I disagree.  Sovereignty is NOT shared — it is split.  You are either sovereign or you are not.

Why is it that the Feds must have land ceded to them from the State legislatures per I:8:17?  I will tell you why.  It is because the states exercise sovereignty over their own respective territory UNTIL ceded, then the United States exercises sovereignty over it.  This is territory I am talking about — NOTHING ELSE.

Now . . . within this territory, the Feds can have SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION over specified and enumerated SUBJECT MATTER.  When there is a dispute, if the Feds have subject matter jurisdiction, the Supremacy Clause (VI:2) gives the Feds the “trump card” within state sovereign territory.

TERRITORIAL sovereignty and SUBJECT MATTER sovereignty are separate issues.  The 50 states maintain the territorial sovereignty, but if I:8 subject matter is at issue within that territory, the I:8 subject matter reigns supreme.

I disagree. A nation is not made up of geography. It is a political association of geography AND people AND government. A nation’s geography is a separate issue from the nation itself. Either you can refer to the nation as a whole….or you can refer to its geographical components.

Art I, § 8 powers do not derive their authority geographically (I:8:17 notwithstanding).

Nowhere in Title 26 or Title 42 are any of the constitutional states individually named in the way that the statutory states are….thus they are not in the same general class. When regarding the term “United States” in its political sense….the terms “includes” and “including” permit the expansion to embrace the 50 states….but when regarded in its geographical sense it does not.

The rules of statutory construction do not allow the geographical sense to embrace the 50 states in their geographical sense. The 50 states are not specifically enumerated nor are they in the same general class as those which are.

Well….it is very clear to me why this country has been nationalized under this scheme of legislation. It has been very effective in confusing the masses who believe that a body politic (nation or state) is equivalent to a geographical entity. They are separate issues. Your legal theory conflates them. It is a convincing argument….but I believe it is incorrect. That’s just my opinion.

So again….how is my civil status established? Is it through my political citizenship or is it domicile?

IN RE:  4

Or are you trying to actually convince me that your status with the SS franchise is a matter of residual state sovereignty.

 

Precisely.  That is exactly my position.

In the past, tax protesters have claimed that the Federal income tax ONLY applied in D.C., territories, and possessions.  We know this is not true.  Likewise, this ministry has taken the position that SS only applies in D.C., territories, and possessions.  We also know this is NOT true.  Both SS and the Federal income tax are legislated under I:8:1.

But my domicile is a different question.  It is my opinion that you are conflating 14th Amndt political citizenship with a civil issue — the status under which is established through an election of domicile.

Under your position, as long as the Feds have subject matter jurisdiction over a particular topic, then diversity of citizenship is no longer an issue, as a citizen of Florida and a citizen of Oregon are both United States citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.  This is an impossible position to defend, as we see diversity of citizenship alive and well between not only natural persons who are citizens of different states, but we see this manifest with juristic persons of different states as well — such as corporations.

Yes, I am subject to the SS franchise if I am a number holder.  Likewise, I am subject to the Federal income tax if engage in taxable activity with that number.  But my status is a separate issue.  My status is something I elect.  And under the auspice of residual state sovereignty, I can maintain an alien civil status wrt other civil jurisdictions within my own nation.  This is the very premise under which federalism was created.

Do you submit my status is based upon my avenue for political association with the nation (14th Amndt in this case), nationality, or residence?  What exactly do you propose imputes my civil status under SS and the FIT?  Is it the 14th Amndt?

I:8:17 does NOT just apply to D.C.  It applies EVERYWHERE on the planet.  Think military bases and embassies.

At the beginning of this thread, you yourself said that you were an NRA with respect to I:8:17 and IV:3:2.  Your position varies frequently.  And that’s ok.

I just think you are blurring lines between GEOGRAPHY and SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.  They are separate issues.  But you won’t concede that forthrightly, even though you have in many of your posts.

Well . . . this is why the U.S. Courts exist.  I guess we will find out soon enough.  I completely understand your position.  I don’t agree with how you arrived at your conclusion — but I understand it.

I do not agree with it.  That being said, I know you well enough to know I can’t change your mind.  This all comes down to religious belief anyway.

This is a really important issue . . . because it is from this issue that the whole NRA position is built upon.  Your position does not seem to be consistent with SCOTUS opinion nor the words I personally received from one of the Justices on the topic.

I’m committed to my position.  I have to see it through.  We will have to agree to disagree.

IN RE:4

Territory? Those geographies embraced by I:8:17 & IV:3:2….NO PLACE else.

Subject matter jurisdiction can be exercised in an unlimited number of places….