[stija]

Yes on the facts alleged as they pertain to said individual–his circumstances.

[stija]

Within states the states do, except over subjects and rights they conferred to the United States in Art. I:8.

[stija]

Well…unless it is an Art. I:8 power they are exercising, they don’t have any sovereignty within any state or over it.

[stija]

Yes. The United States exercises legislative sovereignty over and within the 50 states but only pertaining to powers/rights in Art. I:8:1-16 and 18. And within that specific legislative sovereignty the United States is supreme. See Art VI:2 and Gregory v Ashcroft red quoted text.

[stija]

IN RE: 4

 

So who is the sovereign over D.C., territories, and possessions of the United States?

The United States is.  We’ve already dealt with this when you asked me what constitutes the nation-Union.  The United States is sovereign over the union known as the United States and territories and D.C. being part of it are subject to its sovereignty.

[stija]

IN RE: 4

 

So is Congress the ultimate sovereignty in Puerto Rico?

 

And what did the Constitution mean when it said:

 

“…all needful rules and regulations…” in IV:3:2?  Is this congressional authority less comprehensive than exclusive?

 

Yes, Congress is the ultimate dictator-like sovereign over Puerto Rico.

 

It is not less comprehensive than exclusive and i would argue that it is larger than Art. I:8:17 exclusive authority because the latter has to comport with constitutional restrictions and the former does not.

[stija]

IN RE: 4
 
OK . . . now we are getting somewhere.
 
What is the difference between exclusive legislative sovereignty and proprietary sovereignty?
 
And if the United States does not exercise exclusive legislative sovereignty in Puerto Rico, then who or what does?  Is it a King?  Does Puerto Rico have the same class of sovereignty as one of the 50 states?

 
Exclusive legislative sovereignty means just that–exclusive legislative powers vested in Congress.  
 
Territorial clause enables Congress to make rules regarding its territories and possessions, but Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico makes laws for Puerto Rico. So Puerto Rico has its legislative department as granted by Congress in some Congressional Act somewhere at the time when they accepted Puerto Rico as a territory.  
 
Puerto Rico has NO sovereignty except for what is granted by Congress in a respective Act. For eg. Congress allowed them to have a legislative department instead of legislating for them.  But Puerto Rico is definitely not a state or having sovereignty of a state.

[stija]

Does the United States exercise EXCLUSIVE legislative sovereignty in Puerto Rico?

 

No it does not.  Congress exercises Article IV:3:2 territorial/proprietary sovereignty over Puerto Rico–see the territorial clause–unless you can prove that Puerto Rico is located in D.C. which then would make Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I binding.

[stija]

Article IV:3:2 is not the supremacy clause.  

 

The answer to your question is:

 

1. Congress exercises EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE SOVEREIGNTY over D.C.–as clearly evidenced by Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

 

The answer is “see clause 17 of section 8 of article I.”

 

I already answered that question.  Next question please.

[stija]

The answer is “see clause 17 of section 8 of article I.”

But sovereignty we’re discussing is legislative one…thus Article I.

[stija]

Territory is synonyms with geography. But United States sovereignty extending over the 50 states’ geography is (Article I section 8 cl. 1-16 and 18) different from the sovereignty United States extending over geography of D.C. (cl. 17).

[stija]

Questions:

 

1.  What comprises “United States” the nation?; and

2.  What constitutes “territory over which the sovereignty of the United States (government) extends”?

 

For purposes of answering, I will assume that the questions posed are posed in the constitutional context.

 

Answers:

 

1. United States the nation-union is the 50 states, the territories and possessions and D.C. of course.

2. See 1. (but United States exercises three different types of sovereignty over the three distinct territories enumerated in 1.)

 

There.

[stija]

I agree…but Roberts has to try and save the law from unconstitutionality if possible–such is the doctrine.

I fully agree with the rest. Obama ain’t no different than Bush or Clinton, or any of the other criminals.

[stija]

I have correspondend somewhat extensively with the man behind MacPherson Group and can say with certainty that they do not understand the full predicament or the true nature of tax laws.

Read Stonecipher v. Bray (ninth circuit opinion) which was prosecuted by Mac of the MacPherson Group. Pay close attention to the arguments made which led the court to slap a frivolous penalty charge on the plaintiff.

Sadly, no attorney understands the legal predicament and issues behind it, otherwise there would be good case law on this subject already. What kind of issues are you having?

[stija]

The “mandatory” actions is overruled, just as the OP highlighted.

Every United States Article I law presupposes one’s voluntary partaking of the subject regulated by the law…nothing new there. Roberts just said that it will be a mandate on an applicable individual under Subtitle C of the IRC instead of an applicable individual involved in commercial activity having substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Therefore it still is a proper mandate-law. All valid laws mandate duties on applicable individuals. That’s how laws function, you know.