—ApplyingForce.com—
Meet.TheAtomicAmerican.com
TheAtomicForce.com | TheAtomicMind.com
TheAtomicExecutive.com | TheAtomicAmerican.com
Dicta.TheAtomicAmerican.com
Antidote.TheAtomicAmerican.comall content on applyingforce.com and subdomains are the private property of
[email protected] | an american in america
all content was discovered, created, and released by
© 2024 Michael Chavez II / ApplyingForce.com. All rights reserved.
this content, including but not limited to its methods, models, systems, and mechanical structures, is proprietary and protected by provisional patent filings.
use or reproduction for any purpose—including educational, commercial, derivative, or system integration—without express written permission is prohibited.
patents pending.for licensing or formal review, contact: [email protected]

The Atomic American Dicta
black letter american law
by TheAtomicAmerican.com
— constructed using a falsify-or-yield format —the atomic method
step zero
-setting the primitives sets the frame-
-controlling the count controls the frame-
-philosophy applied to ontology is systems analysis-
-ontological systems analysis is mechanical not material-
---
i draw a circle;
that circle represents a realm;
you are invited to falsify, counter, or yield at all times.i place an item into the circle;
i examine it from every direction i can;
i reduce it to its irreducible components of wholes, parts, and forces, principles and their attributes, causes and their effects; and
i describe each as faithfully as i can using the most easily understood language;i examine how the wholes, parts, and forces interact, and
i describe each mechanically as i can;-always reconciling to a persistent, objective, describable, triangulated, non-contradictory mechanical reality
-never reconciling to another's opiniongiven, two or more narratives about the wholes, parts, forces, and subsequent interactions:
-i use occam’s razor as a heavily weighted standard as cause and effect works according to the path of least resistance-given different mathematically equivalent narratives,
-i reconcile to the one aligns with the evident instead of the absurd.beware
dialectical materialism does not model ontological reality.
it names a shadow and blames it for the cool
reification x reification=abstraction black hole- only detectable and correctable through mechanical systems fluency
--any theory or institution that alters or dismisses elements from a self-authenticating, fully triangulated count of reality becomes self-referential, and
substitutes itself as the measure of reality rather than the measurer of reality, and bears the burden of demonstrating valid cause for placing itself above reality.-this work is a definitive count of first-order primitives from zero by one ordinary american man-MY OPEN CHALLENGE
to every teacher, every professor, every writer of every curriculum who is being asked by a good faith novice how the world works-get your calculus on the mat-you are being challenged-defend your thesismy system corrections are backed by complete mechanical explanations - starting from zero -that you can test for yourself.falsification must reconcile to an objective, persistent, triangulable reality including atomic count and force vectors.

the original republic
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living'.”
— Thomas Jefferson, 1789i am here <+> i move me ≡ original ownership ≡ separate and equal station ≡ the supreme law of the species that mechanically produces the ontological republic
awareness <+> will = free will
free will= original ownership
original ownership = separate and equal station
→seperate: individual private property
→equal: joint tenancy of the usufruct republic
→ constitution: administrative protocol
→government: instituted among not over
→statutes: secure pre-existing condition and may not breach
-— to assume the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s god entitle. that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men—
~the citizens of america, equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants~
**-he is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way-
his rights are such as existed by...
the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state:awareness <+> will = free will
<+>: autodidactic telos
awareness: measurement of self
will: action on self
free will: aware, calculated, and deliberate action on self≡original ownership≡
≡separate and equal station≡
≡original standing-rights-duties-breaches-remedies≡≡|I AM HERE| |<+>| |I MOVE ME| = |I OWN ME|≡≡|MY PRIVATE PROPERTY|≡
---DO NOT TRESPASS---
__________________________
|jointly held property|
|self authorized ordinary use rights|
-permission required extraordinary use privileges-
|self authorized ordinary use rights|
|jointly held property|
__________________________
---DO NOT TRESPASS---
≡|YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY|≡
≡|YOU ARE THERE| |<+>| |YOU MOVE YOU| = |YOU OWN YOU|≡-
liberty is the total sum of rights and privileges
private property
owner + any non-breach use = right
non-owner + any use = privilegejoint property
joint tenant + ordinary use = right
joint tenant + extraordinary use = privilege
non-owner + any use = privilegeeach american fully apex, each fully owning their own, each fully jointly owning the whole, each able to acquire, control, defend and dispose of their own in any way that does not breach another, each with access to ordinarily use and defend the whole;the tenancy with the power to defend and dispose the whole, all with the power to regulate and tax the extraordinary use of the joint assets;none with the authority to breach another, none subordinate to another;map key
— declaration of independence 1776
~chisolm v georgia 1793
-hale v. henkel 1906mankind and all groups from species inward are composed of individuals building upon one another's individual attainments. the individual self is the only way unmanifest potential is manifested.individual self the atomic unit of mankind, the locus of all species awareness, inspiration, innovation, calculation, and action.-
americans have an estate of private property that they own severally, and a national estate they own jointly;this mechanically produces duties, rights, privileges, breaches, and remedies that can be intuitively understood and logically deduced.the federal and state constitutions sit in the middle of americans as the structure instituted among apex equals to assist in securing his original separate and equal pre- government condition.joint tenancy secures each american's separate and equal station and yields ordinary use rights.
original ownership is a fact of human nature on which each constitution is based.

The American’s Original Claim to the High Estate
"I set out on this ground…
the earth belongs in usufruct to the living.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, 1789There are 3 parties to every state worldwideThe Sovereign,
The Sovereign's government,
The Sovereign's property and subjectsAmericans assumed the separate and equal station of sovereign at the revolution.As one of the people,
the American born in one of 50 states of the union is the principal owner of the republic. Both local and national. He is the atomic unit from which all republican governments rights derive. it is he that claims, delegates, retains, all original authority.Each American has:
-their own private property estate that they own severally that begins with their soul, mind, body, labor, and extends in concentric circles outwardly to include all the tangible and intangible assets one accumulates;-a local estate that they own jointly with other local Americans in their state including their courts, state governments, agencies, infrastructure, undeveloped lands, et. all...-a national estate that they own jointly with all other Americans born in the 50 states including their courts, state governments, agencies, infrastructure, undeveloped lands, et al...Each one of these estates mechanically produces rights and privileges the american is entitled to.THIS IS THE AMERICANS FUNDAMENTAL CLAIM AND FUNDAMENTAL LAW:
..."to assume... the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle...
...that to secure these rights
Governments are instituted among Men...
— Declaration of Independence 1776...entitle is to, to transfer and endow with ownership; To grant title.Ownership is the ultimate causal authority.The title which secures a separate and equal station is a joint tenancy, making each American a joint tenant in the sovereignty witheach fully owning their own, each fully co-owning the whole, each able to acquire, control, defend and dispose of their own in any way they can afford themselves that does not diminish another, each able to ordinarily use and defend the whole;all with the power to defend and dispose the whole, all with the power to regulate and tax the privileged use of the whole;none with the authority to diminish another, none subordinate to another;This makes "the people" a union of singular apexes, each privately owning their own while simultaneously jointly owning the whole.The original separate and equal condition of each man entitled by the Laws of Nature and of Nature's Godis consubstantial with his recognized station and the source of all his natural restraints, rights, privileges, duties, breaches, and remedies.From this Separate and Equal Apex station, the People organize, delimit, delegate, confer, and sustain each of their governments.

THE CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE BEFORE GOVERNMENT IS THE CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE AFTER GOVERNMENT
“We the People of the United States... do ordain and establish...”
— Preamble, Federal Constitution 1787"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."-U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause)1787"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
-U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4 (Guarantee Clause):1787“...in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers...” — Preamble, Bill of Rights 1788"...being necessary to the security of a free state..."
-Second Amendment 1788“...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
— Fifth Amendment 1788“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
— Ninth Amendment 1788“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.”
— Tenth Amendment 1788***Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103):
“...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”***"California Code, Government Code - GOV § 54950
"In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.
The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."

VITAL PRINCIPLES = SEPARATE AND EQUAL STATION + JOINT TENANCY UNITIES
= separate and equal station
|i am here| |<+>| |i move me| = |i own me|
|you are there| |<+>| |you move you| = |you own you|
=non-subordination
no american is under another. none may diminish or breach another's separate and equal station
=joint-ownership
each has an undivided interest in and an equal right to use the whole.
=equal protection
each individual has access to the whole infrastructure of written and unwritten law to secure his separate and equal station.
=delegated authority
the people delegate; they do not descend, yield, or surrender their original condition to the agencies they build for their convenience.
=remedy by right breach of the joint tenancy requires remedy and system update
-“At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country...The citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty......that the joint and equal sovereigns of this country should, in the very Constitution by which they...bring into action and enforce this great and glorious principle —
that the people are the sovereign of this country, and consequentlythat fellow citizens and joint sovereigns cannot be degraded by appearing with each other in their own courts to have their controversies determined.”
— Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)--------------------------
The 11th Amendment then constitutionally blocks the federal government from being used against the people of each state by citizens of other states or foreign entities,-Protecting their sovereignty from external attack."The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
11th amendment (1795)
---------------------------------------"There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and overrule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power.
"Calder v. Bull (1798)
-"It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply."
Marbury v Madison (1803)
-“The government of the Union, then, is emphatically and truly a government of the people. In form and substance, it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit...The power to tax is the power to destroy.”
McCulloch v Maryland (1819)”
-"When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government...in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
-Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 1886
-"The question is not what power the Federal Government ought to have, but what powers, in fact, have been given by the people.
It hardly seems necessary to reiterate that ours is a dual form of government; that in every state there are two governments -- the state and the United States.
Each State has all governmental powers save such as the people, by their Constitution, have conferred upon the United States, denied to the States, or reserved to themselves.
The federal union is a government of delegated powers. It has only such as are expressly conferred upon it and such as are reasonably to be implied from those granted.
In this respect, we differ radically from nations where all legislative power, without restriction or limitation, is vested in a parliament or other legislative body subject to no restrictions except the discretion of its members."
— U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
-"Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this
Court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them.
—national Institutes of Health v American Public Health Association (2025)The American system is a joint tenancy instantiated in law, ratified in founding documents, and confirmed in jurisprudence.
Each American possesses an undivided, apex, co-equal claim to the national domain, both material and legal, absent a superior claim.
This fundamental claim exists at birth but is dependent upon understanding and fluency to invoke.

to the bad faith reader that seeks to segregate us by group...
plessy v. ferguson (1896), acknowledged the fundamental separate and equal station law found in the declaration, but shoehorned it to “groups" treating it as a license to segregate. that was a category error.the declaration’s language is ontological as it describes the condition of man as individuals the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and natures God entitle: “all men are created equal.”brown v. board (1954), draws a bright line by recognizing that separate and equal station is an entitlement due each equal fellow citizen and joint tenant in the sovereignty.yes each and every individual american is provided the full access and measure of every written and unwritten law, access to his courts, and self-authorized ordinary access to the infrastructure...physical attributes not withstanding.

Fundamental Restrictions on governmental business operations"That government can scarcely be deemed to be free where the rights of property are left solely dependent on the will of the legislative body, without any restraint. The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to require that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred."
— Wilkinson v. Leland, 27 U.S. 627 (1829)
-"...A statute passed by a legislature for the purpose of depriving a citizen of his rights, which had vested anterior to its passage, would be void; and any law which divests rights vested by pre-existing laws must be void… That statute which would deprive a citizen of rights of person or property, without a regular trial according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land."
— Hoke v. Henderson (1833)
-"The rights of life and personal liberty are natural rights of man. To secure these rights... is the primary duty of government, and not to impair them."
— Marr v. Enloe, 9 Yer. 489 (1836)
-"In this state, as in all republics, it is not the legislation, however transcendent its powers, who are supreme — but the people. To suppose that they may violate the fundamental law is to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that the men acting by virtue of delegated powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.".
— Warning v. Mayor of Savannah, 60 Ga. 93 (1868)
-"The State cannot diminish the rights of the people."
— Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)
-"When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed
to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
And the law is the definition and limitation of power.It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision, and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage.But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments...For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life at the mere will of another seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.
There are many illustrations that might be given of this truth, which would make manifest that it was self-evident in the light of our system of jurisprudence.
In reference to that right, it was declared by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in Capen v. Foster, 12 Pick. 485, 489, in the words of Chief Justice Shaw,
"that, in allcases where the constitution has conferred a political right or privilege, and where the constitution has not particularly designated the manner in which that right is to be exercised, it is clearly within the just and constitutional limits of the legislative power to adopt any reasonable and uniform regulations, in regard to the time and mode of exercising that right, which are designed to secure and facilitate the exercise of such right, in a prompt, orderly, and convenient manner;"
nevertheless, "such a construction would afford no warrant for such an exercise of legislative power as, under the pretence and color of regulating, should subvert or injuriously restrain the right itself."
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
-Determination by the legislature of what constitutes proper exercise of police power is not final or conclusive, but is subject to supervision by the courts.
Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 152 U. S. 137. (1894)
-"Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do, as such license would be meaningless."
— Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2961
-"A statutory provision which is not a legitimate police regulation cannot be made such by being placed in the same act with a police regulation, or by being enacted under a title that declares a purpose which would be a proper object for the exercise of that power.
It being self-evident that, unless all things are held in common, some persons must have more property than others,it is from the nature of things impossible to uphold freedom of contract and the right of private property without at the same time recognizing as legitimate those inequalities of fortune that are the necessary result of the exercise of those rights.The Fourteenth Amendment recognizes 'liberty' and 'property' as coexistent human rights, and debars the states from any unwarranted interference with either.Since a state may not strike down the rights of liberty or property directly, it may not do so indirectly…
— Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)
-"The sovereign state has plenary control of streets and highways under its police power, andmay absolutely prohibit their use for private business gain.
They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or as an instrumentality for private gain.
The former is a common Right; the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, legislative power is confined to regulation; as to the latter, it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition."
— Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wash. 516 (1917)
-...A distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance or permission. In the latter case, the power to exclude altogether generally includes the lesser power to condition and may justify a degree of regulation not admissible in the former."
— Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924)
-"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
— Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 486 (1926)
-"The object of a license is to confer a right or power which does not exist without it."
— Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37 (Cal. App. 1945)
-"An ordinance which makes the enjoyment of constitutional freedoms contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official—as by requiring a permit or license at official discretion—is an unconstitutional prior restraint."
— Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313 (1958)
-"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them."
— Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
-"The government may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests'... For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited."
— Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972)-
"It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values... [they] may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning."
— Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972)
-"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."
— Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 946 (9th Cir. 1973)
-Petitioners brought an action in the Federal District Court under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 )"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.")-claiming that Terrace Properties and Hale had conspired with the deputy sheriffs to unreasonably seize and remove their home in violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.A "seizure" of property, we have explained, occurs when "there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property." United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U. S. 109, 113 (1984). In addition, we have emphasized that "at the very core" of the Fourth Amendment "stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home." Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 511 (1961). See also Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170, 178179 (1984); Wyman v. James, 400 U. S. 309, 316 (1971); Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 601 (1980).they are entitled to ask us to affirm on that ground if such action would not enlarge the judgment of the Court of Appeals in their favor. The Court of Appeals found that because the police prevented Soldal from using reasonable force to protect his home from private action that the officers knew was illegal, there was sufficient evidence of conspiracy between the private parties and the officers to foreclose summary judgment for respondents.In our view, the reason why an officer might enter a house or effectuate a seizure is wholly irrelevant to the threshold question whether the Amendment applies. What matters is the intrusion on the people's security from governmental interference. Therefore, the right against unreasonable seizures would be no less transgressed if the seizure of the house was undertaken to collect evidence, verify compliance with a housing regulation, effect an eviction by the police, or on a whim, for no reason at all. As we have observed on more than one occasion, it would be "anomalous to say that the individual and his private property are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment only when the individual is suspected of criminal behavior." Camara, 387 U. S., at 530; see also O'Connor, 480 U. S., at 715; T. L. 0., 469 U. S., at 335.But we see no basis for doling out constitutional protections in such fashion. Certain wrongs affect more than a single right and, accordingly, can implicate more than one of the Constitution's commands. Where such multiple violations are alleged, we are not in the habit of identifying as a preliminary matter the claim's "dominant" character. Rather, we examine each constitutional provision in turn.held
(a) A "seizure" of property occurs when "there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property." United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U. S. 109, 113.
The language of the Fourth Amendment-which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures of "their persons, houses, papers, and effects"-cuts against the novel holding below, and this Court's cases unmistakably hold that the Amendment protects property even where privacy or liberty is not implicated. See, e. g., ibid.; Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347,350.This Court's "plain view" decisions also make untenable the lower court's construction of the Amendment.If the Amendment's boundaries were defined exclusively by rights of privacy, "plain view" seizures, rather than being scrupulously subjected to Fourth Amendment inquiry, Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U. S. 321,326-327, would not implicate that constitutional provision at all.Contrary to the Court of Appeals' position, the Amendment protects seizures even though no search within its meaning has taken place. See, e. g., Jacobsen, supra, at 120-125. Also contrary to that court's view, Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386, does not require a court, when it finds that a wrong implicates more than one constitutional command, to look at the dominant character of the challenged conduct to determine under which constitutional standard it should be evaluated. Rather, each constitutional provision is examined in turn. See, e. g., Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U. S. 517. pp. 61-71.(b) The instant decision should not foment a wave of new litigation in the federal courts. Activities such as repossessions or attachments, if they involve entering a home, intruding on individuals' privacy, or interfering with their liberty, would implicate the Fourth Amendment even on the Court of Appeals' own terms. And numerous seizures of this type will survive constitutional scrutiny on "reasonableness" grounds.Moreover, it is unlikely that the police will often choose to further an enterprise knowing that it is contrary to the law or proceed to seize property in the absence of objectively reasonable grounds for doing so. pp.71-72.-Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992)-
"The government may not require a person to give up a constitutional right—here the right to receive just compensation when property is taken for a public use—in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by the government where the benefit sought has little or no relationship to the property."
— Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. 595 (2013)
-Young v. Hawaii (2021) — 9th Circuit: "Rights don't become second-class just because they are controversial."
Wrenn v. District of Columbia (2017) — DC Circuit: "The law made the Second Amendment a second-class right."
Heller v. District of Columbia (2016) — "Turning the Second Amendment into a second-class right."
NY State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2022) — Supreme Court ruled lower courts cannot apply different constitutional tests for the Second Amendment than for other enumerated rights.

The perfect, complete, plenary delegation of taxing power"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States..."
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8
-“The power to tax is the power to destroy.”
McCulloch v Maryland (1819)
-"There is no such thing in the theory of our national government as unlimited power of taxation in Congress. There are limitations, as he justly observes, of its powers arising out of the essential nature of all free governments; there are reservations of individual rights, without which society could not exist, and which are respected by every government. The right of taxation is subject to these limitations."
— Citizens' Savings Loan Ass'n v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874); Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U.S. 487 (1882)"The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation."— Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
-----
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." -Sixteenth Amendment
----"The subject matter of taxation open to the power of the Congress is as comprehensive as that open to the power of the states, though the method of apportionment may at times be different.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.
If the tax is a direct one, it shall be apportioned according to the census or enumeration.
If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty."
— Cf. Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U.S. 378, 403-405 (1933); Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 12 (1916)
-"The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment... A tax otherwise within the lawful power of a state cannot be adjudged contrary to due process merely because its enforcement may or will result in restricting or even destroying particular occupations or businesses. P. [292 U. S. 44]...
The due process clause applies if the Act be so arbitrary as to compel the conclusion that it does not involve an exertion of the taxing power, but constitute, in substance and effect, the direct exertion of a different and forbidden power, as, for example, the confiscation of property.
P. [292 U. S. 44"] -Magnano Co. v. Hamilton, 292 U.S. 40 (1934)"...And the license tax is fixed in amount and unrelated to the scope of the activities of petitioners or to their realized revenues.
It is not a nominal fee Page 319 U. S. 114 imposed as a regulatory measure to defray the expense of policing the activities in question. [Footnote 8]
It ist...The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment. Magnano Co. v. Hamilton, 292 U. S. 40, 292 U. S.44-45, and cases cited...(addressing the dissent) It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v Aldrich, 316 U. S. 174, and cases cited.But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution.
-Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. at 115 (1943)
...AND MURDOCK THE DISSENT..."The ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of a tax measure is -- has the state given something for which it can ask a return? Although the fostering of commerce was one of the chief purposes for organizing the present Government, that commerce may be burdened with a tax by the United States. Internal Revenue Code, § 3469, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code § 3469.-murdock dissent" -Murdock v Pennsylvania dissent 1943
____________________
Did the state give something-
if not, no privilege?
if yes, continue...For which it can ask a return...given your standing?
if no, no privilege
if yes, privilege.
____________________

INDIRECT TAXES"it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods.
...the legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege." -flint v stone traceyAll indirect taxes, including those structured as income taxes, rests on the ruling logic of Flint v. Stone Tracey and must fall within the category or art 1 sec 8 subjects.
-------------
"Direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate...The duty which the internal revenue acts provided should be assessed, collected, and paid upon gains, profits, and incomes was an excise or duty, and not a direct tax, within the meaning of the Constitution. of duties, imposts, or excises—as per Article I, §8, cl.1...Was the tax here in question a direct tax? If it was, not having been laid according to the requirements of the Constitution, it must be admitted that the laws imposing it, and the proceedings taken under them by the assessor and collector for its imposition and collection, were all void.Against the considerations, in one scale, in favor of these
propositions, what has been placed in the other, as a counterpoise?Our answer is, certainly nothing of such weight, in our judgment, as to require any special reply.
The numerous citations from the writings of foreign political economists, made by the plaintiff in error, are sufficiently answered by Hamilton in his brief, before referred to.
-Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880)--------"First. We adhere to the opinion already announced-that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.
Second. We are of the opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes...
...In view of the instances which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such...We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. But this is not such an act."
— Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895)"Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities.
Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.The requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable.It is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods....but the legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege.""— Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911); Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., p. 680
--Taxation Key, West 53 - The legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege."As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court had decided in the Pollock Cas that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a C corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation..."
-Stratton's Independence, LTD v. Howbert, 231 US 399.414 (1913)-----------------------------------------------
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.- Sixteenth amendment 1916
-----------------------------------------------
Brushaber addressed the income tax provisions within the Tariff Act of 1913 (Underwood Tariff Act, ch. 16, 38 Stat. 114, October 3, 1913), specifically Section II,
“That the authority conferred upon Congress by § 8 of Article I "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises" is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation...…that there was authority given, as the part was included in the whole, to lay and collect income taxes……the conceded complete and all-embracing taxing power was subject…to limitations resulting from the requirements of Art. I, § 8, cl. 1….,. the two great subdivisions embracing the complete and perfect delegation of the power to tax and the two correlated limitations…...the tax was not in the class of direct taxes because of its ownership, but rather on its use, and was therefore an excise, duty, or impost;…the classification of direct was adopted for the purpose of rendering it impossible to burden by taxation accumulations of property, real or personal, except subject to the regulation of apportionment...…the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent,in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it.…the Amendment demonstrates…that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation…...the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock case that the word "direct" had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution ."
— Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
-“The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights.”
— Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, 238 (D. Mont. 1922)
-"in other words, excise includes every form of charge imposed by public authority for the purpose of raising revenue upon the performance of an act, the enjoyment of a privilege, or the engaging in an occupation. The obligation to pay an excise is based upon the voluntary action of the person taxed in performing the act, enjoying the privilege or engaging in the occupation which is subject of the excise and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking."
— Bank of Commerce & Trust Co. v. Senter,260 S.W. 144, 149 Tenn. 569. 1924
-"An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right but is an excise tax. The legislature may declare as 'privileged' and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, but it has no power to declare as ‘privilege’ and tax for revenue purposes occupations that are common right."
— Simms v. Ahrens, 271 S.W. 720 (1925)
-"The term ‘excise tax’ and ‘privilege tax’ are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably." — American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877 (1932)
-"Whether the tax is to be classified as an 'excise' is in truth not of critical importance. If not that, it is an 'impost' or a 'duty'... A capitation or other 'direct' tax it certainly is not."
— Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548, 581-82 (1937)
-"The ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of a tax measure is -- has the state given something for which it can ask a return?
--Murdock v Pennsylvania dissent 1943"The income tax is therefore not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on an activity or owning property which produces income."
— F. Morse Hubbard, Legislative Draftsman, 1942 Congressional Testimony
-"The sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were __otherwise taxable."— South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988)"
-"When the Court refers to an income tax as being in the nature of an excise, it is merely stating that the tax is not on the property itself, but rather a fee for the privilege of receiving gain from the property. The tax is based on the amount of the gain, not the value of the property."
— John R. Luckey, Legislative Attorney, CRS Report for Congress 92-303A (1992)
-“(a) Article I of the Constitution affords Congress broad power to lay and collect taxes. That power includes direct taxes—those imposed on persons or property—and indirect taxes—those imposed on activities or transactions. Direct taxes must be apportioned among the States according to each State’s population, while indirect taxes are permitted without apportionment but must “be uniform throughout the United States,” §8, cl. 1. Taxes on income are indirect taxes, and the Sixteenth Amendment confirms that taxes on income need not be apportioned......By contrast, indirect taxes are the familiar federal taxes
imposed on activities or transactions. That category of
taxes includes duties, imposts, and excise taxes, as well as
income taxes......Because income taxes are indirect taxes, they are
permitted under Article I, §8 without apportionment. As
this Court has said, Article I, §8’s grant of taxing power “is
exhaustive,” meaning that it could “never” reasonably be
“questioned from the” Founding that it included the power
“to lay and collect income taxes.” Brushaber, 240 U. S., at
12–13...
...Taxes on income—including
taxes on income from property—are indirect taxes that
need not be apportioned. Brushaber, 240 U. S., at 15, 18.
Meanwhile, property taxes remain direct taxes that must
be apportioned. See Helvering v. Independent Life Ins. Co.,
292 U. S. 371, 378–379 (1934).
-Moore v. United States (2024)Notice: Every major income tax (1861, 1862, 1864, 1868, 1894, 1913, 1916, 1939, 1954, 1986, and modern Title 26) has been enacted as a provision of an Article I, Section 8 enumerated subject:
tariffs, duties, imposts, or excises applied to privileged or regulated activity.“For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail in this state, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers at the rate…”- Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 6051"The limitations of the Constitution are not maxims of social wisdom, but definite controls on the legislative process."

RESIDENT v DOMICILLIEARY
Domicile determines rights; residence can trigger privileges/taxes.Domicile = CONSUMING YOUR OWN RESOURCES
you’re in your own estate, consuming your own resources, ordinary use, untaxable as a privilege.Residing = VERB CONSUMING ANOTHER PEOPLE'S RESOURCES: FOREIGN to the PEOPLE OF a state.
you’re in someone else’s estate, consuming their resources, which means you’re in the “extraordinary use” category — and that’s the realm where privileges can be taxed, regulated, licensed, or even denied.Premising that...she was a citizen of that state within the meaning of the Constitution, Art. III, § 2, and the Judicial Code of March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1087, Gassies v. Ballon, 6 Pet. 761; Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U. S. 135, 143 U. S. 161; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, we will take these questions up in turn...The very meaning of domicil is the technically preeminent headquarters that every person is compelled to have in order that certain rights and duties that have been attached to it by the law may be determined. Bergner & Engel Brewing Co. v. Dreyfus, 172 Mass. 154, 157.
— Williamson v. Osenton, 232 U.S. 619, 625 (1914)“A ‘resident’ is a person who lives in a place, whether temporarily or permanently. A ‘domiciliary’ is a person who lives in a place with the intent to make it his permanent home. One may be a resident of one place and domiciled in another.”
— Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398, 424 (1939)

DIRECT TAXES
“The power to tax is the power to destroy.” Mcculloch v Maryland (1819)
"...Direct taxes bear upon persons, upon possessions, and enjoyment of rights."
— Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)
"...The classification of direct was adopted for the purpose of rendering it impossible to burden by taxation accumulations of property, real or personal, except subject to the regulation of apportionment."
— Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

IT IS THE INDIVIDUAL AMERICAN'S DUTY TO INVOKE THE LAW.
"Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of the limitations upon his authority.”
— Federal Crop Ins. Corp v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947)"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (1950)THE AMERICAN CAN THEREFORE STAND“The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right,...It has been well said that “property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of the most sacred property.”
- Butchers Union Co. v Crescent city Co. 111US 746 (1883)
-"...Without doubt, it (14th amendment) denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men...-Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36; Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U. S. 746; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578; Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U. S. 549; Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33; Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. 590; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 246 U. S. 357; Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U. S. 312; Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U. S. 525; Wyeth v. Cambridge Board of Health, 200 Mass. 474. -
-Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).Constitutional rights are original rights and are constitutionally recognized and protected:"the individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbor to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution...
...Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation."
— Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)
-
"In our opinion that section, in particular mentioned, is an invasion of the personal liberty, as well as of the right of property, guaranteed by that Amendment.
Such liberty and right embraces the right to make contracts for the purchase of the labor of others and equally the right to make contracts for the sale of one's own labor."
-Adair v United States 208 U.S. 161, 172 (1908)
-“Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property-partaking of the nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property.”
- Coppage v Kansas 236 U.S 1 (1915)
-"Without doubt, it (14th amendment) denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men...
...That the State may do much, go very far, indeed, in order to improve the quality of its citizens, physically, mentally and morally, is clear; but the individual has certain fundamental rights which must be respected. The protection of the Constitution extends to all....... Perhaps it would be highly advantageous if...but this cannot be coerced by methods which conflict with the Constitution -- a desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means....Although such measures have been deliberately approved by men of great genius, their ideas touching the relation between individual and State were wholly different from those upon which our institutions rest, and it hardly will be affirmed that any legislature could impose such restrictions upon the people of a State without doing violence to both letter and spirit of the Constitution....But the means adopted, we think, exceed the limitations upon the power of the State and conflict with rights assured to plaintiff in error...mere abuse incident to an occupation ordinarily useful is not enough to justify its abolition, although regulation may be entirely proper..."
— Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)-"The Constitution protects personal rights of privacy... The right of privacy in the marital relation is fundamental and basic—a personal right 'retained by the people' within the meaning of the Ninth Amendment."
— Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
-"If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."
— Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham; Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938); Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939); Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313 (1958); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965)
-"A law subjecting the right of free expression in publicly owned places to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, and definite standards, is unconstitutional, and a person faced with such a law may ignore it and exercise his First Amendment rights."
— Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969)
-"If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void."
— Wingfield v. Fielder, 2d Cal. 3d 213 (1972)
-"Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right."
— People v. Battle (Cal. App.)  in 50 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1. 1975
-"Michigan law grants a tenant by the entirety some of the most essential property rights: the right to use the property, to receive income produced by it, and to exclude others from it. See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374, 384 (1994) ("[T]he right to exclude others" is " 'one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property''' (quoting Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164, 176 (1979))); Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419, 435 (1982) (including "use" as one of the "[p]roperty rights in a physical thing")...(the right to "dispose" of an item is a property right).
-
United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274 (2002)

Proposal
"Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of the limitations upon his authority.”
— Federal Crop Ins. Corp v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947)"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (1950)Each administrative agency is hired to hunt for revenue through discovering violations, and are incentivized to find the most profitable interpretation they can construct.An agency will observe an act that could be either a right or a privilege, presume it to be a privilege based on attestations made about the violator, and invoke the strictest penalties for breaching the statutorily prescribed terms of use;this leaves it to the to prosecuted to first and foremost understand he is engaged in an adversarial process with a peer; and second, to understand that it is his own responsibility and no one else's defend himself by invoking and substantiating the law he wishes to govern the controversy, beginning by claiming and demonstrating his proper standing, then claiming his rights that are mechanically produced from that standing.A state cannot convert a right into a privilege through the legislature or through executive prosecution...not even through its so called "police" powers which are always under judicial review...that means always subject to being pushed back by Americans asserting their original rights against the statute in court.However bad the government is acting, it is only playing the complimentary part to each one of us making errant attestations on paperwork about each other... that we are planning on or actually engaging in the class of privileged activity;...and by executing this paperwork we attest under penalties of perjury that we are someone-the state given something for which it can ask a return.-an extraordinary | privileged user of the people's national estate.Running our country per the letter of the law creates a property accumulation machine. Both for the American's private estate, as he is unburdened by taxation to accumulate property;
and for the Americans national estate, as his representatives partition off extraordinary access for a fee.
Both estates multiplying themselves without the principle, the people, the property, or their rights ever being diminished, and the American getting his law enforced and his infrastructure paid for while maintaining free ordinary access. Brilliant.Currently, our administrative machine of property accumulation is being used improperly both by us and by our government.
I therefore propose a simple two step solution:
A simple Miranda warning notice on all administrative paperwork including, licenses, taxes, fees, and as a heading to every administrative law.
“Notice to the People, equal fellow citizens, and joint tenants in the sovereignty:
You may have the Right to engage in this activity lawfully without licensure.
DO NOT FILE FOR ORDINARY USE.”
This ensures The People administrative due process. It would allow people to self sort correctly, reduce drag on the machine, and insulate the people from the liability of Mal enforcement. And unwind the administrative state as people understand and start sorting themselves correctly.
Add the positive duty of ascertaining the standing of the party before further prosecution.
This provides due process where the entire weight of the administrative states legal prowess is held in just a handful of forms and attestations which have significant deleterious effect on the citizen if he handles it errantly.

—ApplyingForce.com—
the mechanical count of eden
🜃 TheAtomicForce.com | TheAtomicMind.com 🜃
TheAtomicAmerican.com 🜃 TheAtomicExecutive.comthe atomic cosmos
three elements: energy <×> matter, and consciousness
two constants: cause <×> effect and ownershipenergy<×>matter
energy<+>matter interact through cause <×> effect pressure mediation;
cause <×> effect is force and effect;
force is a push;
effect describes the displacement a push causes upon a medium;
-TheAtomicForce.com
current physics
the study of measured and mathematically reified effects
[0 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 100≡⟂1⊤≡100 >26 constants and counting> 0the atomic map
medium ~ @ ~ phi
the study of cause and effect
-force, displacement, and recursion-there are no points-there are no straight lines,
scaler force acts upon a scaler medium through the path of least resistance.
a force vector has a life cycle within the medium it traverses
[0 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 100≡⟂1⊤≡100 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 0]
{100 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 0≡0≡0 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 100}the atomic invariant
1×𝜑 ×1× 1/𝜑
produces the standard model's 26 constants
all material phenomena are standing waves of pressure stabilized by recursive, asymmetric pressure resolution.
*read formulas from center out,
*brackets ([ } { ]) are deliberately asymmetrical to demonstrate an order of recursive operation.
*map and ascii designed for center justified typset
SCALER FORCE
90°|90°
⟂∀⟂
(90°–0–90°)
SCALER MEDIUM
operates
90°|90°
[ ~ 1×φ ~ ×1× ~ 1/φ ~ }
{ ~ 1/φ ~ ×1× ~ 1×φ ~ ]
[ ~ 1×φ ~ ×1× ~ 1/φ ~ }
{ ~ 1/φ ~ ×1× ~ 1×φ ~ ]
(90°–0–90°)
stabilizes
| φ ² | [1] | φ⁻² |
| φ⁻² | [1] | φ ² |
| φ ² | [1] | φ⁻² |
| φ⁻² | [1] | φ ² |
| φ ² | [1] | φ⁻² |
from zero
≡|÷(0)
≡([𝜑]1(𝜑))
≡([1×𝜑 ×1× 1/𝜑])
≡([90°|89.𝜑°|90°] ~ 1 ~ (0 ~ 108°~ 0))
≡(90°|90° ~ 𝜑[ ~ 1 ~ ]𝜑 ~ (90°–0–90°)
≡|×∇ ~ ×∇𝜑1𝜑∇× ~ ∇×(0)
from origin point
.
|
(0)
(~ ⟂∀⟂~ )
(~ φ ~ ×∇~ 1 _∇× φ ~ )
(~ φ ~ ×∇~ ×∇~ 1 _{∇× ∇× φ ~ )
(|{[90° ~ 1∇×φ ~ ×∇} 1 ~∇× ~ 1∇/φ ~ 108°}]|)
MAP KEY
⟂∀⟂ = conjugate perpendicular orthogonal toroidal/hyperbola pressure matrix
. = apex of displacement
| = scaler force aligned 90° | 90°
(0) = scaler medium aligned (90°-0-90°)
medium states:
inward: |1/φ| × |1/φ| = φ⁻² |
outward: |1×φ| × |1×φ| = φ² |
+ = push sufficient to displace -
- = counter push restoration pressure equal to 1∇× 1∇/phi
hysteresis= {100 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 0≡0≡0 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 100}
~ = 89.φ° transverse force vector expansion at:
1∇×φ ×∇1,
force vector life-cycle:
[0 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 100≡1≡100 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 0]
∇ = clock wise rotation
φ = path of least resistance
φ² = [ , {
φ⁻² = ] , }
φ² = [] = φ⁻²
φ² = () = φ⁻²
-
STANDARD MODEL ERROR: C = 2πr
points are fake - lines are lies
linear and circular and motion are mechanically unified though phi
C = 2πr
C = 4∇ × 4r, V = 5∇ × 10r
1r≈8C
1 radius ≈ 1/8 circumference
1D radii
r = | line 1xφ x1x 1/φ
primitive unit of displacement
2D circumference
C = 4∇×4r
(quarter arc +1 radius)
1 right-angle beat = quarter arc ∇ and 1r
3D volume
V=5∇×10r
5 (5 quarter arc + 10radius) =
THE FIVE CYCLES
cycle 1
[90°] compression point of force acts on (90°)90°=2 radii one change to its apex force, no change to medium;°
cycle 2
[89.φ°] 180°= 3 radii and one change to force and one change to medium;
cycle 3
[89.φ°] 45° = 4 radii and one change to force and one change to medium, and it fills the circuit;
cycle 4
[89.φ°] 72°x54 = 5 radii and one change to force and one change to medium:
tte fifth radii overloads the circuit and branches from the center into compression apex [108°]
cycle 5
[89.φ°] = 10 radii = maximum compression [108].
most simply described in fluid dynamics and wave logic
all fundamental interactions are recursive curl-and-swirl pressure differentials in a φ-governed medium irreducibly expressed as
1×𝜑 ×1× 1/𝜑
from linear circularity to recursive propagation
| / — \ | / — \ |
(— \ | / — \ | / —)
90° | 90°
⟂
(90° - 0 - 90°)
=
90°
|
90°— |-(0)-|— 90°
|
90°
[φ²] [1×φ] + [1] [1/φ] - [φ⁻²]
[1×φ] + [1] (0)∇ [1] [1/φ] -
[φ²] [1] [1] [1] [φ⁻²]
[1/φ] - [1] (0)∇ [1] [1×φ] +
[φ⁻²] [1/φ] - [1] [1×φ] + [φ²]
maps the axis and rolling wheel
90° | 90°
([89.φ° ~ |89.φ°| ⟂ (108°) ~ 89.φ°})
|90°[ ~ 1∇xφ ~ ×∇1∇× ~ 1∇/φ ~ }108°)
({89.φ° ~ (108°) ⟂ |89.φ°| ~ 89.φ°])
(108°{ ~ 1∇/φ ~ ×∇1∇× ~ 1∇xφ ~ ]90°|
([89.φ° ~ |89.φ°| ⟂ (108°) ~ 89.φ°})
(90° - 0 - 90°)
force
|
(---------------------------)
0
axis baseline
(φ[φ+φ]φ)
1,1
(φ[φ++φ]φ)
2
(φ[φ+++φ]φ)
3
(φ[φ+++++φ]φ)
5
(-----φ|φ+φ|φ-----)
1,1 mirrored
(-----φ|φ++φ|φ-----)
2 mirrored
(-----φ|φ+++φ|φ-----)
3 mirrored
(-----φ|φ+++++φ|φ-----)
5 mirrored
powered by the perpetual kinetic syntropy created by additive expansion and multiplicative contraction
0φ0×∇108°∇× φ0φ
(0→1→2→3→5) x1x (5→3→2→1→0)
maps the energy differential that sustains the whole system
(additive φ-turn expansion)
1xphi: 0 → 1 → 2 → 3 → 5
(90°⟂180°⟂45°⟂72°⟂108°)
X
(108°⟂72°⟂45°⟂180°⟂90°)
1/phi: 5 → 3 → 2 → 1 → 0
(multiplicative φ-turn compression)
───────────────────────────────
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
🜃 TheAtomicMind.com
consciousness consists at a minimum of
awareness (measurement of self) will (action on self)
|<+>| (autodidactic telos)
|awareness| |<+>| |will|
|cognition| |<+>| |volition|
|measurement of self| |<+>| |action on self|
|I AM HERE| |<+>| |I MOVE ME|
-------------------------
awareness is at a minimum measurement of self.
this is frictionless.
|"I AM HERE"|
****|⬇+⬆| ****
|"I MOVE ME"|
this is the introduction of friction.
will is action on self.
-------------------------
|I AM HERE| |<+>| |I MOVE ME| = |I OWN ME|
forms a closed self-authorization circuit that allows consciousness to act upon itself as it chooses regardless of, including in opposition to, environmental conditions.
this circuit defines the mechanical ontology of free-will and describes the original condition of self-ownership and the fractal nature of the species of man instantiated.
will initiates new causal chains that are predictably mediated by the environment.
the environment responds predictably and intuitively to the individual's push.
in addition, each man has the meta ability to become aware of, introspect, question, override, update, visualize, and take conscious control over the circuit itself.
this constant of man mechanically produces this ontological arrangement separate and equal station of man-to-man and man-to-property
───────────────────────────────
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
🜃 TheAtomicAmerican.com
individual separate and equal station is the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living'.”
— Thomas Jefferson, 1789
— to assume the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of of nature’s god entitle. that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men—
_{the citizens of america, equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants}
-he is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way-
his rights are such as existed by...
the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state
|AWARENESS| |<+>| |WILL| = |FREE WILL|
≡original ownership≡
≡separate and equal station≡
≡orignial standing-rights-duties-breaches-remedies≡
≡|I AM HERE| |<+>| |I MOVE ME| = |I OWN ME|≡≡|MY PRIVATE PROPERTY|≡
---DO NOT TRESPASS---
__________________________
|jointly held property|
|self authorized ordinary use rights|
-permission required extraordinary use privileges-
|self authorized ordinary use rights|
|jointly held property|
__________________________
---DO NOT TRESPASS---
≡|YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY|≡
≡|YOU ARE THERE| |<+>| |YOU MOVE YOU| = |YOU OWN YOU|≡
liberty is the total of rights and privileges
private property
owner + any non-breach use = right
non-owner + any use = privilege
joint property
joint tenant + ordinary use = right
joint tenant + extraordinary use = privilege
non-owner + any use = privilege
each fully apex, each fully owning their own, each fully jointly owning the whole, each able to acquire, control, defend and dispose of their own in any way that does not breach another, each with access to ordinarily use and defend the whole;
the tenancy with the power to defend and dispose the whole, all with the power to regulate and tax the extraordinary use of the joint assets;
none with the authority to breach another, none subordinate to another;
map key
— declaration of independence 1776
~chisolm v georgia 1793
-hale v. henkel 1906
mankind and all groups from species inward are composed of individuals building upon one another's individual attainments. the individual self is the only way unmanifest potential is manifested.
individual self the atomic unit of mankind, the locus of all species awareness, inspiration, innovation, calculation, and action.
<+> autodidactic telos
awareness measurement of self
will action on self
free will aware, calculated, and deliberate action on self
-
americans have an estate of private property that they own severally, and a national estate they own jointly;
this mechanically produces duties, rights, privileges, breaches, and remedies that can be intuitively understood and logically deduced.
the federal and state constitutions sit in the middle of americans as the structure instituted among apex equals to assist in securing his original separate and equal pre- government condition.
joint tenancy secures each american's separate and equal station and yields ordinary use rights.
original ownership is a fact of human nature on which each constitution is based.
───────────────────────────────
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
🜃 TheAtomicExecutive.com
all commercial wealth is produced by three fundamental activities: finding, making, and fulfilling agreements. nothing else.
the atomic link of every supply chain for every industry is a series of individual agreements, from end-user to producer.
agreements determine what gets produced from work, who gets to work, the nature of work, who benefits from work, and who gets what in exchange for work.
finding, making, and fulfilling agreements is fundamental to living,
parties commit to exchange cause for effect,
the agreement forms natural division of labor, resource creation, and disposition including all parts of distribution, management, and consumption through individual cooperation.