Not in America.
. . .
“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are SOVEREIGNS WITHOUT SUBJECTS, and have none to govern but themselves.

“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns."
- - - Justice John Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia (2 U.S. 419 (1793))

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremeco...

Justice John Jay says government is an agent for the sovereign people, not sovereign over them. They govern themselves (unless they consent otherwise).

In no other nation are the people sovereigns over their government. All other people are subjects of their sovereign governments. Only America has a republican form of government.

That less than 1 in 100,000 can define it or know its source is a victory for the world's greatest propaganda ministry.

(No, it's not a "republic" nor is it a "constitutional republic.")

REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. . . The fourth section of the fourth article of the constitution, directs that "the United States shall guaranty to every state in the Union a republican form of government." The form of government is to be guarantied, WHICH SUPPOSES A FORM ALREADY ESTABLISHED, and this is the republican form of government the United States have undertaken to protect.
- - - Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, 1856
. . .
The republican form existed BEFORE the USCON, thus it cannot be a “constitutional republic.”
. . .
REPUBLICAN FORM - that form of government wherein the people directly exercise sovereignty, and are served -not ruled- by government (and its subject citizens). The sovereign people retain possession of all their endowed and inalienable rights, powers, and liberties, and no democratic majority can vote them away. The servant government exercises power to secure rights, and only by special delegation via consent, may it govern. Though not perfect, it is the best form, securing the maximum liberty and freedom to its sovereign people.

You're arguing about nonsense.

In American law there are SOVEREIGN people who have endowed rights, and SUBJECT citizens who waived them.

BY CONSENT.

If you do not know how or when you consented, that's another topic.

But as GEOWASH says:
. . .
“ It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]

Make no mistake!
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to life.
• But citizens have no inalienable (endowed) right to life.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to natural and personal liberty.
• But citizens have only civil and political liberty.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to absolutely own private property (upon which you can pursue happiness without permission of a superior).
• But citizens have no private property, absolutely owned... a portion can be claimed by the government.

If you've consented to be a citizen, you have NO ENDOWED RIGHTS.
Zip. Nada. Bumpkiss. Empty Set. Nought.
Any presumption to the contrary is an error not supported by law nor court ruling.

The government can order you to train, fight, and die, on command.
The government can take a portion of your property -or wages - or whatever - as it sees fit.
All authorized by your consent to be a CITIZEN (state or U.S.).

Militia duty
From Bouvier’s Law dictionary, 1856 ed.
AGE.... In the United States, at twenty-five, a man [citizen] may be elected a representative in congress;
at thirty, a senator; and at thirty-five, he may be chosen president. He is liable to serve in the militia from eighteen to forty- five inclusive, unless exempted for some particular reason.
{only applies to “citizens” not “all Americans”}

Being obligated to TRAIN, FIGHT and DIE on command is definitely a violation of endowed rights - unless one has CONSENTED.

Of course, most Americans don't know this, thanks to the world's greatest propaganda ministry.

Citizens come from the people, but all people are not citizens (subjects).

In American law, people have rights and powers.
Citizens have privileges and immunities. They are mutually exclusive.

“ It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]

Citizens have mandatory civic duties that void endowed rights to life, liberty and property ownership.

No, it's not unalienable.

INALIENABLE - That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable rights.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inal...

If you're referring to the post-1933 state of emergency, the constitution is no longer the limiting factor.

STATE OF EMERGENCY
. . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of...
As of October 2014, thirty states of emergency remain in effect, one reaching as far back as the Roosevelt Administration.

United States, Senate Report 93-549 states: "That since March 09, 1933 the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." Proclamation No. 2039 declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 9, 1933. This declared national emergency has never been revoked and has been codified into the US Code (12 U.S.C. 95a and b).
. . . .
Senate Report 93-549
https://archive.org/stream/senate-rep...
War and Emergency Powers Acts
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."

FREEDOMS ... GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION ... HAVE BEEN ABRIDGED BY LAWS ... UNDER EMERGENCY RULE ...

Constitutional U.S.A. (1787 - 1933) R.I.P.

Contrary to popular belief, the Declaration is Statute #1, as shown in the Statutes at Large of the United
States of America.

http://www.nccs.net/1998-06-the-decla...

The Declaration of Independence Part of American Law
Professor John Eidsmoe writes:

"The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.

"The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.' (Christianity and the Constitution, pp. 360-361)”
. . . .
That most Americans do not know this is a credit to the world's greatest propaganda ministry.

Please be aware that pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, governments have TWO JOBS:
1. Secure (endowed) rights, and
2. Govern those who consent.

CAVEAT - consent waives job #1.

If government's actions are not securing rights of an injured party - LOOK TO CONSENT. That you may not know how and when you consented is not the fault of the servant government (so saith the law).

Americans who enjoy the republican form of government are unique among the world - they are sovereigns. (Citizens, by definition, are subjects - obligated to perform mandatory civic duties - do not confuse them with the sovereign people)


“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves..."
- - - Justice John Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia (2 U.S. 419 (1793))
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremeco...

FYI : Sovereign = social equal to every other monarch.
That's why Americans do not bow nor kneel to foreign monarchs.

But if one has descended to a subject citizen, by consent, all bets are off.
He who consents cannot object.

Feticide has always been a crime, and a doctor who performs abortions is in violation of his Hippocratic oath.

Of course, since 1933, America has been under EMERGENCY RULES that effectively bypass all constitutional law and civilized behavior.

FETICIDE - an abortion, specifically, the killing of a fetus. One who kills a fetus. The act of destroying a fetus or causing an abortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocra...
“... I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.” (Variation 1)
“... I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.” (Variation 2)

Abortion doctors are “oath breakers.”

STATE OF EMERGENCY
. . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of...
As of October 2014, thirty states of emergency remain in effect, one reaching as far back as the Roosevelt Administration.

United States, Senate Report 93-549 states: "That since March 09, 1933 the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." Proclamation No. 2039 declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 9, 1933. This declared national emergency has never been revoked and has been codified into the US Code (12 U.S.C. 95a and b).
. . . .
Senate Report 93-549
https://archive.org/stream/senate-rep...
War and Emergency Powers Acts
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."

FREEDOMS ... GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION ... HAVE BEEN ABRIDGED BY LAWS ... UNDER EMERGENCY RULE ...

Constitutional U.S.A. (1787 - 1933) R.I.P.

but look at our military force. It has a government behind it, and its still a gang. Its attacking civilians in foreign countries and doing all sorts of bad things that our government tells it to do.

Abortion disproves your original concept.

yup.

We'd need a military force to defend ourselves.
And, a military force without a government is a
gang, like the Mafia.

No one can impose consent on another.
However, with respect to securing rights of an injured party, governments are delegated power to punish and deny rights and liberties.
And sovereign property owners have the right to inflict capital punishment in defense of their property (with due notice) as evidenced by "Private Property - No Trespassing - Trespassers will be Shot!"
(Of course, this is inapplicable to qualified ownership of estate - a privilege)

That is the common thinking. But how exactly would they do it? If there was no organization of people with SS numbers, tax records, gun registration records, no draft registrations- how could a foreign country actually effect a takeover? Watch RED DAWN to see how an invader takes over the existing government and its powers to take over. I am not sure that government is the real answer to anarchy. It has so many disadvantages

I apologize for clicking that little hand by mistake.
---I was not given a middle name at birth. I made
up a name I liked, and sent a lawyer to court (with
the argument that as my surname was in 2 parts,
it led to confusion; I also had realized that the surname was never going to change in the reg-
ular way). Petition granted; I had to pay court
costs for this recognition, which I considered
only fair, since it was a benefit I was asking for.

Government has been doing wrong. But anarchy
is not the answer. Aside from other considerations,
it can't work. Without some form of organized gov-
ernment, we would be taken over by the nearest
dictatorship within a few days.

--Sorry, I clicked that downturned hand by mistake.
--"A nation can do it...but neither can do it by
right", -(Ayn Rand)

Your consent cannot really waive your neighbor's
natural rights. And if you waive your fundamental
rights, that does not relieve you of your responsib-
ility for respecting your neighbor's rights; you cannot waive your right to freedom of con-
science, and then escape responsibility for mur-
der, if you send your neighbor to Auschwitz.

I agree with the statement in The Virtue of Self-
ishness that whether one believes rights to be
granted "by nature or by God", "the issue of man's origin does not alter the fact the he is a being of a specific nature..." (that was a memory quote).Natural rights are part of man's nature;
they are "unalienable" as Jefferson says; they
cannot be taken away by someone's authority
or by majority (or other) vote.