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”.

 

The United States of America vs the United States

Image via Wikipedia

I received a comment elsewhere on this blog that asked for an analysis of the difference between “The United States of America” and “United States”.  I replied as follows:

As I understand it, the word “constitution” signifies a document that originally creates, incorporates or “constitutes” some new entity.  We say “The Constitution of the United States,” but the same text might just as easily have been entitled “The Charter of the United States” or “The Incorporation Papers of the United States”.  As I understand it, the instrument entitled “The Constitution of the United States” is the document that “constituted” the entity named “United States”.

Note that even though a document that performs the function of  ”constituting” or creating a new entity, that document need not be expressly named “The Constitution of [That Entity]“.  It could have an name that never used the word “constitution” but still performed the function of “constituting” a new entity.

We’re all familiar with the federal “Constitution”.  There’s a problem with that document.  The author’s never attached an explicit title at the top of that document and so there’s some confusion about its proper name.  Some think that document is properly named “The Constitution of the United States”.  Some say, “The Constitution of The United States of America.”  Others say, “The Constitution for the United States of America”.

 

The Debt Ceiling Is Falling! The Debt Ceiling Is Falling!

Image via Wikipedia

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote:

“ According to the Bloomberg, ‘The Greek government [pushed] through Parliament an austerity package to avert a default on billions of euros in government debt.’

“But that’s not true.  The new austerity program didn’t “avert a default”.  The default has already taken place.  Greece didn’t and/or couldn’t pay its debt on time.  That’s a default.”

Note the fundamental principle:  If a debtor doesn’t pay his debts: 1) on time and 2) in full—he has, in fact, defaulted.

This principle is supported by the continuing fear that, even after an alleged “bailout,” the Greek debt may still be the first domino needed to topple other European Union “dominoes” (Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, etc.) into deeper recessions and/or overt depressions.

 

The States of the Union vs. the Territory

Image via Wikipedia

I embrace the fantastic hypothesis that the federal government has created a second, alternative set of “states” that are, in fact, administrative districts of a “territory” rather than States of the Union.  In essence, this “State-vs-territory” hypothesis argues that “TX” is a territory while “The State of Texas” is a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.  Whichever of these venues (territory or State of the Union) that you inhabit will determine your rights, your duties, your taxes, your liabilities to arbitrary, unlimited government or your liberty within a limited government.

The idea of two, alternative “venues” (the States of the Union and territories) is at least fifteen years old.  So far as I know, the first person to advocate this concept was Paul Andrew Mitchell (writing under the pen name of “Mitch Modeleski”) in his book The Federal Zone.  The concept was picked up and amplified by Richard Kegley, TJ Henderson, Ed Wahler and Dennis Craig Bynum in A.D. 2006 in a book entitled USA v US.  I’ve studied and explored this concept for at least 10 years and, fantastic as it seems, I believe this hypothesis to be true.

I realize that the idea that our own federal government would intentionally “overthrow” the governments of the States of the Union, supplant those State governments with territorial administrative agencies seems too fantastic to believe.  I’ve spent at least 10 years looking for evidence to disprove this incredible hypothesis.  But after ten years of looking all I can tell you for sure is that: 1) It looks like a duck; 2) it walks like a duck; 3) it quacks like a duck; and 4) it goes good with orange sauce.  I still can’t prove that it’s a duck, but I’ve seen nothing in 10 years to suggest that it’s not.