pull down to refresh
True, though upon further study I don't think James Wilson believed that the sovereignty of the individual entitles them to "opt out" of the laws. Despite his wording here, he probably believed more in the social theory of consent.
Maybe. I wasn't referring to him specifically but more broadly.
The gripe I have with so called "sovereign citizens" is that they seem to believe they can say magic phrases to get out of things governments want to require. This requires a trust in the consistency and honesty in the legal system I simply can't maintain. I've talked to various "law enforcement" officers with experience with these people and I have yet to hear of an example where something ended well for them. Not saying it never happens but I have never heard of a case where it has.
Not saying you can't use the law in your favor or represent yourself but rather that you are always at the mercy of the legal system and often the whims of a judge. We have a lot history of judges abusing power especially individual sovereignty.
That said, the ideas of individual sovereignty seem to me to be assumed by the US founding documents and the founders.
To contrast with today, judges find the ideas of liberty weird and dangerous. It's not surprising since we are not taught these ideals in government schools. We are told we have rights but not that they are not granted by the state. And usually the focus is on speech and sexuality not self ownership and sovereignty.
So much of the state's current laws violate individual sovereignty. So it would be rather jarring to talk about actual sovereignty of each individual. Most people only seem to care about rights they can't get or do what they want. The principled view is rare to find.
Indeed this is an interesting topic and historically significant evolution. I would argue this sort of view point on sovereignty and the state has been systematically attacked by the state education system as well as the political system in favor of social theories of consent.