What Is "the State?"

[goldinero 0]

Is the State a geographical location defined by boundaries marked on the ground? If so, where are the boundaries? I see them on a map, but when I fly between "States" I never see them on the ground. Or is the State a group of people, "a body politic" that could be spread throughout the world at any one time?

 

1) If the State is a geographical location, how can it bring suit against anyone else within it? How can you be sued by dirt?

 

2) If the State is a group of people, how can you be "within the State" for the purpose of law? Does your driver's license make you part of the State? Or is it your residence that makes you part of the State?

 

3) If it is your residence, then perhaps the State is nothing more than dirt. Therefore, go to #1.

 

[snlildude87 0]

I like your logic, but this thread has nothing to do with this forum....you're supposed to explain something that you learned today...not ask questions.Moved to the General forum.

[BuffaloHelp 24]

Is the State a geographical location defined by boundaries marked on the ground?  If so, where are the boundaries?  I see them on a map, but when I fly between "States" I never see them on the ground.

164184[/snapback]

Is this question for real? I'm not sure if the question really is on member's mind or making a sarcastic remark...

 

1) If the State is a geographical location, how can it bring suit against anyone else within it? How can you be sued by dirt?

Are you bitter that the State you're living in has some kind of legal action towards you?

 

Again, if you are confused think of it this way--The State you're living in will protect you (or charge you) within the law you are residing (where you eat, sleep, go to work, store your possession) under. Therefore, the State which you are so apt to prove the definition is an observance of a separate law from the Federal Law with limitation determined with the boundaries. And to explain the extent (how far a separated law can reach, a.k.a. jurisdiction) the land (dirt) was marked with invisible, geographically unchangeable markings that are entered with GPS location now-a-days.

 

I'll give you an easier example. You invite a neighbor to you home for some occasion. You are not a smoker. Your neighbor lights one up without asking for permission. You can tell your neighbor to stop smoking or leave your premises. You are exercising your jurisdiction over your domain (your home). However, could your non-smoking rule can be applied to your neighbor's home? No. Because you have no rights to say what goes on in your neighbor's house--jurisdiction demarcation. You get into an argument with your neighbor and you two decide to build fences around your house parameter. But you can't see where your property ends and your neighbor's begin. You search your town's settlement (the Act of dividing lands to estate owners) records and find your property dimensions accordance to predetermined set by the settlement law. But your neighbor placed portions of fences 1 foot inside your lot (your property). You take your neighbor to the court proving with the settlement law documents stating that your neighbor intruded within your property. The court rules in favor of your claim and orders your neighbor to remove fences.

 

Don't get confused now. Your home is a representation of the State. Your property boundary is representation of jurisdiction. The way you operate in your home has the ownership of your rules. It is the embodiment of your indisputable rules. And no neighbor of yours can tell you what to do with or within your home. When you have to mow the lawn it is your responsibility (jurisdiction) whether is to comply with the town property code or keep a good appearance of your house.

 

When you take a meaning out of context from a dictionary you make literature term called, 'poisoning the well'?when a single incident defines the total aspect. When you look up the word, run, you'll find that it has at least 28 definitions for it.

 

The State = the collaborated assembled amendments of laws of the people that are enforced by the governing official voted by the people of said settlement for the people on their behalf. Therefore, it expresses the confines of these people that the law is observed. So when you express in terms of The State, you are also expressing in terms of agreement of people within the said boundary AND the physical limitation of the jurisdiction. The term State is both physical and logical.

Edited July 22, 2005 by BuffaloHELP (see edit history)

[Saint_Michael 3]

i couldn't say it any better buffalo but if you go to this website it will explain everything to you about the "what is the state" http://www.dictionary.com/browse/state/ you be surprised what they define it as, and it covers politcal, religious and something else, but i have to say that this post is being sarcastic about another post reguarding this topic or close to it.

[goldinero 0]

No, I am not bitter against my State because of some legal action against me. I have never been nor am I at risk for being a party any lega action. And no, I wasn't being sarcastic in my question.

 

When you take a meaning out of context from a dictionary you make literature term called, 'poisoning the well'when a single incident defines the total aspect. When you look up the word, run, you'll find that it has at least 28 definitions for it.

164286[/snapback]

"Poisoning the well is a pre-emptive logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting everything he is about to say." Wikipedia

 

I don't believe I was guilty of "poisoning the well." But I learned something new about logical fallacies!

 

The State = the collaborated assembled amendments of laws of the people that are enforced by the governing official voted by the people of said settlement for the people on their behalf.

164286[/snapback]

I do not vote, so the governing official could not be acting on my behalf.

 

Therefore, it expresses the confines of these people that the law is observed. So when you express in terms of The State, you are also expressing in terms of agreement of people within the said boundary AND the physical limitation of the jurisdiction.  The term State is both physical and logical.

164286[/snapback]

In each of the four different so-called States in which I've lived I don't remember making an agreement with anybody about the observed law. And if I did not knowingly and willingly make such an agreement, how can it be enforceable? All laws in these States were made without anyone asking my approval. And these laws were and continue to be enforced upon me and most others whether I like it or not. Have you read the entire constitution of the State in which you reside? Do you understand all the laws that you are held accountable to obey? Did you sign an agreement that you would comply with the constitution and every law or else lose your residency in the State? I didn't.

 

Well, since I know I have probably gotten out of hand on this discussion (do I sound argumentative here?), I'll move on to other less-volatile topics and/or move this kind of discussion to a more appropriate forum.

 

Thanks for the feedback!

 

Goldinero

[BuffaloHelp 24]

I do not vote, so the governing official could not be acting on my behalf.

 

In each of the four different so-called States in which I've lived I don't remember making an agreement with anybody about the observed law.  And if I did not knowingly and willingly make such an agreement, how can it be enforceable?  All laws in these States were made without anyone asking my approval.  And these laws were and continue to be enforced upon me and most others whether I like it or not.  Have you read the entire constitution of the State in which you reside?  Do you understand all the laws that you are held accountable to obey?  Did you sign an agreement that you would comply with the constitution and every law or else lose your residency in the State?  I didn't.

164509[/snapback]

Do you not vote (as in choose not to vote) or you won't vote (as in refusal of your right to exercise to raise your opinion)?

 

Perhaps that's your agenda that you did or willingly not voted. When you do not vote you really DON'T have any saying what the law is and what is not to become a law. When you forfeit to "willingly make such an agreement" you are as likely as not voting at all. When citizens do not vote, whether you like it or not, the majority of vote will pass the bill that is pending to become a law. Therefore, you cannot say thereafter that you do not agree with certain amendment which you chose to ignore the law which passed with majority votes.

 

When a citizen claims that he/she does not recognize the State or a Federal law and not vote, because that particular citizen believes that the law that was passed was not consensual by that individual, you are basically stating that "I cannot think for myself so someone think it for me" It is very important that each individual practice and participates in governing affairs to keep the power in balance. When a citizen believes that one cannot make a difference, the whole Constitution of The United States of America will be nothing more than some 23 people showing off their word skills.

 

Note: when you copy words from another source, you MUST use quote tags, i.e. your copied definition from Wikipedia.

 

I don't remember making an agreement with anybody about the observed law. And if I did not knowingly and willingly make such an agreement, how can it be enforceable?

That is none of anyone's problem. Even you did not make an arrangements in forehand, when you forfeit and decided to ignore the issue at hand, you are making the notion that you are willing to "go with the flow" with the majority. Do you knowingly speed going 60 miles per hour in a residential area just because you do not see the speed limit sign? I don't think so.

 

Have you read the entire constitution of the State in which you reside? Do you understand all the laws that you are held accountable to obey? Did you sign an agreement that you would comply with the constitution and every law or else lose your residency in the State? I didn't.

Yes I do. And yes I did. In fact when you sign that driver's license you also imply that you will abide by the State's law as a resident of that State. When you sign for that State and Federal student loan you sign stating that you are willing to abide by the State and Federal law (otherwise you are lying to the State and Federal government. It is implied.). And if you passed your 7th grade you should have studied the Constitution of the United States. I have read it 4 times and pass the regional exam based on it.

 

Just because you don't believe in something it does not mean that you don't observe it. When an individual thinks in that fashion the basic law breaks down and that's when the enforcer becomes much stricter to observe the basic law. Because someone chooses to ignore the set of rules and because the rules were not congruent with that someone, that cannot justify the breaking of said set of rules. Remember, ignorance cannot be an excuse.

[AbstracT 0]

very interesting question...never thought about it like that...i guess its jus an understood boundary that was made a long time ago and was never changed and you dont see the boundaries but they're there...it's gotta be something because if there wasn't a real seperation of the states...why would half the country's accent vary from them...

[goldinero 0]

Yes I do. And yes I did. In fact when you sign that driver's license you also imply that you will abide by the State's law as a resident of that State.

Apparently you are a lawyer. I am not. Therefore I am not qualified to interpret law. I may "imply" that I will abide by the State's law, but if I am not qualified to interpret it, how can I abide by it? Also, any police officer that pulls me over for a traffic violation must interpret the law to enforce it. Is a police officer qualified to interpret law? Not unless he has passed the bar exam.

 

Although I am not a lawyer, I am a person able to make a contract. And contracts between myself and another party can be factually binding. That's why I look at the relationship between the State and an individual on a contractual level.

 

When a citizen claims that he/she does not recognize the State or a Federal law and not vote, because that particular citizen believes that the law that was passed was not consensual by that individual, you are basically stating that "I cannot think for myself so someone think it for me" It is very important that each individual practice and participates in governing affairs to keep the power in balance. When a citizen believes that one cannot make a difference, the whole Constitution of The United States of America will be nothing more than some 23 people showing off their word skills.

You realize, of course, that you're forcing me to ask a couple more questions:

 

1) What is a citizen?

 

2) What factually is the Constitution of The United States of America?

 

A citizen submits himself to the dominion of the State in exchange for protection of his rights. It's a simple contract. But it is a well established principle of law that the State is not bound to protect the individual. If it were bound to protect, then I could effectively sue the county if failed to protect my property rights or sue the police department if it failed to protect my person. But I cannot. Yet each individual citizen is bound to the governance of the State. One party to the contract (the State) is in breach and yet continues to require the other party (the individual) to perform.

 

Regarding the Constitution, some may say that it is the supreme law of the land. But that is a legal opinion. Factually, it is an unsigned written document. How can an unsigned document written over 200 years ago by people who have been dead for over 150 years be binding on anyone today?

 

About the vote, lets look at the presidency as an example. GW Bush was voted into office by only about 25% of the population. And I'm sure that it would be impossible to get that full 25% to agree on any one of his policies. The lack of voting in the US is a good indication that most people don't buy the propoganda that their vote counts. And those who do are often trying to vote in "the lesser of two evils." And why shouldn't they think this way? No government can represent the widely diverse opinions of the population on even one issue, much less all the issues that matter.

 

By not voting I, along with several million other people, am making a statement . That statement is that the political process doesn't work for me. And I'm being heard. How do I know? Because thousands of dollars in airtime are spent each election year on advertisements trying to get people like me to vote. The smaller the percentage of the population that votes, the more difficult it is for politicians to show they represent the American people, and the more obvious it becomes that the political process is divorced from reality.

 

Goldinero

[BuffaloHelp 24]

Apparently you are a lawyer.  I am not.  Therefore I am not qualified to interpret law.  I may "imply" that I will abide by the State's law, but if I am not qualified to interpret it, how can I abide by it?  Also, any police officer that pulls me over for a traffic violation must interpret the law to enforce it.  Is a police officer qualified to interpret law?  Not unless he has passed the bar exam.

No, you are assuming too much. I am not a lawyer. I'm just a working class man as same as those who pickup my garbage every week. One does not have to be a lawyer to understand what the law is required of each individual to practice and observe the said agreement. When one claims that the law is not applicable due to fear of improper understanding of set of laws is preposterous. It's like stating that the law of gravity does not apply to one because one cannot fully comprehend the physics that is involved. Therefore, as a non-physicist, the law of gravity does not apply to one. LOL that's like Elmer Fudd walking on a thin air until Bugs Bunny showed him the Laws of Physics book and fell from the sky.

 

You don't have to abide by the law if you wish not to recognize. That's why the police department is there to protect me from those who do not adhere by the law that was design to protect me and you from lawbreakers. They are there to protect me incase someone decides to harm me. The police department is there to enforce, prevent and protect. Do you need a law degree to figure out steeling what is not yours is bad? Do you need a law degree to figure out preventing a person driving in excess speed that may cause unforeseen accidents?

 

Although I am not a lawyer, I am a person able to make a contract.  And contracts between myself and another party can be factually binding.  That's why I look at the relationship between the State and an individual on a contractual level.

The contract can be both written and in verbal. When a contract is established with a verbal agreement, it is factual and concrete as any written contracts. A verbal contract may not have a stronger favor of winning in the civil law sue, but never-the-less it is recognized. Because in the court of law, the judgment is for the party that can produce as many compelling evidence as possible to make a valid case.

 

You realize, of course, that you're forcing me to ask a couple more questions:

 

1) What is a citizen?

 

2) What factually is the Constitution of The United States of America?

 

A citizen submits himself to the dominion of the State in exchange for protection of his rights.  It's a simple contract.  But it is a well established principle of law that the State is not bound to protect the individual.  If it were bound to protect, then I could effectively sue the county if failed to protect my property rights or sue the police department if it failed to protect my person.  But I cannot.  Yet each individual citizen is bound to the governance of the State.  One party to the contract (the State) is in breach and yet continues to require the other party (the individual) to perform.

A citizen must also provide and defend the country that he/she sworn to serve. It works in symbiosis. The State has the responsibility to protect its residents. What do you think the Medicare and Medicate are? What about the welfare program, or how about the social security program? When you pay your dues (taxes) to the county and the State you work in small portions will be reserved to these programs. Although you are paying these dues to your State, it ultimately funneled up to the Federal Level. And the Federal will funnel it down to the State level. Those programs are not there to just help out people with lackluster ambitions they are designed to care for every resident in its jurisdiction. And since the United STATES (I use it strongly) is the governing country of sums of each individual states, your citizenship is not only recognized by each States but in the country as a whole. Who says you cannot sue your local police department? There are thousands of law suits brought to the justice each day. But because the majority of law suits are frivolous it is not relinquish to the public media. Each individual citizen is NOT bound to the governing of the State. I have no idea where you got that idea.

 

Regarding the Constitution, some may say that it is the supreme law of the land.  But that is a legal opinion.  Factually, it is an unsigned written document.  How can an unsigned document written over 200 years ago by people who have been dead for over 150 years be binding on anyone today?

Constitution is NOT the law. It is the embodiment of the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES which the country is conducted and constructed. It is an idea that everyone back in 1787 has agreed to build the country around this principle idea. And who told you it wasn't signed? The Constitution of the United States was signed on September 17, 1787. Have you missed your class the day you were learning about The Constitution? And if you are going to ask, "well I didn't sign it" it is the obligation of people who are citizens of this country to uphold and defend The Constitution of the United States. When you do not want to recognize the Constitution that's fine with the country. But when you are receiving the protection of the country that is based on the set of agreements that's like saying, "I don't recognize my mother as MY mother because I did not choose to be born under her family." It's ridiculous, isn't it?

 

About the vote, lets look at the presidency as an example.  GW Bush was voted into office by only about 25% of the population.  And I'm sure that it would be impossible to get that full 25% to agree on any one of his policies.  The lack of voting in the US is a good indication that most people don't buy the propoganda that their vote counts.  And those who do are often trying to vote in "the lesser of two evils."  And why shouldn't they think this way?  No government can represent the widely diverse opinions of the population on even one issue, much less all the issues that matter.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here but have you given a thought to why it was a small turn out at the voting booth? By the way, if you are going to give a factual data I suggest you site your source. Last I checked it was more than what you claim. The entire population of the United States is not only main voters but, illegal aliens, non-citizens (legal aliens), teenagers, elderly who couldn't make it out that day, over sea service men and women, and people who decided not to vote. According to 2003 census age range that cannot vote is 28% Newer data is not available until 2007. Imagine the percentage that includes people ignoring to exercise the right to vote, incorrectly voting and aliens...it adds up.

 

By not voting I, along with several million other people, am making a statement .  That statement is that the political process doesn't work for me.  And I'm being heard.  How do I know?  Because thousands of dollars in airtime are spent each election year on advertisements trying to get people like me to vote.  The smaller the percentage of the population that votes, the more difficult it is for politicians to show they represent the American people, and the more obvious it becomes that the political process is divorced from reality.

Goldinero

164935[/snapback]

You are drifting off of your original topic. But I'll answer this one, too. It's great that you are making a statement by choosing not to vote. That is your prerogative as a citizen of this great country. And furthermore, you are still protected the same extent of this country's ability compare to those who actually voted. And do you believe everything that is shown on the television and public media? I'm surprised to find that you do since you are a skeptical of the meaning behind the meaning, i.e. "What is the State?" Have you considered a thought that maybe, just maybe, it needed a boost in the ratings? If you believe that when people do not vote the politicians cannot represent the people they were elected to represent in the first place, then how come you did not vote? Interesting...

[godlymoose 0]

I could really only probably see it geographicaly.

[gunbound 0]

"The State" can mean a lot of things, such as what has been discussed on this thread so far. But try this: the State is not just a line in the dirt; it is not anything to do with the name of a district. A State is simply what we call a place where people are together as a society. Boundaries and driver's liscenses are a particular of a State, not what defines one.The State is a very important concept. In fact, it is the core of political science. The condition of a state is of greatest importance to the subjects of the state - the people. So if people are a part of a State, this is why they act like citizens - they produce, consume, and fight for the glory of their state.I think it's interesting, how the Romans allowed non-citizens to become part of their state (aka. empire, etc.). Foreigners were allowed to become Romans by serving in their army. Nowadays, one can become a citizen of many countries through paperwork...

[BuffaloHelp 24]

It looks like this topic is worthy of a debate. Instead of remaining this post in just a general talk section, I am moving this to the debate section.

[B-T 0]

i think a state is just imaginary lines people have set.