To understand the “real deal” behind the Sovereignty movement, one must look past modern statutes and into the bedrock of Natural Law. This is not a single document, but a persistent philosophical lineage that argues law is not something “created” by men in legislatures, but something “discovered” in the inherent order of the universe or the divine nature of the human being. The movement represents a rigorous attempt to remain outside of a “commercial” jurisdiction its members never agreed to enter, viewing the modern state as a giant web of adhesion contracts where every administrative interaction is a trap designed to strip the “living soul” of their Natural Law standing.

The Foundational Tapestry of Natural Law
The sovereignty camp draws from a diverse, almost syncretic well of historical and spiritual authorities to justify its position. They argue that because a human being is a “living soul” created by a higher authority-whether that be God, Nature, or the Universe-they possess an inherent jurisdiction that no earthly corporation, including the United States government, can supersede without explicit, individual consent.

The Magna Carta serves as the secular cornerstone of this movement. Sovereigns point to Article 39, which states that no free man shall be seized or imprisoned except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. They argue this established that the State is subject to the law, not the law itself, and that the modern administrative state has effectively “re-monarchized” itself by ignoring these protections. This is bolstered by the Vedic concept of Dharma found in the Manu Smriti and Rg Veda, which describes a fixed, eternal cosmic order. From this perspective, government statutes are seen as “Adharma” if they interfere with an individual’s ability to fulfill their divine purpose or maintain physical autonomy. Furthermore, Emer de Vattel’s 1758 treatise, The Law of Nations, provides a basis for the idea that a nation is merely a collection of sovereign individuals who retain their inherent sovereignty even when joining a society, allowing one to rescission participation in the corporate state while remaining on the land.

The Mechanics of Sovereignty and Commercial Law
When the courtroom bias is stripped away, the logic of the sovereignty camp stands on pillars that redefine common administrative acts as commercial traps. A central theme is the “Commercial Transformation,” which posits that since the 1930s, the U.S. has moved from Public Law to Private Commercial Law. This theory suggests that when the country went into bankruptcy upon abandoning the gold standard, the people became the collateral for a currency backed only by “faith and credit.” Consequently, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) governs almost all modern interactions. Sovereigntists argue that signing a 1040 tax return is an act of “voluntarily” assessing oneself, identifying that the system relies on implied consent to function.

This commercial lens is applied to the Social Security Number (SSN), which is viewed as the primary “nexus” or “umbilical cord” attaching the living soul to the corporate state. Rather than a mere identifier, the SSN is seen as a Federal Contract creating a “Social Security Trust.” By using it, the state argues the individual accepts federal benefits and burdens. Sovereigntists often attempt “rescission of signature,” notifying the government that their participation was based on a lack of full disclosure and revoking their “power of attorney” over the “Strawman”-the legal fiction identified by the ALL CAPS name on the card. They believe that without this contract, the government has no more jurisdiction over them than any other private corporation.

Labor, Taxation, and the Right to Travel
The application of Natural Law to income tax and movement is particularly dense. In classical economics and Natural Law, labor is private property. Sovereigntists argue that trading forty hours of life for a wage is an exchange of equal value, not a “gain” or “profit.” Therefore, taxing a paycheck is seen as a 100% tax on the property of one’s time, violating the 5th Amendment’s protection against the taking of property without just compensation. They maintain that “income” must be a derivative of capital, like rent or dividends, rather than the core capital of life-energy. To protect these earnings, some file UCC-1 financing statements against their own legal names, claiming a “prior secured interest” in their labor so that the “living soul” is paid before the IRS.

Similarly, the right to move is viewed as an extension of the right to breathe. Sovereigntists distinguish between the “Right” to move as an inherent liberty and the “Privilege” of driving. Citing early American jurisprudence like Thompson v. Smith, they argue that a “Driver’s License” is a contract that tricks individuals into converting a natural right into a state-granted privilege. To them, a “Driver” is a legal term for one engaged in commerce. When pulled over, they argue they are not “driving a motor vehicle” but “traveling in a private conveyance.” They view the roadway not as a state-owned facility, but as a public easement where their Natural Law right to move is absolute and requires no state permission slip.

When arguments “succeed,” they often do so through challenging jurisdiction or conscientious objection. If an individual effectively demonstrates that the court has no personam jurisdiction, cases are sometimes dismissed to avoid the procedural headache of a non-compliant “living soul.” Furthermore, when arguments are framed as deeply held religious or moral beliefs-rooted in the Rg Veda, the Bible, or personal conscience-courts are often forced to grant accommodations because the Constitutional protection of conscience remains a rare point of entry for the living soul within the system.

A Sovereigntist standing in court refusing to enter the “bar” is physically manifesting a jurisdictional divide. They are attempting to remain in the context of Natural Law / De Jure, while the judge operates in Version under Legal Positivism / De Facto. The system overrules them not because their logic is “bad,” but because their logic is incompatible with the survival of the state. If the state admitted that labor isn’t income or that travel is an absolute right, the state’s ability to fund itself and regulate its territory would collapse. The court cannot afford to acknowledge that the SSN is a voluntary contract or that the roads are free easements, as doing so would acknowledge the state’s own bankruptcy of authority.

The U.S. legal system operates on the basis of Legal Positivism and de facto power — law that derives its authority simply because the state has the capacity to enforce it. The system overrules sovereignty theory not because their logic is “bad,” but because their logic is incompatible with the survival of the state. Therefore, the state uses a “frivolous” designation as a procedural “kill switch” to protect a system defined by Legal Positivism and de facto power from a logic it cannot refute but cannot survive if acknowledged. While the sovereign argument remains logically sound within its own framework, they fail in the courtroom because the judiciary is strictly committed to the survival of the state’s own authority and refuses to recognize the validity of the older code.