Theoretical mass..?

1. Is United States nation-union a political association/body of state citizens conferring powers to a national government over their geography?

2. I thought we agreed that the Uniter States geographically is comprised of: above in 1,D.C., and territorial possessions, did you change your mind?

If you agree with the above then that is your ‘theoretical mass’ you refer to it. Over this mass the United States exercises THREE types of sovereignty.

1. Over states powers in Article I:8:1-16 and 18.

2. Over D.C. powers in Article I:8:17.

3. Over territorial possessions powers in Article IV:3:2.

Again, what is confusing you about the above? Do you disagree with the different types of sovereignty exercised above and the geography it is exercised over as consented in the U.S. constitution?

R#1.1. The statutes clearly include states in every definition of the united states. This ministry is of the opinion that the states referred are the federal states, but Article I legislation deals with powers the states conferred to Congress, thus the only states it can include by default is the same states that granted them the powers. Because D.C. is not a part of states anymore, it needs to be included explicitly…and it is in 7701(a)(9) for example.

So this ministry is wrong when it interprets the IRC and SS, as only two examples, do not include states of the union in their definition of the United States and EVERY SCOTUS decision supports this conclusion because they interpret the statutes in accordance with the rules and constitutional principles.

R#2.1. Subject matter legislation passed under Article I is operative within the union (the 50 states that conferred/granted these powers) ONLY upon parties who consented to it by involving themselves with the subject. I agree here with you in every way even though you fail to see it.

R#2.2. You have no idea what you’re saying. The case you reference was in regards to a person who was a U.S.citizen but not domiciled in a state, thus stateless for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. The case in fact proves that one can not be a state citizen without A) being a u.s. citizen first and “B”) being domiciled in a state. This just reinforces my contention that a U.S. citizen domiciled in a state is a state citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction BECAUSE his domicile is in a state even though he is a U.S. citizen. IT DESTROYS this ministry’s notion that a U.S. citizen is EITHER a federal entity/domiciliary AND cannot be domiciled within a state.

THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY POINT which is that a U.S. citizen such as myself can elect my domicile in AZ and not strictly federal land.

R#2.3. Title 8 includes states in United States. D.C. citizen is EXACTLY the same U.S. citizen that any other state citizen is as well, the only difference is their domicile–the former is a federal domiciliary and latter a state domiciliary and thus also a state citizen wrt to legal matters relative to his state. Otherwise the D.C. resident and the state resident are both national citizens and enjoy same constitutional protections. That’s exactly what Slaughterhouse Cases say, that one can be a u.s. citizen but one may not be a state citizen without domicile in a state. See 14th Amend.

R#2.4. That’s where we disagree. I state, in full accord with SCOTUS opinions, constitutional provisions and rules of statutory construction, that both 1303 and 7701 include states of the union in their definitions of United States. Since you disagree, do you mind explaining why Congress would legislate under Article I:8:1 for territorial possessions when it has dictatorial powers under Art. IV:3:2? See Steward Machine co. v. Davis for example.

R#2.5. Again, this is where we completely disagree. For a while I drank the same Koolaid, but not anymore friend. You are flat out wrong and claiming a frivolity. BECAUSE these are passed on Article I powers, and because Art. I:8:1 powers are wrt states ONLY, the Congress needed to include D.C. explicitly because it was not part of any state anymore, and so they did. The states are included by default because Article I powers were DELEGATED to the United States BY THE FRIGGING STATES and not anyone else.

Your allegation of IRC And SS being Article IV:3:2 legislation is:

1. Frivolous;
2. Not even supported by SEDM and famguardian materials;
3. A half assed attempt to wiggle out of this argument and curve fit the truth around this ministry’s material.

Provide one SCOTUS opinion that states either one legislative act is passed under Article IV. Go ahead.

R#3.1. I NEVER alleged Brushaber was either subject to IRC or subject to it because of citizenship. Brushaber was not subject to the IRC. Income earned by him in his involvement with a privileged entity was subject to the tax and the entity collected it and paid it which is when he sued. The moral of the story is that RESIDENCE was irrelevant. Also, he is not the NRA referred to in the T.D. 2313, and assuming so is dangerous.

R#3.2. I agree. So why the NRA position then? What relevance does that have? I allege that even an NRA can earn income and thus incur an income tax liability. The residence is completely irrelevant.

R#3.3. I suggest you re-read the Alfonso Larrain court opinion or Slaughterhouse Cases which explain that a U.S. citizen can be domiciled in a state or without a state and how the former confers a second sovereign capacity wrt to state matters/concerns. So you’re wrong. A U.S. citizen can be domiciled wherever he affixes his domicile but if he does so without a state of the union, the law will commute a domicile in D.C. if be invokes a federal legal right.

R#5.1. Read 26 USC 7701, the language cannot be clearer. If not a citizen OR resident of United States, one is an NRA. I am a citizen resident–resident of AZ specifically–thus I am not a NRA. Proven.

R#5.2. Spouse and driver are legislative rights or privileges. Yes, they are not available to one not resident unless legislators allow it, but electing domicile within a geographical location automatically commutes resident legal status. Residence is domicile in legal terms really. Never seen a law refer to domicile. You’re just being silly with this argument really. You don’t become a doctor either without additional election of schooling…but you can’t do any of it if not resident first.

R#5.3. You don’t have to be a political citizen in accordance with the 14th Amend. BUT if you elect to become one and you reside within a state then you elected a dual sovereign capacity, one with domicile within the union with national obligations and another local with domicile within the specific state with its own obligations. You can remain stateless and transient foreigner, but this whole thread deals with individuals who ALREADY ELECTED TO BE 14TH AMENDMENT CITIZENS.

R#6.1. There is no conflict of any kind because sovereignty is split and what one govt controls the other cannot. Article I legislation is operative only wrt to individuals who accept the mission of involving themselves with the subjects regulated REGARDLESS of their civil status man. Do you get that?? So for those who elected to become 14th Amend. citizens, they are u.s.citizens wrt to such legislative acts whether involved in the subjects regulated and thus subject to the laws or not.

R#7.1.1 United States citizens. See 14th Amend. and Slaughterhouse Cases.
7.1.2. Yes, clearly. See 1401(a).
7.1.3. You don’t. Title 8 is federal/national law thus context is NATIONAL citizenship. Their national citizenship is NOT distinguished. The state citizen has another state sovereignty that D.C. citizen does not. State citizen can sue under div of citizenship and vote in state elections and D.C. citizen can’t do either of those two things. Just one example.
7.1.4. United States is NOT defined as federal territory within 26 USC. It is defined as the 50 States and D.C. in 7701. That’s the jist of our disagreement really.
7.1.5.1-3. There are federal regulations wrt specific sections that impose a duty on non federal personnel. United States includes the whole geography of the union-nation plus D.C.
7.1.6. Because the subjects being delegated as legislative rights to Congress were delegated by the states who could only delegate powers they possessed over their geography. Cmon man…use your head.
7.1.7. They ignored Hansen’s request. The court is under no duty to explain the law or address baseless requests.

The constititonal provisions are the sources of power of our government. If states said in Article I:8:1-16 and 18 that Congress can legislate in those matters and Congress exercises these duties, then Congress writes rules and procedures of how it will achieve them and publishes them as laws. For some strange reason you believe, and Neo as well, that when Congress publishes these laws, the laws themselves are of different character and do not have the same dignity or command that the constitutional provisions do.

If I delegate you with powers to clean and wax MY car, and you write rules and procedures for your employees on how to carry out these provisions, does the character of the power change to somehow now make it about YOUR car and not MINE??

I reckon that the rules mandate a duty ONLY on those partaking of washing of the car BUT it is still with respect to washing of MY CAR!

My car=my territory or possession.
Your rules=federal law.

Connect the dots.

 Admin said:

BURDEN OF PROOF UPON STIJA:

 

Thanks to both of you for your passionate contribution so far.  Since Stija is the moving party, he has the burden of proof.  I agree with everything Neo said so far.  The only thing Stija has offered are theories.  This dialog has been remarkably sparse on facts and there is too much THEORY that wouldn’t stand court scrutiny.  That is the reason for my delay in engaging in this pointless political and not legal argument.  The only way to PROVE those theories is to produce case law and/or statutes which prove the following:

1. Burden of proof is on one making a claim of NRA status not the other way around.

2. In the real world, there is NOT ONE case opinion supporting the NRA position wrt to political citizens domiciled within the union.

3. Your conclusions are moot, as no one is arguing what you propose.

4. Get your head out of your ass and step into the real world man.  That is if you want to have a real discussion.

5. Stija provided SCOTUS opinons in his FIRST post.

6. Admin provided no SCOTUS opinions and cited SEDM and famguardian material as though it was gospel.

7. ALL of SEDM and famguardian material is political and religious speech inadmissible in a court of law as evidence.

Therefore, the burden of proof is on any political citizen claiming anything other than:

1. Being a U.S. citizen under federal Article I:8:1-16 and 18 legislation;

But hey, i concede i could be wrong and am waiting ANXIOUSLY for a SCOTUS opinion supporting the NRA position.  Even one will do…

EDIT****

1. I see Admin has added SCOTUS quotes.

2. Unfortunately your quotes deal with matters not relevant to our discussion.

3. Congress Art. I:8 powers (cl. 17 excluded) do not interfere with states legal or political business.

4. Each government is sovereign within its sphere and operates accordingly within its own sphere independent of the other.

5. When i am acting on a state granted rights, i am a state citizen wrt to my state.

6. When i am acting on a federally granted right, i am a U.S. citizen wrt to the United States, even if domiciled within the state.  

7. Because rights emanate from different sovereigns, i assume the legal capacity (i have dual legal capacities concomittant with my dual political capacity) of the sovereign on whose rights i am acting.

Why is that so hard to understand for you guys?  It has nothing to do with being domiciled on federal land at all. Nor does being domiciled on any land subject one to specific mandates under legislative acts of the sovereign.  Does your domicile in Alabama subject you to the Alabama Nursing Code? How about the Alabama Transportation Code?  How about Alabama Corporate Code?  Simple domicile is not enough.  One has to partake of the subject–nursing, transportation, corporate existence–in order to be subject to the legislative acts of the sovereign exercising jurisdiction over the geographical location where upon one elected his domicile.

For ADMIN: Topic is NRA status wrt to Article I:8:1-16 and 18 legislative acts.  So go ahead an explain how…

1. One domiciled in Alabama is not domiciled within the union.

2. United States nation-union as a political body is different from a state as a political body:

2.1. States are: 1) people, 2) government and 3) geography.

2.1. United States is: 1) people of the 50 states, 2) the United States government (powers granted/surrendered to it by the states) and 3) states geography forming a union.

3. States exercise their powers within their geography over their constitutents.

4. United States exercise its powers within their geography (nation-union) over their constituents (national citizens).

5. We exist in double capacity wrt the dual capacity of the two sovereigns to whom we delegated certain powers.

…any of the above is not true or factual.  

One fairly can dispute whether our federalist system has been quite as successful in checking government abuse as Hamilton promised, but there is no doubt about the design. If this “double security” is to be effective, there must be a proper balance between the States and the Federal Government. These twin powers will act as mutual restraints only if both are credible. In the tension between federal and state power lies the promise of liberty.

460*460 The Federal Government holds a decided advantage in this delicate balance: the Supremacy Clause. U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. As long as it is acting within the powers granted it under the Constitution, Congress may impose its will on the States. Congress may legislate in areas traditionally regulated by the States. This is an extraordinary power in a federalist system. It is a power that we must assume Congress does not exercise lightly. 

Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, at 457

Congress may legislate in areas traditionally regulated by the States. This is an extraordinary power in a federalist system. It is a power that we must assume Congress does not exercise lightly.

1.  Where do you guys suggest Congress legislates in areas traditionally regulated by the States and conferred to it?  In France? Moon? Could it just be possible that it legislates for the union and that such legislation is SUBJECT MATTER–don’t get involved in the subject and no duties are mandated on you whether green, yellow, citizen, resident or any other kind of individual.

2.  If states conferred/surrendered some of their legislative powers to the United States over subjects best left to their federal government, over what areas do you suggest these same states had authority to consent that this SUBJECT MATTER legislation be operative? Do states have a right to confer such authority to Congress over Canada or is it just maybe over their own political bodies?

Remember, this is SUBJECT MATTER legislation; do not counterfeit FRN’s and you’re not subject to it; do not incur income and you’re not subject to the tax; do not involve yourself in interstate commerce and you’re not subject to it; etc etc., IRRELEVANT of being U.S. citizen or French citizen, the only difference is the United States legislative rights over the union are already explicitly consented to by the states in Article I while they are not in France.  While you guys believe that Brushaber was the NRA referred to in T.D. 2313, his suit is a perfect example of a state citizen’s involvement with Article I legislative rights even though he was resident in a state and not on federal land.  Do NOT confuse cl. 17 with other SUBJECT MATTER rights which are distinct and separate rights.

OR…are you guys suggesting that a U.S. citizen individual can only be domiciled on land purchased through Art. I:8:17?  

OR…are you guys suggesting that a U.S. citizen individual is subject to the IRC whether having income or not, or receiving payments in connection with a trade or business or not?

I contend that neither are true and that a U.S. citizen can elect his domicile pursuant to the First Amendment just like any other individual.

Admin, 

i was going to answer your post but then i realized that that would be giving it merit it doesn’t deserve.  You have not supported one of your statements with a legal reference or court cite, yet you claim this:

Thanks to both of you for your passionate contribution so far.  In conclusion, I agree with everything Neo said so far.  The only thing Stija has offered are theories.

 
I only offered theories? Did you purposely skip over the SCOTUS opinions i posted in my FIRST post?  You claim that Article I legislation is not operative within states on state employers or rights.  If that is your stance, read Garcia v. San Antonio MTA 469 US 528 for example, to see how it indeed is operative within states and not only on private parties but even government run enterprise.  One could argue that these enterprises don’t even have a substantial effect on commerce.

As every schoolchild learns, our Constitution establishes a system of dual sovereignty between the States and the Federal Government. This Court also has recognized this fundamental principle. In Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U. S. 455, 458 (1990), “[w]e beg[a]n with the axiom that, under our federal system, the States possess sovereignty concurrent with that of the Federal Government, subject only to limitations imposed by the Supremacy Clause.” Over 120 years ago, the Court described the constitutional scheme of dual sovereigns:

The Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 10. The States thus retain substantial sovereign authority under our constitutional system. As James Madison put it:”`[T]he people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,’ . . . `[W]ithout the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.’ Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.” Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 (1869), quoting Lane County v.Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76 (1869).

This federalist structure of joint sovereigns preserves to the people numerous advantages. It assures a decentralized government that will be more sensitive to the diverse needs of a heterogenous society; it increases opportunity for citizen involvement in democratic processes; it allows for more innovation and experimentation in government; and it makes government more responsive by putting the States in competition for a mobile citizenry. See generally McConnell, Federalism: Evaluating the Founders’ Design, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1484, 1491-1511 (1987); Merritt, The Guarantee Clause and State Autonomy: Federalism for a Third Century, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 3-10 (1988).458*458 “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. . . . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

Perhaps the principal benefit of the federalist system is a check on abuses of government power. “The `constitutionally mandated balance of power’ between the States and the Federal Government was adopted by the Framers to ensure the protection of `our fundamental liberties.'” Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S. 234, 242 (1985), quoting Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority,469 U. S. 528, 572 (1985) (Powell, J., dissenting). Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front. Alexander Hamilton explained to the people of New York, perhaps optimistically, that the new federalist system would 459*459 suppress completely “the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny”:

“In a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.” The Federalist No. 28, pp. 180-181 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

James Madison made much the same point:

“In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” Id., No. 51, p. 323.

One fairly can dispute whether our federalist system has been quite as successful in checking government abuse as Hamilton promised, but there is no doubt about the design. If this “double security” is to be effective, there must be a proper balance between the States and the Federal Government. These twin powers will act as mutual restraints only if both are credible. In the tension between federal and state power lies the promise of liberty.

460*460 The Federal Government holds a decided advantage in this delicate balance: the Supremacy Clause. U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. As long as it is acting within the powers granted it under the Constitution, Congress may impose its will on the States. Congress may legislate in areas traditionally regulated by the States. This is an extraordinary power in a federalist system. It is a power that we must assume Congress does not exercise lightly.

Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, at 457

1. As every schoolchild learns…

2. Without the states there could be no political body known as the United States

2.1. Political body known as the United States is: 1) 50 states’ citizens, and 2) 50 states’ geography, and 3) 50 states’ governments.

3. The United States in 2.1 is what grown ups refer to as the nation-union which most certainly has every attribute or characteristic necessary for it to be a proper nation and political body.  The subject matter legislative wrt to powers delegated to it is operative over this same political body we call the United States.

4. I am one of its citizens, you can call me the United States citizen or U.S. citizen, as federal legislation most commonly refers to me.

 
Also, before i dignify your post with an answer, do you have JUST ONE, either appellate or SCOTUS opinon supporting a NRA position you are promoting?  Do you even have anything that contradicts my DUAL SOVEREIGN capacity pursuant to the 14th Amendment?  If not, then it is pure political and religious belief non admissible in a court of law.  

 
Furthermore, your “conclusions” are moot. 

 
1.  That the “nation-Union” and domicile within said “nation-Union” has any bearing on federal jurisdiction.  We have found NONE so far.

Neither have either one of us–Neo or myself–claimed that it does.  What’s your point?  This whole discussion is about your NRA position being bogus wrt federal subject matter jurisdiction passed under Article I:8, cl. 17 excluded.  I can be a domiciliary of the union-nation and a U.S. citizen under the IRC and if i have neither wages, nor involve myself in a regulable transaction, it imposes no duties on me WHETHER domiciled in the union-nation or the moon.  Your conclusion is thus MOOT and irrelevant to this discussion.

Let’s address the next one.

2.  That one can have a domicile within more than one sovereign at any given time and thereby have conflicting allegiances toward multiple political entities.  This violates the biblical mandate not to serve two master and the legal mandate not to have a conflict of interest.  It is a fact that one can have a physical domicile in ONLY one geographic place and have allegiance to ONLY ONE political entity through that domicile.

 
We do have a domicile in ONLY one geographical place–mine is in Arizona.  For purposes of all powers not surrendered to the United States, not prohibited to Arizona or reserved by the people of Arizona to themselves, I am an Arizona citizen.  Now, because of our constitutional arrangement there is something called the doctrine of dual sovereignty.

It is incontestible that the Constitution established a system of “dual sovereignty.” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 457 (1991); Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U. S. 455, 458 (1990). Although the States surrendered many of their powers to 919*919 the new Federal Government, they retained “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty,” The Federalist No. 39, at 245 (J. Madison). This is reflected throughout the Constitution’s text, Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76 (1869); Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 (1869), including (to mention only a few examples) the prohibition on any involuntary reduction or combination of a State’s territory, Art. IV, § 3; the Judicial Power Clause, Art. III, § 2, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Art. IV, § 2, which speak of the “Citizens” of the States; the amendment provision, Article V, which requires the votes of three-fourths of the States to amend the Constitution; and the Guarantee Clause, Art. IV, § 4, which “presupposes the continued existence of the states and . . . those means and instrumentalities which are the creation of their sovereign and reserved rights,” Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U. S. 405, 414-415 (1938). Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones, Art. I, § 8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment’s assertion that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

I don’t make these rules–i just follow them ok?  Since there are two sovereign operating withing their respective sphere over the same geography, there are also two sovereign political capacities interfacing with the two respective gov’t sovereigns to whom we delegated such powers.

The great innovation of this design was that “our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other”“a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.” U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 838 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring). The Constitution thus contemplates that a State’s government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens. See New York, supra, at 168-169; United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 576-577 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Cf. Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U. S. 624, 644 (1982) (“%5BT%5Dhe State has no legitimate interest in protecting nonresident“). As Madison expressed it: “[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority *921 than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist No. 39, at 245.

[Printz v. United States]

Thus, while i am domiciled on one geographical location, Arizona is part of the union and when Congress legislates for the union ON POWERS CONFERRED/SURRENDERED BY ARIZONA AND OTHER STATES TO IT, it legislates for me in my capacity as a United States citizen.  Whether i am a U.S. citizen or Arizona citizen is IRRELEVANT to me incurring a taxable income and being subject to IRC laws.  Do you know what subject matter legislation means?  So you bring up a moot point again–neither one of claimed domicile in two different location–i know i certainly did not.

Questions for you:

1. Are you alleging that i do not have two political capacities?

2. Are you alleging that i ever alleged to be domiciled on two different geographical locations?

I don’t care how you refer to them when you answer them, BUT if you do not answer them AND if you do not provide evidence as proof for both, then by your silence you admit to being a liar.

I allege you are making moot points BECAUSE you don’t want to address the matter brought up for review in this thread.  STOP addressing things we don’t care about nor bring up in this thread.  If you can’t do that, then continue believing that SCOTUS opinions are religious and political beliefs and SEDM and famguardian material–WHICH EXPLICITLY STATES THAT IT IS ONLY POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS BELIEF–is some kind of authority AND continue watching this thread develop from the sidelines BECAUSE you sue are not legally contributing to it.

Civil citizenship is something other than political citizenship. Allegiance and political association are separate issues from that of domicile. Political associations and civil associations relate to political bodies and geography respectively. They are separate issues.

We exist in two political capacities: first as state citizens and as domiciliaries of their geography also as civil citizens, and second as national citizens and as domiciliaries of the United States nation-union (comprising D.C., the 50 states and territorial possessions) also civil citizens. BUT because our domicile is within one of the 50 states we are such national civil citizens ONLY wrt Art. I:8:1-16 and 18 legislative powers/rights and NOT cl. 17 civil citizens (D.C. domiciliaries) NOR Art. IV:3:2 civil citizens (territorial domiciliaries). In other words our national civil citizenship interfaces ONLY through Art. I:8:1-16 and 18 of the U.S. Constitution, as this pertains to our discussion. (there are other constitutional authorities that pertain to us but none relevant to our discussion).

Again, the ruse is in third parties not understanding that an employment contract extended to you in California is a matter of strictly state rights and done on California’s grant of authority if such third party is a corporate entity. Thus no federal law has a claim on these state created private rights.  But these third parties don’t know that and ask/require federal snitching forms for EVERY transaction even if created by state law, which is a violation of the law and your 5th Amendment substantive due process requirement.

I think territorial sovereignty is a separate issue to that of subject matter sovereignty.

Yes it is.  United States exercises territorial sovereignty over the nation-union man.  We’ve went over that.  This nation-union is: D.C., the states, and the territories an possessions.  Over the three distinct geographical locations, the United States exercises DISTINCT legislative sovereignty–exclusive over the first, subject matter over the second and proprietary or territorial over the third.

You’re avoiding such conclusion but it becomes inescapable and inevitable once one poses the following question: If Art. IV:3:2 gives U.S. sovereignty over the territories and if Art. I:8:17 gives them exclusive sovereignty over D.C., which constitutional delegation of powers and geographical location remain?  

That’s right, the constitutional legislative authority of Art. I:8:1-16 and 18 remain along with the territorial geography of the states which is where such legislative sovereignty is operative over.

You won’t admit it because it destroys your argument.  I am willing to admit it because it is the truth, even though it destroys my legal argument as well–argument i don’t agree with anymore and find frivolous.  It is rather simple to understand once one concedes that the United States nation-union is geographically composed of D.C., the states, and the territorial possessions.  After that one only needs read what diffuse legislative sovereignty was delegated to the United States, and infer that the rest was reserved to the states or the people pursuant to the 10th Amendment.