Or lack thereof, rather.

If the constitution is the preamble to the codes, statutes and courts, presenting a code citation, statute or court decision as though it were evidence that the constitution applies to you or anyone else is circular logic. Circular logic isn't evidence of anything at all. In order for a code, statute, or court decision to apply to you, it would first need to be demonstrated that the constitution applies to you because of your physical location. The applicability of a code, statute or court decision PRESUPPOSES the applicability of the constitution; it does not PROVE the applicability of the constitution. Why would something to which the constitution gives rise apply to you if it can't even be demonstrated that the constitution applies to you? It would be like if you asked me for evidence that my cell phone contract applies to you, and I kept repeatedly pointing to a line in my cell carrier's terms of service. Why would their terms of service apply to you if you don't have a contract with them? Why would it matter to you what their terms of service say if you don't even have a contract with them? It wouldn't. Same for the constitution. Contracts have elements. Can you provide evidence that those elements have been satisfied with regard to your relationship to the constitution and the people who wrote it, or is your relationship to the authors of said document purely fictitious? If it's not fictitious, by what method did the authors of this magical document come to be authorized to contract and consent on your behalf before you were even born? How could any document drafted by these individuals be binding on anyone but themselves? Furthermore, claiming that someone is a citizen as though it were evidence of the constitution's applicability is also circular logic. Citizenship PRESUPPOSES the constitution's applicability. Again, how could it be proven that anything written in the constitution applies to you if it can't even be proven that the constitution applies to you? However, citizenship also requires reciprocal obligations of allegiance and protection. Given that the individuals calling themselves "the state" openly admit to not having an obligation to protect any individual, how could it be demonstrated that any individual owes these people allegiance? It couldn't. As I've covered previously, there are therefore no "citizens". There is no "state". There is no evidence that the constitution applies to anyone. There are just individuals, some of whom get away with forcing other individuals to pay them for no other reason than that they call themselves "government". The fact that these individuals capture information from others under threat of force for the purpose of creating other documents like "birth certificates", "driver's licenses", "social security cards" and "marriage licenses" doesn't change this.

A Note to Challengers

Do you disagree with me? Are you certain that the constitution applies to me because of my physical location? Prove it. Keep the following in mind when attempting to provide your proof: Issues of law are theoretical in nature. Application of law is practical in nature. Theoretical and practical are not the same thing. "Does due process require a fair hearing?" is a question of law, which means it's a theoretical question. It would make sense to answer this question with a legal citation. "Do you have any factual evidence that the constitution applies to me because of my physical location?" is a practical question of fact. It would not be appropriate to respond to the this question with a legal citation. To claim that the constitution applies to me because of something written in the constitution or a statute to which it gives rise would be circular logic, which is a logical fallacy. It would first need to be factually demonstrated that the constitution applies in the first place before it could be demonstrated that anything written within it or any of its subsequent statutes is applicable to me. In order for someone to prove that the constitution applies to me or anyone else, they'd have to demonstrate factual evidence that: 1. I was presented with an offer. 2. A meeting of the minds occurred. 3. There was was valuable consideration. 4. My consent was freely given. Absent factual evidence of these four elements of a contract, there is no way to prove that the constitution or any of the statutes, codes or regulations to which it gives rise apply to me or anyone else. I was never presented with an offer, there was never a meeting of the minds, there is no valuable consideration, and everything the people calling themselves "government" do is precipitated by theft and death threats, meaning it is literally impossible to freely give consent. The gun in the room is argumentum ad baculum; not evidence of applicability. Again, if you think you have factual evidence to the contrary, put it on the table. If what you put forth doesn't satisfy the four elements listed above, it isn't evidence of applicability. Argumentum ad baculum, appeals to popularity, appeals to authority, appeals to antiquity, special pleading, ad hominems, modal scope fallacies, and circular logic can't prove that the constitution applies to me or anyone else. Good luck. I know for a fact that the evidence doesn't exist.