", taking it out of context and implying I made the statement when I am calling you out on making it.
You can call me anything you want to try to discredit me, it's not about me. It's about you making a slanderous statement about Jim Sinclair without any evidence.
Sooner or later you are going to have to back up your statement or retract it. Very simple.