[stija]

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

See…you’re confusing EXCLUSIVE and TERRITORIAL legislative authority with SUBJECT MATTER legislation authority.

1. Exclusive means all.
2. Territorial means proprietary, constitutional restrictions notwithstanding.
3. Subject matter means only authority over specific subjects.

1. is exercised over D.C. (and areas purschaed from states for forts etc.), 2. is exercised over territories and possessions and the 3. is exercised over states geography, the same sovereigns who conferred the authorities thereunder.

This is also why Article I:8:1 legislation requires EXPLICIT inclusion of D.C. (and territories) in its United States definition, such as 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10). Article I:8:1-16 and 18 powers are relative to states, Congress exercising exclusive jurisdiction over D.C.

[stija]

Yes…in China, BiH, anywhere really with consent of the sovereign authority presiding over tbe territory.

But over here, domestically, WHICH sovereigns (people, govt and land) have already expressly granted/conferred such subject jurisdiction over their geography?

[stija]

Yes. So WHICH territory does U.S. exercise it’s Art I:8 powers over? (with constitutional permission/delegation expressly given already)

[stija]

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?

The what is exercised where? Within the nation-union. So I do not agree. The sovereignty of United States can be exercised only within its geography, or territory, and such sovereignty extends all over it within the respective spheres.

I never alleged that U.S. exercises powers at all times.

Where would you allege the United States exercises its Art. I:8:1-16 and 18 powers? Where? What territory? China?

[stija]

Yes…residual sovereignty is the 93 powers left, 17 having been conferred.

[stija]

The sovereignty both governments exercise is within the same territory but within their own spheres, or legislative authority. States retained all legislative powers not conferred to the United States.

What’s confusing you? Remember the 100 powers example. Well Congress exercises 17 of them throughout the territorial geography of the nation-union, as it relates to the states, exclusive as it relates to D.C. and proprietary over possessions and territories.

[stija]

IN RE: 4

 

D.C. is 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?

Yes. My bad, I forgot about that.

[stija]

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.

1. Nation as in family of nations. (context international law)

2. The several states united under the constitution. (private law–domestic)

3. The territorial geography over which sovereignty of the United States extends. (the actual geographical territory as in that third component of political body or state-nation)

[stija]

You also conceded that the United States exercised sovereignty over I:8:17 geography within the states.

I never conceded this. There is no cl. 17 sovereignty within states, only D.C.

[stija]

I tell you then to read Hooven and Allison v. Evatt to see what the case pertains to. I allege properly that it pertains to Article I legislation. So the opinion you cite is pertaining to Article I as well.

There is no legislation pertaining to body politic that is not geographical over the body politic.

[stija]

I am not curve fitting, you are not understanding.

Imagine states–the people, govt and geography–having 100 powers of sovereignty. Now imagine them delegating 17 of them to the federal agent. Now imagine this agent exercising their powers over the delegates who delegated the powers–the people (as national citizens), their govt and geography.

The End.

[stija]

The nation-union. But it’s different sovereignty over different territorial components of the union. States interface through Art. I:8:1-16 and 18, D.C. through cl. 17 and territories through Art. IV:3:2.

[stija]

Of course.

[stija]

None. Then you are a state citizen interfacing with the state only.

[stija]

Yes. Also, if such individual is a political citizen he will interface with Art I:8:5 legislation through his national capacity.