Is the “Declaration of Independence” a Treaty?

This is a high-resolution image of the United States Declaration of Independence (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I seem to deal with this problem every 6 to 12 months.  Someone reads what we’ve come to call the “Declaration of Independence” and sees that its proper name is “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” and leaps to the conclusion the proper name for this country must be the “united States of America”.

Back in the 1990s, when I first saw the proper name for our “Declaration of Independence,” I leaped to the very same conclusion.  I thought, “Damn!  The proper name for this country must be ‘united States of America’!!!  No wonder we’re having so much trouble in court!  We don’t even understand the proper name of our own country!!!

But over time, I realized that my conclusion (the proper name for this country is the “united States of America”) was mistaken.  That conclusion is a “rookie” mistake and I suppose that all of us who study our country’s political and legal foundation have already made it or are destined to make it at some point in the future.

•  For example, here’s a recent comment on my blog:

“I am surprised you did not pick up on or comment on the uncapitalized “u” in the word “united” in the original document and correctly reproduced in the early printings of the Declaration.

“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_declaration_independence.jpg”>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_declaration_independence.jpg”

Given that I’ve addressed this issue in the past on radio shows, or in my former magazine (“AntiShyster”), and probably on this blog, I was a little bit surprised that I felt “compelled” to write a reply.

 

Learn the Language or Accept your Status as a Slave

Black’s law Dictionary, (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A friend of mine sent me an email based on recent reports that “On Friday, the Senate passed the FISA Amendments Act which gives the government the ability to electronically monitor the phone calls, e-mails and other communications of Americans without a probable cause warrant as long as they can claim that one of the parties to the communication is believed to be outside of the U.S.”

The average American is unconcerned that the FISA Act authorizes the federal government to make warrantless wiretaps of phone calls made from the “U.S.” to Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan.  The vast majority of Americans will never make a call to a foreign country “outside of the U.S.,” so the vast majority don’t care if the government can wire tap calls to foreign countries without a warrant.  But the average American’s indifference to these warrantless wiretaps is based on the assumption that the phrase “outside the U.S.” necessarily applies only to calls made to foreign countries.

My friend, however, asked, “I wonder if ‘outside the U.S.‘ means to the government what it does to us?”

 

Does your ID Identify You–Or the “state” You “Identify With”?

Scan of an EXPIRED diplomatic drivers license/permit.  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“John” posted a comment on this blog that read as follows:

“A friend of mine a few weeks ago was taking a late night walk. He walked by a cop who had 6 people on the side of the road. The cop walked up to my friend and said, I need some ID. My friend said to the cop, “I am a flesh and blood living sentient man created in the image of God, do YOU rebut that”? The cop said, OK, have a nice evening, and he walked away.

“Same friend some years back was pulled over. They asked for a DL. He said I don’t have one. They asked who he was. He said I’m a man. They asked if he had any type of ID? He said at my house right up the block I can show you a birth certificate. They said never mind, we can’t use that. We have no authority over you. They let him go.”

John (and others) were discussing the subject of “identification”.  Most people regard “identification” as the little plastic cards that we carry in our wallets to prove “who we are”.  I have some doubt.

 

A “State of the United States”

Image via Wikipedia

I try not to publish anything on this blog that wastes my readers’ time. I’d like to provide some “insight” with each article, but I know that some of my articles are merely interesting (I hope) or sometimes (at best) amusing. But every so often I find myself writing an article that I think might be more than interesting, or amusing or even insightful. Once in a while, the Good LORD lets me write something that I (at least) think is important. I think this is one of those articles.

I’m not claiming that this article is well written or easily understood. I’m simply saying that this article contains the germ or an idea, an insight, that I believe is important and so far, unnoticed. I’ll undoubtedly write a couple more articles on this subject over the next several months. By the time I get to the 2^nd or 3^rd article on this subject, I should be able to explain with much greater clarity.

Nevertheless, if you’ll make the effort to overcome my imperfect writing, I hope you’ll learn something that you may also believe to be important: some fundamental differences between the “United States” and “The United States of America”.

 

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

Image via Wikipedia

Under the “The State/this state” hypothesis, the term “The State” is intended to signify any one of the 50 States of the Union (such as “The State of Texas” or “The State of Florida”).  The term “this state,” on the other hand, is intended to signify administrative districts (like “TX” or “FL”) of a singular territory that spans the entire U.S..   (For more insight into this hypothesis, see, “The States of the Union vs. The Territory” at http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/the-states-of-the-union-vs-the-territory/#more-7133).

According to the “The State/this state” hypothesis, the federal gov-co has supplanted “The States” of the Union with the administrative districts of a singular national territory.  It is believed that the feds caused this change because, under Article 1 of the federal Constitution, Congress has limited and enumerated powers with regard to “The States” of the Union, but under Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution, Congress has virtually unlimited powers over the territories.

 

Domestic Courts and Global Governance

Image via Wikipedia

All by itself, the title–”Domestic Courts and Global Governance”–suggests the significant insight offered by that article.  You might ask What th’ Hell do “domestic courts” have to do with “global governance”?  In theory, our “domestic courts” (those of the “United States” and/or “this state”) should not have any jurisdiction or authority over persons and places outside our national borders.

However, according to the article written by Christopher A.Whytock (University of California, Irvine, School of Law; published in the Tulane Law Review, Vol. 84, No. 67, A.D. 2009), US “domestic courts” are pervasively involved in regulating transnational activity.

Big deal, hmm?  Why should you care if domestic/US courts have some legal impact on the “transnational activities” of people or places outside our national borders?

The answer is that principles used to justify the domestic courts of “United States” to affect the people and places of foreign countries, are almost certainly the same principles that allow the de facto courts of “this state” to claim authority over the de jure people and places of The United States of America (including The States of the Union).

 

Notes on “Sovereign Territory”

Based on the presumption that The State and “this state” are two entirely different and mutually exclusive “venues,” my appreciation for the concept of “venue” is growing.

The following notes on “sovereign territory” are based on that growing appreciation.

These notes are simply my observations based on a Findlaw.com search of US Supreme Court cases that used the term “sovereign territory”.  They are in the following PDF file:  100525 Notes on Sovereign Territory

 

The State, “this state” and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

Most of what I write is conjecture and speculation.  I enjoy it.  I enjoy “sticking my neck out” to advance ideas that many might suppose were a little “daft”.   Public speculation can be as dangerous as public nudity since your own words can later be used against you to show that you’re a damn fool.  I like that danger.  I like the risk.  For me, speculation is exciting and irresistible.

What follows is some speculation on the fundamental differences between The State and “this state” and also on “extraterritorial jurisdiction”.  It’s all in a PDF file at this link:  100519 Findlaw USSC search EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISD

 

The Power of a Name

Most of my articles are conjectural.  My lines of conjecture are often curious, sometimes confusing, occasionally fantastic and, at times, even mind-numbing.  I try not to publish those articles that are mind-numbing.  The following article is an exception.  I hate to publish it because it seems “half-baked”.  The article contains an insight below that I deem valuable but incomplete.  Nevertheless, the insight (while a little “mind-numbing”) seems too intriguing to abandon until I can grab a little more clarity.

 

What do you “believe” about “belief”?

The following curious email exchange took place in December between myself and a friend who prefers to remain unnamed.  The exchange touches on the difference between “The State” (of the Union) and “this state” (the unincorporated association/territory/implied charitable trust of the singular United States) and especially on the bizarre importance of “belief” in our legal system.

The conclusions (or at least suspicions) about “belief” are somewhat challenging to understand and hard to “believe”.  Nevertheless, I think those conclusions/suspicions may be roughly correct.

In essence, I’m using this email exchange to explain what I “believe” about “belief”.