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.

You couldn’t be more off with your last post.  It is clear that you are confusing EXCLUSIVE legislative powers with TERRITORIAL jurisdiction.

Clause 17 just declares that United States AND NO OTHER SOVEREIGN has legislative jurisdiction within D.C.  That’s all.  Territorial jurisdiction is irrelevant here.  What you refer to when you talk about states ceding territory to the United States is equivalent of states ceding ALL their sovereignty EXCLUSIVELY to the United States under cl. 17.

Clauses 1-16 and 18 have NOTHING to do with clause 17.  They are separate delegations of powers to the United States–there’s a total of 18 in Section 8 of Article I.  

According to your logic feds exercise Art. I:8:1-18 powers only over D.C. and this is absurd and redundant being that by clause 17 they ALREADY EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction over it.  Think about what you are saying for a second–exclusive already encompasses all the other delegations in cl. 1-16 and 18 rendering the Section 8 of Article I redundant and unnecessary.

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.

1. Feds exercise EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction over D.C. and other lands purchased under cl. 17 authority.

2. Any states bringing a legal dispute over some legislation within territories specified in 1. would be a frivolous and meritless dispute friend, feds having EXCLUSIVE legislative jurisdiction.

If you have exclusive legal claim on your car and i make a legal claim that you should use your car only between 7am-4pm, what legal merit/weight does my claim have?  I contend none–frivolous on its face.

Stija,
 
Do you believe that sovereignty is absolute?  Or is it shared?

 
In American Jurisprudence it MOST CERTAINLY is shared between two sovereigns, thus the dual sovereignty doctrine and our dual political and civil capacities.
 
United States v. Butler 297 US 1 quote says it the best:
 

Each State has all governmental powers save such as the people, by their Constitution, have conferred upon the United States, denied to the States, or reserved to themselves. The federal union is a government of delegated powers. It has only such as are expressly conferred upon it and such as are reasonably to be implied from those granted. In this respect we differ radically from nations where all legislative power, without restriction or limitation, is vested in a parliament or other legislative body subject to no restrictions except the discretion of its members.

 
Therefore, states (their people, government and geography), who also unified into a nation-union called the United States, conferred some of their sovereignty to this newly formed nation and government sovereign over it.  Some of these powers are delegated or conferred in Article I:8:1-16 and 18 and the United States is sovereign in respect to those ones all over the union–the same union comprised of the states that conferred some of their powers.
 
All other powers, no prohibited to the States or reserved to the people is what is referred to as residual sovereignty in the federal constitution and SCOTUS opinions.
 
Thus when you interact with the United States you most certainly are a national United States citizen domiciled within the nation–if domiciled within one of the same states that delegated it the authority under which it is acting (given it’s and Article I:8:1-16 or 18 power).
 
What escapes you from the above?  What do you disagree with?  What confuses you?  It is crystal clear to me now which is why i am saying that the NRA position is frivolous and takes away from discussing, or even reaching, the substance of our arguments in courts–the substance being that state created private rights are not a federal Article I concern and are to be adjudicated and interpreted using state law, under the choice of law rules and 28 USC 1652.

How does my theory conflate body politic with geography? There are TWO political sovereigns, and two geographical territories they operate on. The first is a state and its geography, the second is the United States with its geography of 50 states united to form it.

Do you agree or disagree that the United States nation is comprised GEOGRAPHICALLY of the states, D.C. and territories? Agree or deny the former statement please.

Dude…

The nation-union is a body politic, just like states, but national and comprised of people of the states, their state geography and the national government conferred legislative powers in Article I.

Are you suggesting that the United States nation is territoriless?? We already accepted the factual evidence/testimony that it comprises the states, D.C. and territories and possessions. If domiciled in California you are also domiciled within the United States territorial geography over which Article I:8 legislative powers are conferred to it and supreme–cl. 17 notwithstanding referring to D.C. and not states.

I am not having it both ways.

If state citizens do not involve themselves in any rights legislated undee Art. I:8 then they can sue each other under the diversity of citizenship so long as the requirements are met, per Art. III:2.

If, however, the same state citizens involve themselves with matters legislated under Art. I:8 then they interact with the United States and its rights as national (U.S.) citizens and diversity does not apply because the matter is regulated by the federal constitution under Art I:8 and legislation promulgated in furtherance of the same. In other words, the matter is federally regulated. See 28 USC 1652 whose language couldn’t be more specific.

Therefore, your domicile is in California for all state matters. But your domicile is in the United States, the nation-union (not cl. 17 unless legislation passed under that clause) and you interface in your other national capacity with any Art. I (cl. 17 excluded) legislative rights/matters, such as IRC and SS.

Re-read printz on residual state 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 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.”

And DUAL political citizenship/capacity with EACH HIS OWN immunities and privileges and obligations.

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.”

Again, SS and IRC matters are regulated under the federal constitutional grant of power in Art. I:8:1 (not cl. 17), thus a political citizen domiciled in a state is a United States citizen domiciled in United States the nation-union.

On the other hand, a D.C. resident and political citzen would be NR to the constitutional United States union-nation because interfacing through cl. 17 (different legislative authority) thus D.C. is EXPLICITLY included in the definition of United States in 7701. Remember, D.C. is not a state as that term is used in the U.S. constitution and didn’t have any powers to delegate through Art. I:8:1-16 and 18, which is why it needs to be included as a state.

Look up the word ‘residual.’ There are explicitly conferred powers and all the rest is residual and reserved by the Tenth Am. United States is sovereign and supreme with respect to powers conferred to it in the federal constitution.

The establishment of my civil status is a local affair — a reality inherent through the privileges and immunities of residual state sovereignty. That is, as a State Citizen, I determine my civil status under the laws of the United States. In this particular instance, it is the SS franchise and its related income tax.

For all matters of state concern you are a state citizen. But SS and IRC are laws promulgated under Art. I:8:1 and you are a United States citizen because United States is sovereign in those affairs and you interact with it through the national capacity.

In all other matters–which only leaves state matters wrt to local affairs–one is a state citizen and nonresident to D.C. (I:8:17) or territories (IV:3:2).

Aside from above matters (SS and IRC and other Art. I:8 matters) you most definitely are a state citizen and nonresident of Art. I:8:17 and IV:3:2. Neither SS nor IRC are passed on IV:3:2 or I:8:17, so it’s an irrelevancy.

Debating with you about your issue has actually helped me realize the above because the United States cannot legislate in matters reserved to the states, which is the RESIDUAL state sovereignty. But your status with the SS franchise IS NOT a matter of, or a state concern–it is PURELY a federal rights franchise issue on Art. I:8:1 sovereign legislative authority. IF YOU DON’T SEE THIS THAN YOU ARE LYING TO YOURSELF. Or are you trying to actually convince me that your status with the SS franchise is a matter of residual state sovereignty.

I am departing from anything. Rather you are conflating cl. 17 with other subject matter sovereignty. Since SS and IRC franchises are not legislated on either Art. I:8:17 or IV:3:2 authority, then you’re bringing a non-argument into our argument.

You are conflating:

1. Exclusive (all powers save constitutional restrictions); with

2. Subject matter (only delegated powers); and

3. Territorial possessions (dictatorial powers, constitutional restrictions notwithstanding)

All of them are sovereign powers, but they differ in subjects of regulation and territorial application.

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.

My position is 100% consistent with SCOTUS opinions. But it’s possible you’re missunderstanding the Hooven and Allison opinions wrt sovereignty of United States over its territorial geography and how such sovereignty varied wrt to it–Art I:8:1-16 and 18 wrt states; Art. I:8:17 wrt to D.C.; and Art. IV:3:2 wrt territories.

I hope you come around man. NRA position as it relates to a political citizen is 100% frivolous. No court opinion exists to support it because it’s legally meritless. Even when outside in China if one invokes a U.S. political status, such individual would be placed in D.C. by default.

Having said that, such state citizen is a NRA wrt Art. I:8:17 and Art. IV:3:2 legislative sovereignty.