If you’ve followed this blog for a year or more, you should be aware that I subscribe to the hypothesis that the government has chosen to treat the “states of the United States” (like “Texas,” “Illinois” and “Florida”) as territories rather than States of the Union (“states of The United States of America”) like “The State of Texas,” “The State of Illinois,” and “The State of Florida”. (You can see a list of articles dealing with this theory at: https://adask.wordpress.com/category/the-state-vs-this-state/)
If this hypothesis is true, it’s important because under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of The Constitution of the United States, the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the territories. Within a “territory of the United States,” the Congress is the sovereign and can do anything they like. They have unlimited powers in the territories. The people of the territories have virtually no rights that they might be absolutely able to enforce other then those currently allowed by Congress.
Within the States of the Union, the people are sovereign and Congress has only those limited powers described in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
So, it makes a big difference whether you are presumed to act and “appear” within the jurisdiction of a territory like “Texas,” “STATE OF TEXAS,” or TX” or if you’re presumed to act and live within the jurisdiction of a State of the Union like “The State of Texas”. In the first instance, you are a subject without any rights that you can count on. In the second instance, you are a sovereign with a multitude of unalienable Rights granted you by the God of the Bible and beyond denial by the government of that State of the Union.