RSS

Category Archives: Territory

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: 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.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Is the “Declaration of Independence” a Treaty?


English: This is a high-resolution image of th...

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.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Geo. Washington: 1st President of the United States or 8th President of The United States of America? Or Both?


English: * Title = Gilbert Stuart's Portrait o...

Gilbert Stuart’s Portrait of George Washington (The Constable-Hamilton Portrait) Year = 1797) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I received an email from “menaradi” that reads as follows:

“Just read your article on the Constitution and enjoyed it, but came across this one and thought you might like to read it, especially the 2nd to last paragraph of this article…. tell me why don’t we know about the 1st seven presidents of this country????

http://www.marshallhall.org/hanson.html”

I suspect that the answer to your question may be that the first “president” (John Hanson?) was not president of the “United States“–he was president under the Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781) and was therefore president of “The United States of America“.

Later, in A.D. 1789, the people created a new “government” by means of The Constitution of the United States.  That new government was the government of the “United States“–but not of “The United States of America”.  The first president of the “United States” was George Washington–but it’s possible that Washington may also have been the eighth (?) president of The United States of America.

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: , , , , , , , ,

L.A. Judges Guilty of R.I.C.O.


US Supreme Court

Image by dbking via Flickr

Former U. S. Prosecutor Richard I. Fine, Ph.D. appears in a video interview.  He outlines criminal activity of members of the California Judiciary that qualifies as “organized crime” and explains why their activities should qualify for prosecution under the RICO ACT ( Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act).

Mr. Fine complains about L.A. Judges in particular, and California judges, in general.  But the problem of judicial corruption is hardly confined to California.  Mr. Fine’s allegations could apply to most judges in most states throughout the U.S..

Most of the allegedly “honorable” men and women sitting on the benches of this country’s “judicial” system are nothing but racketeers.  They sit as administrators and employees of private entities rather than officers of the “judicial” branch of the de jure governments of “The States” of the Union.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Enumeration vs. Census


Seal of the United States Census Bureau. The b...

Image via Wikipedia

In response to my article “Birth Certificates for Slaves?,” one of my readers posted a lengthy comment about the 16th Amendment and income taxes.  I started to write a brief reply but, as usual, the more you look the more you see, so my “brief reply grew into the following article:

Article 1.2.3 of The Constitution of the United States declares in part,

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; . . . .”

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Bond vs U.S.


Close-up of the Supreme Court building in Wash...

Image via Wikipedia

Surely, there must be some mistake.

On June 16th, A.D. 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in the case of Bond v U.S..  This case involves the standing of private individuals to invoke the 10th–and, to lesser degree, the 9th–Amendments.  The total document (syllabus, opinion and concurring opinion) released by the Supreme Court is 19 pages.

As I read that case, I find excerpts on almost every page that strike me as mind-boggling, explosive and even revolutionary.  I can’t recall reading another case in the past 28 years that filled me with such excitement, glee and even hope.

I see this decision as so extraordinary, that I can’t imagine how the Supreme Court (in a 9 to 0 decision (!!!)), would dare write this opinion without fearing for their lives.

This case seem so good, that my fundamental reaction is:  Surely, there must be some mistake.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , ,