Category Archives: States’ Rights

Protecting the “States” against Invasion

It all depends on the PLACE.  It all depends on WHERE. [courtesy Google Images]

It all depends on the PLACE. It all depends on WHERE.
[courtesy Google Images]

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:

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.

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , , , , ,

The United States of America vs the United States

The Articles of Confederation, ratified in 178...

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”.

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

There Will Be Blood

The current United States Supreme Court, the h...

Image via Wikipedia

The federal gov-co passes roughly 20,000 legislative provisions each year that (probably) violate the Constitution.  The sheer volume of federal legislation and rule-making makes enforcement of constitutional premises practically impossible.

About 8,000 case reach the US Supreme Court each year. Most of these cases are based on alleged violations of the Constitution.  These appeals cost litigants between $100,000 and $1 million each. The Supreme Court only hears about 80 cases each year.  Thus, at least 99% of litigants alleging violations of the Constitution aren’t even heard.

Why does this deprivation of the right to redress of grievances take place?  Because the feds passed laws that allow cases filed by plaintiffs in State courts to be summarily “removed” by defendants (especially governmental defendants) to the federal courts.  Result?  The federal courts (especially the Supreme Court) have been overwhelmed with cases that should have remained at the State level.  More, since federal judges are not elected, the People have lost political control over their judges.  Because the federal judges aren’t accountable to the People, they don’t give a damn about the People’s rights.

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , , , , ,

Approaching Civil War between local/State governments & Feds?

Sheriff Tony DeMeo threatens to meet fed force with local force; threatens to arrest Bureau of Land Management employees.  Three cheers for Sheriff DeMeo.  2 minutes: