Notice For Public Record : Foundational Nuances Of Us 9th Versus Us 10th Amendments For Individuals States And Federal Interests

[Monk-Eye]

" Notice For Public Record : Foundational Nuances Of Us 9th Versus Us 10th Amendments For Individuals States And Federal Interests "

* Negative Liberties Represent Protections Independence Individualism *

Prologue :

Below is a set of posted tweets intend to establish which wrights , not enumerated in us constitution , are prohibited to state and to federal interests .

Cat Call Log Catalog :

An e pluribus unum credo conjecture is independence expects individualism and Us 9th amendment assures equal protection for negative liberties in safety and security among those entitled to equal protection , and otherwise excludes populism and democracy as tyranny by majority .

Us 9th excludes federal enforcement of public policy not devised to mitigate safety or security for equal protections of negative liberty among those entitled to equal protections . Birth is required for citizenship in Us 14th , therefore birth is required for equal protection .

A limited state is bound in allegiance to its citizens in equal protection of negative liberties within safety and security constraints . Citizenship requires live birth and state interests in equal protection of negative liberties are exclusive to those entitled by live birth .

Birth is required for citizenship and , by logical induction and deduction , birth is required for equal protection ! Any citizen has legal standing to prevail against a state interest in protecting a wright to life of a ZEF that has not met a birth requirement to receive it !

Non enumerated wrights of US constitution are excluded from interest by states when no violation of safety or security is occurring that would adversely affect equal protection of negative liberties among those individuals entitled by live birth requirement to become a citizen .

A characteristic of Us 9th and 10th amendments is that a state interest is excluded whenever negative liberties are not being violated among those entitled to equal protection . A zef has not met a birth requirement to receive equal protections and a state interest is excluded .

Us 10th state interests are excluded from protecting a wright to life of a ZEF as a birth requirement has not been met . Us 9th protects violations of negative liberty among individuals which have equal protections and based on safety and security and not whimsy of populism !

LG bill proposes a 15 week ban for federal institutions and does not specifically override state interests . Not having met a birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen , a zef is without equal protection for negative liberty and federal state interests are excluded .

At the federal level repugnicans plan to usurp a birth requirement for equal protection by redefining a person in http://law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8 to include preborn , to grant equal protection of laws by us 14th . By etymology , per son means countable by census , hence born , and male .

#SCOTUS #DOBBS #SEDITION of 1st , 9th and 14th . #RoeVWade ' Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." . https://usmessageboard.com/threads/demand-any-nomination-for-us-supreme-court-justice-explain-blackmun-logically-of-course-statement-from-roe-v-wade.850929/… .

#RoeVWade is based on equal protection with a citizen , where natural viability was substituted in lieu of a live birth requirement , where potential life refers to an ability to survive an imminent birth . Why would any need to explain a " Logically , of course " deduction ?

* Postiive Liberties Represent Endowments Dependence Collectivism *

Two to be released :

Private Civil Union Negative Liberty Protections Versus Public Positive Liberty Endowments

Jus Soli Versus Jus Sanguinin And Equal Protection Versus Unequal Endowment For Subjects Not By Title In Us Legal Immigration System


* Static Reference Intent *

In sew fist tree sophistry , losing in discourse would mean that functional constructs in terminology , or concepts , for dialogue to support an intent of some perspective . Fundamental principles of individualism , statistism and federalism are made valid with informed consent .

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A common cliché holds that if you put an infinite number of Monk-Eyes in front of an infinite number of typewriters, that they will recreate all of the world's great literature.

But if you put one Monk-Eye at one keyboard, al you get is random word salad such as this.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" An Interrogative Stipulating Context For Future Dialogue In Individualism As Independence "

* Us 10th State Safety Security Exclusively For Those Entitled To Equal Protection Of Negative Liberties By Birth Requirement *

A common cliché holds that if you put an infinite number of Monk-Eyes in front of an infinite number of typewriters, that they will recreate all of the world's great literature.

But if you put one Monk-Eye at one keyboard, al you get is random word salad such as this.

Is it agreeable that negative liberties are actions one individual may exercise , that another individual or a collective is not entitled by principle or law to prohibit ?

Is it agreeable that a negative liberty is termed for negative action - for a no action - of another individual or a collective ?

Is it agreeable that a negative liberty alludes to free roam , free association , progeny , private property , willful intents by contract - valid with informed consent , when those exercises of freedom are not disparaging to the negative liberties of another individual within the limits of safety and security ?

Is it agreeable that negative liberty alludes to freedoms of ritual , of write , of wright , that an individual may exercise within the limits of safety and security , that does not disparage the negative liberties of any other individual ?

Is it agreeable that negative liberties of one individual that do not disparage the negative liberties of any other individual are prohibited from prohibition by powers of a state or by powers of the united states ?

Is it agreeable that by Us 14th amendment birth is a required to become a citizen and that a requirement for live birth is implicitly and intrinsically a requirement for equal protection with a citizen ?

Is it agreeable that powers of a state and powers of a united states are prohibited from protecting the negative liberties of any not having met a birth requirement to receive equal protection with a citizen ?

Is is agreeable that powers of a state and powers of a united states are prohibited from disparaging the negative liberty an individual which is not disparaging the negative liberties of another individual , within the constraints of reasonable safety and security , among those entitled to equal protection by virtue of having met a birth requirement for that of a citizen ?


* Which Powers Delegated To The People Prohibit Powers Delegated To States Or United States ? *

IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



* Add More On Twitted And *

" the people " in Us 9th and Us 10th are loosely coupled designations for 2/3 majority federal law . Non enumerated wrights in us constitution are not excluded from interest by states when violations of safety or security adversely affect equal protection of negative liberty .

PER SON means MALE and COUNTABLE BY CENSUS . Declaration of independence states ALL MEN are created equal , hence women are not - see us 19th . By US 14th , any PER SON may become a citizen and by ETYMOLOGY women are not citizens . E Pluribus Unum espouses INDIVIDUALISM !