Questions of Citizen Sovereignty

The first question is sovereignty as it relates to sovereign citizens and tribal nations. Sovereign citizen movement, which is primarily found in the western states, wants the federal government to leave them alone. This includes their rights to bear arms and the desire to no longer pay grazing fees. 

As I have written before, the question of the right to bear arms is seen by sovereign citizens as a protection against government intrusion, to wit, a right of revolution. 

Part of this ideology was the attempted insurrection on January 6th, which was undertaken largely by members of the militia movement. While most of the insurrectionists believed they were making a political statement about the counting of votes, some actually desired to force the conclusion they desired by intimidation. 

They realized that this was not just a theoretical proposition when their attempt to intimidate members of Congress was met with gunfire. At this point, they realized the seriousness of their attempt of revolution and left the field of battle, fading back into the crowd, although their desire for self-glorification, which is a characteristic of all bullies, led them to video their actions, for which they are paying the price.

Some of the planners likely had a greater awareness of what was being attempted. To their bemusement, the foot soldiers in the struggle were not up to the task. These individuals will likely face charges of seditious conspiracy, which under the Fourteenth Amendment may lead to their expulsion from Congress. 

Likewise, should Citizen Trump manage to repeat the path of Grover Cleveland and win another term, he will find that an objection to his election will be made when the votes are counted and that this objection will require a two-thirds vote of each house to overcome. While he can certainly run for president from a jail cell (it has been done before), it would be a futile endeavor in light of these legalities.

The same amendment essentially viciates the right to bear arms against the government. Regardless of the wording of the Second Amendment, the Fourteenth destroys its application as a constitutional right to revolt. There is simply no right to possess weapons in furtherance of this intent. Doing so explicitly invites seizure of said arms.

The second demand of sovereign citizens is the right to hold land without paying fees. This is a claim that arises out of ignorance of the rights of native peoples. Fees are collected in trust as a form of rental on tribal land. For this reason, fees must be collected. The alternative is to revoke any and all permits for occupation of land either held in trust or ceded as party of treaties with tribal peoples.

To put it bluntly, should the Federal Government not be used as an intermediary, the Fifth Amendment rights of tribal nations dictate that the possession of these lands to their original owners. Those who currently lease property from the government must instead lease it from the tribal nation for whom the land is held in trust or from whom it was seized. While many ranchers could either pay rent to tribal governments or purchase such lands fee simple, they enjoy no unilateral rights of ownership absent such arrangements.

Should current tribal arrangements be voided, there is justification for their exclusion from state government and the recognition of their rights to statehood for purposes of representation in the Congress and the Electoral College. Indeed, given the machinations of White Citizens in western states, such a solution would be more than just. In such cases, tenants could vote as citizens abroad in the state of their choosing using mail-in ballots, but not as residents of tribal lands.

This last bit can be taken as an absurd argument regarding voter suppression, but it has some validity, including the rights of tribes to administer elections within their territories within the states which contain tribal land, rather than through the governmental structures that would seek to deny their right to vote.