neo
Forum Replies Created
IN RE:4
Well….I know the U.S. has kicked in doors within foreign nations when their I:8 interests are being violated. I know Treasury and FBI would kick in doors in B-H (with that nation’s approval of course) if FRNs were being counterfeited. Well, the territory of B-H is not territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends….it’s the subject matter that gives them interest at this location.
IN RE: 4
See Stija . . . the issue we are having here is a matter of perspective. You seem to believe the United States exercises sovereignty over all places within the nation at all times. I do not.
Can the United States exercise sovereignty everywhere within the nation? Yes . . . when those 17 conferred powers are at issue. But this is not a question of LOCATION . . . this is a question of the conferral of power. Do you not agree? Where? and What? are separate issues. Do you not agree?
Territory or place or locus is a SEPARATE ISSUE to that of the CONFERRED POWERS. Do you not agree?
The SCOTUS said “territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends.” It did not say “subject matter over which the sovereignty of the United States extends.” Do you not agree?
Territory DOES NOT EQUAL Subject Matter.
IN RE: 4
Assuming there is no avenue (subject matter) for the Supremacy Clause to be activated (I:8 authority), is there territory over which the sovereignty of Arizona extends? Yes or No
What is residual state sovereignty?
IN RE: 4
You said earlier that the individual state legislatures exercised sovereignty over certain lands within their own geographical boundaries. So clearly, these are not lands or “territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends” — rather, that would be territory over which the sovereignty of Arizona extends — or Michigan — or Vermont, etc.
Do you not agree that there is territory over which the sovereignty of Arizona extends?
IN RE: 4
D.C. is a federal area within the State of Maryland.
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;
Does this exclusive authority not apply to military installations and other Federal Buildings within the geographical boundaries of states like Texas or California?
IN RE: 4
You already conceded that questions of GEOGRAPHY and SUBJECT MATTER are different questions.
I have never said that I:8 legislation does NOT apply within the geography of the 50 states — it very much does. But this is a separate issue over who exercises sovereignty WHERE.
“Where?” and “What?” are separate issues and I think you very well know this.
Territory is synonymous with geography. So, what did SCOTUS mean by “territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends”? Why did they differentiate that from “a sovereign occupying a position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of NATIONS”? And why did they differentiate that from “the several states united by and under the Constitution”? I’ll tell you why. It is because they have exclusive meanings.
A nation relates to geography as a pizza relates to its crust. The nation/pizza are the whole . . . the geography/crust are components of the whole. This is simple stuff.
Where? is a question of geography. Subject matter jurisdiction is a separate question that is independent of location/geography. But if we cannot agree on this . . . there is no point in continuing this discussion. We will just have to agree to disagree.
IN RE: 4
Sir, this entire discussion thus far has been (for the most part) with respect to TERRITORY or GEOGRAPHY.
You already conceded that the United States exercises sovereignty over D.C., territories, and possessions. You also conceded that the United States exercised sovereignty over I:8:17 geography within the states. You also conceded that the states (and NOT the United States) exercised sovereignty over their own geography not embraced by I:8:17. So I ask you again:
What is meant by “territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends”? And remember, this is irrespective of I:8 subject matter apart from I:8:17.
This is a GEOGRAPHICAL issue . . . not a national body politic issue.
IN RE: 4
Well, you contradict your previous testimony.
You already said that a nation is a political union of geography, people, and government.
So how can you compare the whole (the nation) to one of its components (geography)? You cannot have it both ways. You are curve fitting and your testimony is inconsistent. Because it is inconsistent, it cannot be the truth.
We just went through an exhaustive process where you proved my point, and now you are right back to your illogical position from page 1.
IN RE: 4
So what did SCOTUS mean by “territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends”?
IN RE: 4
OK . . . so you concede that I can be a United States citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, resident and domiciled upon land over which my constitutional state exercises sovereignty, and engage in activities not embraced by Art I:8 of the Constitution?
IN RE: 4
That’s irrelevant. What if I am upon land over which my constitutional state exercises sovereignty (not the United States government), and I am NOT interfacing ANY I:8 subject matter? Then what? What civil authority or civil jurisdiction would the United States have over me?
IN RE: 4
Of course. No tricks here. These are scenarios for discussion.
So, in this instance, the location really had nothing to do with United States supremacy, but rather it was the subject matter — the value of coin and currency under I:8:5. Is that correct?
IN RE: 4
Exactly. So, let’s say an individual is occupying a geographical area the state exercises sovereignty over, but said individual is counterfeiting FRNs within a building sitting upon this state-sovereign geography. Is this an example of where the laws of the United States would be supreme and trump state sovereignty? (Supremacy Clause VI:2)
IN RE: 4
So who exercises sovereignty over those geographical areas where the United States does not?
IN RE: 4
That was a yes/no question. But I get your point.
So are there geographical areas within the 50 states where the United States does NOT exercise sovereignty?
