A short while ago I read an article concerning Texas's law on same-sexed
people engaging in oral sex. Up to a recent ruling, it was okay for different
sexed people to have oral and anal sex but not for the same-sexed people to do
the same. It was ruled unconstitutional.
But, this isn't about the ruling directly. After the ruling, Bill Delmore,
Harris County District Attorney's office had this to say:
"This case was decided only on state constitutional grounds. The U.S.
Supreme Court could not get involved because it dealt with state
constitutional matters." (My emphasis)
Last week I read an article concerning the residents of the District of
Columbia wanting to have representation in taxation. In other words, they want
to have representatives in the Congress of the United States of America which
would put them on the same status as residents of the 50 states. (In the past,
this has been ruled unconstitutional which is the correct ruling since resident
citizens of the District of Columbia are NOT resident citizens of the United
States of America.) More on this later but first, read these rulings by the U.S.
"There is a canon of legislative construction which teaches Congress
that, unless a contrary intent appears, (legislation) is meant to apply only
within territorial jurisdiction of the United States." [U.S. v. Spelar,
338 U.S. 217 at 222]
"... The United States has no constitutional capacity to exercise
municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty or eminent domain, within the limits of a
state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted
..." [Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S.C. 212, 221, 223]
"... the states are separate sovereigns with respect to the federal
[Heath v. Alabama. 474 U.S. 82]
"No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction." [Stanard
v. Olesen, 74 S. Ct. 768]
"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the
administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." [Hagans v.
Lavine, 415 U.S. 528]
"...Federal jurisdiction cannot be assumed, but must be clearly
[Brooks v. Yawkey, 200 F. 2d 633]
So what gives? Why are these rulings so important to the citizens of the
United States of America, meaning the States which united in common cause for
the defense and well-being of each individual state's citizens?
Well, it is a matter of jurisdiction. And, it is a matter that history in
public education is failing to teach. It is also a matter which Congress and the
rest of the federal government wishes the citizens of the 50 states, the United
States of America, do not know.
First, the basics. The Constitution of the United States established a
jurisdictional home for the Federal Government separate and distinct from the
States forming the Union. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, states that the
Congress established has the power:
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular
States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of
the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by
the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for
the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful
Buildings: -- And"
[Clause 18] "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by
this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in an Department
or Officer thereof." (Refers to those powers granted in Article I,
In further support of jurisdictional separation, Hooven & Allison Co. v.
Evatt (1945), a case which has never been overturned, ruled there are actually
three (3) uses of the term, "United States":
(1) "...either as the name of a sovereign nation occupying the
position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations, or
(2) "as designating the territory over which the sovereignty of the
United States (the Federal Government) extends, or,
(3) " as the collective name for the states which are united by and
under the Constitution."
Thus, the United States may be 'these united States, the District of Columbia
along with its possessions and other federal properties (only geographic areas
the Federal Government is sovereign over), or as these united States known as
the United States of America.
The separation is further stated in Article X of the Constitution. It states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people." (Please note "United States" is treated as
separate from the "States".
The powers delegated to the United States, the Federal Government, are very
limited. You may read them in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. What is
prohibited to the Federal Government may be read in Article I, Section 9 of the
What you will NOT read is that the Federal Government has plenary (absolute
or unlimited) power over the citizens of the 50 states. But, it does have
plenary power over resident citizens of the District of Columbia, the
possessions, and any property designated as federal property. This does NOT
include the 50 states forming the united States of America as they are NOT in
the District of Columbia, nor a possession (states are sovereign as independent
nations), nor designated federal property.
People talk of 'federal jurisdiction' and 'state jurisdiction' concerning
court cases. But, why don't they think about what it means as applied to
legislation by the United States, the Federal Government? (From now on, any use
of United States refers to the Federal Government and the United States of
America refers to the union of sovereign States.)
Get this straight. Resident citizens of the United States are NOT resident
citizens of the United States of America with the same immunities nor with the
same constitutional protection. They are resident citizens of the United States
and are subject to its essentially unlimited power over them.
These people are not represented in the Congress of the United States of
America because they are not residents of a state forming the union and,
therefore, may not be represented in the organization made up of representatives
and senators of the individual states forming the union, the United States of
Thus, if any citizen of the United States wishes to have representation, they
must move and become resident citizens of one of the 50 states. Then they will
be citizens of the United States of America and will have the protection and
immunities all resident citizens of the Union now have (supposed to have would
be more accurate).
But, here is the big question - If the United States does not have
jurisdiction over State matters (as was noted concerning the Texas case above),
if it does not have the power to change the Constitution without the consent of
the United States of America, if it jurisdiction extends only with those
geographic areas designated as the United States, then why are the people of the
United States of America responding to federal laws not permitted by the
As an example, the United States by the tax code is defined as the District
of Columbia (7701(a)(10). A major exception is Section 6103(b)(5) of the
Internal Revenue Code. This section lists those places from which a citizen of
the United States (as defined below in 7701(a)(9) and (10)) can legally file
documents. In this section, it states in:
"(B) DEFINITIONS. - For purposes of this section -" Thus, the
definition of the term 'State' is (my emphasis)
"(5) STATE.-The term 'State' means - any of the 50 States, the
District of Columbia (note the separation of DC from the 50 States - Author)
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, Guam,
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Meriana Islands, and
The rest is concerned with municipalities)
Thus, any person with federal income tax liability may file his return from
any of these locations.
This is important. In statute construct, the word 'include' or 'includes'
means exactly what is stated is included. Nothing may be added in, nor any
interpretation past what is stated is permitted. The law says exactly what it
means and means exactly what it says. This is where the United States fools
citizens of the United States of America.
Thus, the United States in establishing tax liability by the code is defined
as (7701(a)(9) 'the States and the District of Columbia' with States
subsequently defined in (7701(a)(10) as the District of Columbia. Therefore, if
one is not a resident citizen of the United States, there is no FEDERAL income
tax liability except in specified situations involving foreign derived income.
Federal income tax is just that - Federal. It applies only to the United
States with geographic areas as designated, the District of Columbia, the
possessions, and federal properties. Liability does not extend to resident
citizens of the United States of America with domestic earnings only. Federally
taxing these earnings does not fall within the powers of Congress.
As for amendments in the Constitution, especially those stating our rights as
given by God, the United States may not make any law contrary to what is stated
in the Constitution. In other words, any law made without proper jurisdiction
and constitutional authority does not apply to the resident citizens of any
State which is a part of the United States of America.
For example, any federal laws concerning the purchase of firearms by
law-abiding US of A citizens need not be observed. It may regulate commerce
concerning firearms being imported (just as it does foreign derived incomes from
tax treaty countries) but those laws may not affect the rights of law-abiding
citizens to purchase freely any firearm which has been properly imported. It is
the right of each citizen to determine how he protects himself, his property,
and his family and rights may not be regulated by the United States.
Then, there are the amendments concerning privacy and due process of law. If
a citizen is law-abiding, no government agency has the right to stop, search,
seize, or record information concerning the person, including personal
Just as a point of interest, what right does the federal government have to
regulate drugs, including tobacco? What right does it have to tell you that you
may not grow or use marijuana? Or cocaine? Is this a power granted in the
After all, it took the 18th Amendment to make alcohol illegal but the
amendment was proved unconstitutional and repealed by the 21st Amendment. In
fact, nothing in the 21st prohibits making your own and selling alcohol. It may
only be regulated by the Feds if it is exported from the state of residency or
imported from another.
What amendment allows the United States to do the same with the so-called
'illegal' drugs? Or are all the laws concerning the drug use unconstitutional
and, therefore, null and void? Clearly, without an amendment to the contrary,
any drug use by any free person is legal as long as it came from their State or
any applicable import laws were followed.
As free people we have the right to run our own lives without government
interference. We have the right to travel freely (including making the decision
as to whether we wear seatbelts or not), keep our identities to ourselves, have
our property (including vehicles) not invaded by government agencies, purchase
any weapon we wish for our personal defense (arms means any weapons, not just
firearms) and to carry the same, exercise freedom of speech which doesn't
violate the rights of others, observe or not observe any religious denomination
we wish (including worship of the devil), grow or produce any drug and use the
same, and so on.
Neither federal nor State legislators may make any law repugnant to the
Constitution. This includes making laws contrary to the rights of Man as stated
in the Constitution. Our rights are our rights not subject to the notions of
legislative bodies regardless of stated intents (which usually hide hidden
agenda) for proposing and passing unconstitutional laws.
Law enforcement agencies are not permitted to harass innocent people. They
are not permitted to stop and search or ask questions. They are not allowed to
enter people's homes uninvited or without a search warrant stating exactly who
or what they are looking for.
Furthermore, although it is apparently argued successfully otherwise, it is
my personal belief that Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3, denies any State of the
Union the right to make a law contrary to any phrase of the Constitution. This
includes no tax on property which I believe should be upheld as in Article 1,
Section 9, Clause 4. This clause orders there will be no tax laid without
apportionment which has been interpreted in many Supreme Court cases as 'no tax
It is argued (and practiced) that Article X of the Constitution allows a
state to make any law it wishes but I don't believe this. Article VI, both
clauses 2 and 3, state this is not fact. Clause 2 states "...the Judges in
every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any
State to the contrary not withstanding."
Clause 3 states: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and
the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and the several States (Again, not the
separation between the United States and the several States), shall be bound by
oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; ..."
Thus, Clause 2 bounds state judiciaries to any Thing in the Constitution
while Clause 3 bounds all members of State Legislatures to the same. Therefore,
it is my belief that any tax laid directly on a resident citizen of the United
States of America, be it on property or earnings, is repugnant to the
Constitution. Otherwise, property owners are no more than caretakers paying for
use of the property with 'ownership' being a myth.
At any rate, it is clear there is federal jurisdiction and state
To reiterate, Federal jurisdiction does not extend past the District of
Columbia, the possessions of the United States, and federally designated
properties. Excepting those permitted legislative acts in Article I, Section 8,
of the Constitution, laws made by Congress do not jurisdictionally apply to the
Neither federal nor state government may extend past the limits established
in the Constitution of the United States of America. Our rights as free people
must be protected by all legislative bodies as stated in Article VI, Clauses 2
Otherwise, we are not a free people but are as oppressed as any has ever
been. If not by the federal bureaucracy, then by the various states'
legislators. We have become nothing more than a part of a police state under
undeclared martial law, whether the enforcers be federal or local government
enforcement agencies. That is not what this country is all about. But,
complacency and ignorance have allowed this country to devolve into a
government/serfdom state which is in many ways just as bad or worse than that
before the United States of America was founded.
We, the People, must force the federal and state governments to support the
Constitution of the United States and remove all laws contrary to those limits
of government imposed by the Constitution. We must begin with those stealing our
incomes and God-given rights.
That, Folks, is the problem - and the solution - both of which rest solely on
the shoulders of the People of the United States of America.