RSS

Tag Archives: Territory

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: , , , , , , , ,

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: , , , , ,

The States of the Union vs. the Territory


Various Federal Reserve Notes, c.1995. Only th...

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.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

IRS Attorney/Prosecutor Interview


Anti-United States Internal Revenue Service sy...

Image via Wikipedia

Attached is a 35-minute audio recording of a very insightful confrontation between a woman who appears to be an IRS attorney and/or prosecutor, and Marc Stevens who is assisting someone threatened with trial by the IRS.

This is too good to be ignored.  If you’re interested in the IRS you must listen–probably more than once.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

“Three Branches of Government: House, Senate & President”


Charles Schumer, United States Senator from Ne...

Image via Wikipedia

Senator Chuck Schumer claims there are three branches of government.  He’s right.

So far, so good.

But the Constitution declares those three branches to be the Legislative, Executive and Judicial.

Senator Schumer claims the three branches are:  House, Senate and President.

No judicial branch.  No executive branch.

Did Schumer misspeak?  Is he an ignoramus?  Or did he tell us the truth?

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Notes on “Territory” and “People”


Detail of Preamble to Constitution of the Unit...

Image via Wikipedia

It appears to me (and others) that the States of the Union (“The States”) may have been rendered insolvent and non-functional when the federal government removed gold (A.D. 1933) and silver (A.D. 1968) from domestic circulation.

Article 1.10.1 of The Constitution of the United States declares that “No State [of the Union] shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”  Note that this prohibition applies only to States of the Union–not to territories and/or the federal government.  How can the governments of the States of the Union continue to function constitutionally if there’s no gold or silver in circulation with which to pay debts or collect fines and fess?

Thus, it appears possible that the governments of the States of the Union could have been virtually destroyed by simply removing gold and silver coin from domestic circulation.  Which is exactly what the federal government has done.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,