RSS

Tuesday Night Radio: The State of the Union vs. “this state” (a territory and/or administrative district)

03 Jun

American Independence Hour hosted by Alfred Adask; 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Central time, Tuesday nights, on AmericanVoiceRadio.com and also on the KU band, free-to-air satellite link at Galaxy 19.  There’ll be call-ins at 1-800-596-8191.

I hope you’ll listen in.  I hope you’ll call in.

 
12 Comments

Posted by on June 3, 2014 in American Independence Hour, Radio

 

Tags: ,

12 responses to “Tuesday Night Radio: The State of the Union vs. “this state” (a territory and/or administrative district)

  1. Roger

    June 3, 2014 at 4:25 PM

    Excerpt from the 1942 Supreme Court case of State Tax Commission of Utah v. Aldrich, written by Justice Frankfurter in the majority:

    “The taxing power is an incident of government. It does not derive from technical legal concepts. The power to tax is coextensive with the fundamental power of society over the persons and things made subject to tax. Each State of the Union has the same taxing power as an independent government, except insofar as that power has been curtailed by the federal Constitution.”

    Alfred, can we can take this to mean the States of the Union still existed as of 1942?

     
    • Adask

      June 3, 2014 at 10:30 PM

      I have no doubt that the States of the Union still fully existed in A.D. 1942. I strongly suspect that the governments of the States of the Union existed up until the early 1960s.

      Insofar as the States of the Union are composed of the PEOPLE of each of those States of the Union, those State of the Union still exist to this day–but the the local government is administrative and territorial and “of the United States” rather than of a State of the Union. The States of the Union are still here. The State-of-the-Union governments are insolvent, vacant and abandoned–at least since gold & silver were removed from domestic circulation.

       
  2. Roger

    June 3, 2014 at 7:00 PM

    Some remnant of the States of the Union existed even into the 1970s, or so this ruling by the Supreme Court would seem to imply. What do you make of this, Al?

    “While sovereign nations are free to levy discriminatory taxes on the goods of other nations or to bar their entry altogether, the States of the Union are not. Nor are the States free to deny extradition of a fugitive when a proper demand is made by the executive of another State. And the citizens in each State are entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.”

    — Nevada v. Hall, 440 US 410 (1979)

     
  3. Henry

    June 3, 2014 at 7:32 PM

    Roger,

    I think Al talks about the defunct nature of the governments of the States of the Union, as opposed to the States of the Union themselves. But your questions are still valid, and I share your interest.

     
    • Adask

      June 3, 2014 at 10:42 PM

      If I recall correctly, Texas vs. White is a post Civil War case that defined the States of the Union to each consist of three elements: 1) limited, fixed territory; 2) state government; and 3) the PEOPLE of the State. But the court went on to say that even if the territory had been partially or even totally captured by a foreign enemy by war, the State would still exist. And even if the government of a State of the Union were destroyed, the State would still exist. The sin qua non of each State of the Union was the PEOPLE of that State. So long as some PEOPLE of The State of the Union still exist, that State of the Union exists. I am one of the People of The State of Texas. So long as I and others still identify ourselves as members of the People of The State of Texas, that State of the Union still exists.

      Also, the Union named “The United States of America” was declared in the Articles of Confederation to be “perpetual”. It would seem to follow that if the Union of States is perpetual, each of the member-States must also be “perpetual”.

      I believe the States of the Union still exist, even though the governments of the States of the Union do not.

      If I were to expressly argue under oath in a court that “The State of Texas” is a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America,” and that I am one of the People of that State of the Union, who would the government send to the witness stand to testify against me? The whole scam depends on the people not realizing the difference between “The State” and “this state”. Government may be able to silently presume that you and I are in some territorial “state”–but they cannot openly declare that the States of the Union have been eliminated by some congressional scheme or pretext. If I declare under oath that I am one of the People of “The State of Texas” and enter evidence of that declaration into a court record, I doubt that any prosecutor or judge would dare to expressly deny my declaration.

      I.e., if I swear “The State of Texas” exists, it does.

       
  4. Roger

    June 3, 2014 at 10:57 PM

    Thanks for the reply, Al. This is an interesting topic, and I think you’re on to something.

    What about the other Supreme Court case I cited, from the 1970s? Could you briefly comment on that one also? I’ll post it here again, for convenience:

    “While sovereign nations are free to levy discriminatory taxes on the goods of other nations or to bar their entry altogether, the States of the Union are not. Nor are the States free to deny extradition of a fugitive when a proper demand is made by the executive of another State. And the citizens in each State are entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.”

    – Nevada v. Hall, 440 US 410 (1979)

    This ruling appears to discuss governmental functions of the States of the Union. How do we interpret it in terms of the governments of the States of the Union being insolvent, vacant and abandoned since 1968?

     
    • Adask

      June 4, 2014 at 1:03 AM

      I’d have to read the case. But as I’ve said elsewhere, I believe the States of the Union are still present but the governments of the States of the Union have been rendered insolvent and are inoperative. Technically, the text you cited appears to be consistent with my hypothesis. The court admits that the States of the Union are still present in A.D. 1971. However, the court did not say or clearly imply in that excerpt that the GOVERNMENTS of the States of the Union are still present.

      Still, that sounds like a good case to read and see what can be learned. Thanks for sending.

       
      • Toland

        June 4, 2014 at 2:05 AM

        Adask wrote, “However, the court did not say or clearly imply in that excerpt that the GOVERNMENTS of the States of the Union are still present.”

        I don’t get this part of your comment, Al.

        How do you reckon “taxes” and “extradition” in the above excerpt from the 1979 ruling don’t clearly imply functions of a government?

         
  5. Joseph LAmarca

    June 4, 2014 at 12:18 AM

     
  6. Adask

    June 4, 2014 at 5:13 AM

    I may not understand your comment. However, I think you may still be having trouble recognizing that the State of the Union is, primarily, the People of that State and only secondarily, the government of that State. Most people suppose that the “state” is the government. Not so. As explained in Texas vs White (if I recall correctly), a State of the Union can exist without fixed territory and even without a State-of-the-Union government. Thus, the court’s A.D. 1979 reference to the “States of the Union” could be to the continuing existence of the PEOPLES of the States of the Union, even though the de jure GOVERNMENTs of the States of the Union had been rendered insolvent and replaced by de facto administrative agencies of the territorial “states”.

    I’m not saying that’s true. I’m saying that’s possible.

    In fact, the A.D. 1979 Nevada v Hall case may be evidence that my hypothesis concerning The State vs “this state” is mistaken. I’ll have to read the case and see what conclusions I come to. It’s 12,000 words. I probably won’t get to it before this weekend.

    Every government (de jure or de facto) performs pretty much the same functions. A monarchy imposes taxes and seeks or allows extraditions. Without more, the fact that some government engages in taxes or extradition, doesn’t prove whether that government is de jure (has authority from the People) or de facto (exists without legitimate authority under the pretext of necessity or emergency). I am arguing that The State of the Union is “de jure” and “this state” (territory) is “de facto”.

    Incidentally, I’ve been extradited from “Texas” to “Missouri” on one occasion in A.D. 2002. I was much surprised when I was threatened with another dose of the same extradition in A.D. 2004. Therefore, I studied extradition and came to conclude that there are two capacities in which one can be extradited: 1) as a man endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights who is acting at arm’s length; and 2) as a servant (fiduciary). In retrospect, I realized that my extradition was based on the unstated presumption that I was a fiduciary rather than a “man” acting “at arm’s length”. It’s infinitely easier to extradite persons who are presumed to be fiduciaries than it is to extradite men expressly acting at arm’s length.

    It’s another article that I should write, and probably will. But not today.

     
    • Toland

      June 4, 2014 at 8:10 AM

      Perhaps I didn’t express myself clearly. I’m not trying to say anything complicated or controversial. At least I don’t think so.

      I simply note the words “taxes” and “extradition” in the Nevada v. Hall excerpt posted by Roger and conclude that government (of some sort) must be the subject matter. As far as I know, taxes and extradition are always the responsibilities of government entities, be they governments of States of the Union or some other type.

      In addition, I note that the citation attributes the above-mentioned “taxes” and “extradition” to “the States of the Union”. Therefore, the government entities in question are governments of the States of the Union.

       
  7. Joan of Arc

    June 4, 2014 at 9:43 AM

    This leads me to think more about those in Texas who believe it is time to secede.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s