[stija]

I called the court a few days ago to find out what is taking so long. It is my understanding, according to the online research that once the petition for rehearing is filed there is a 21 day window for any circuit judge to request/move for an explanation of panel’s decision or move for a vote.  Usually the request for clarification is made first, then the panel re-examines their position and respond to the court–all of this being done by internal memos.  

 

Then, if the judge is persuaded that the panel decision was proper as a matter or law the panel can wait the time out before they deny the petition and thus indirectly affirm their previous decision.  If the judge that requested the explanation is not persuaded, he–or any other jurist of the court–can call for a vote to hear the case en banc.  If it comes to this, the chances are small that it will go en banc, but i’m hoping for a dissenting opinion with a probable denial.  The dissenting opinion on a PFREB sharply raises one’s chances of being granted cert by the SCOTUS. (from something like 1% to 30%).

 

Long story short, the motions attorney from the ninth informed me that:

 

1. The court will issue an order either way–granting or denying my petition.

2. The clerks can see more than the public and she confirmed this but informed me that she cant disclose anything that is not public info by courts PACER system.

3. It is not improper or unusual for court–should it hypothetically entertain the PFREB–to go for months, up to 6 months or more but

 

So even though i am kind of restless, it may be a long time before i hear back.  Just wanted to keep the thread alive and inform any potential readers as to what may be going on.

 

It is my strong belief that at least one jurist potentially smelled something funny with using Article I legislation as controlling over state created private rights under state contract law, which is highly violative of:

 

1. Rules of Decision Act and choice of law rules.

2. Supreme Court Erie doctrine.

3. The Fifth Amendment because of 1. and 2. 

 

Time will tell if enough of them understand, but i believe someone does, and must have called for clarification of panels decision.  Otherwise, logic tells me the court would have denied it right on the 22nd day, give or take a day or two.  Similarly, the trial court denied my petition for rehearing within 48hrs after filed obviously disagreeing with my arguments. 

[stija]

Neo,

 

We are still debating over this point:

 

4.  Per the SCOTUS citation above, “United States” the nation is something other than the [“United States”] territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends.

 

I deny that statement–you agree.  To best explain why i disagree, lets analyze the statement.  There are two components to the statement that define its meaning or authority:

 

1) the meaning of the United States–the Union-nation, and

2) its sovereignty as the national government under the U.S. Constitution.  

 

With respect to the first component–the United States nation-union–I am sure we can agree that it means/extends to all the union, even the territories and possession.  However, territories and possesions, still being part of the union, are constitutionally classified as being possessions (property) of the United States over which the federal government exercises complete and plenary control.  Therefore they are quite irrelevant to the discussion wrt Congress’ Article I legislative sovereignty, and thus can be ignored for this discussion. (I will still address the sovereignty of United States over them below).

 

The second component relates to the sovereignty of the national government over the United States just discussed in the above paragraph. I allege that the United States exercises following sovereignty over the constitutional United States.

 

1. Complete and plenary dictatorial (U.S. Constitutional restrictions notwithstanding as they are property under IV:3:2) sovereignty over the territories and possessions.

2. Complete and plenary–what Article I Section 8 Cl. 17 calls “exclusive”–legislative sovereignty over D.C.   ***constitutional restrictions apply because D.C. was part of the states upon unification under it, which is also why it required cl. 17.

3. Complete legislative sovereignty over the United States (nation-union, territories and possession excluded) but only with respect to Article I Section 8 Cl 1-18 (cl. 17 excluded) delegated rights or subjects. (all else withheld and reserved to the states by the X Am.).

 

The territorial (over) and subject matter (but only wrt) qualifiers are in red ink–pay attention to those.  So basically, without drawing you a diagram, the above is the best way i can break it down for you.  

 

Now, why don’t YOU tell ME what from the above you disagree with so that i can provide you with U.S. Constitutional and SCOTUS references to prove to you that the above is correct.

 

Also, because of the above, a U.S. Citizen will always be domiciled within the U.S. nation-union one way or another.  If he is in CA, then he is a U.S. Citizen domiciled in United States California judicial district for purposes of jurisdiction of the courts.  If he is domiciled in France and resorts to claiming his U.S. citizenship for one reason or another, the Article I legislation will place him in the United States D.C judicial district most likely, for jurisdictional purposes of the courts.  IRC does this in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(39).

 

One could argue that the above places such citizen in such jurisdictions for purposes of courts and summons enforcement only, but I would argue that that is the MAIN and MOST important jurisdiction because that is how they WILL enforce their legislation.  And once domiciled in D.C. for court proceeding purposes, that person has lost the jurisdictional battle–it’s worse than being domiciled in CA judicial district.  But my mind is veering off topic here, yet again. 

 

Anyway, i hope the above explains why i disagree with you and this ministry’s teachings wrt to NRA position of a 14th Amendment citizen.  I cannot find anything in the constitution or SCOTUS opinions to confirm that to be the case wrt to Congress’ Article I legislative sovereignty.  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).  But the latter is an irrelevancy similar to claiming to be NR of another state of the union or Canada.  As in who cares, because most likely no one will ever make a request for you to declare your domicile wrt to I:8:17, IV:3:2 or Canadian legislative authority right?  

 

The requests are made under I:8:1 authority, wrt to which:

 

1.  A political 14th Am. citizen domiciled in a stat is a U.S. citizen

2.  But such citizen’s Alabama private contract created rights ARE FOREIGN to I:8:1 legislative sovereignty and those rights.

 

So the rights created are foreign, but the citizen is most certainly not.  And that is the ruse in a nutshell. 

[stija]

I have been re-thinking about some statements made in this thread in regards to territorial jurisdiction and would like to add, or rather clarify, a statement of mine:

 

There is NO strict territorial jurisdiction.  What would that be?  Give me an example of territorial jurisdiction not involving a subject matter regulated over such territory…go ahead.

 

 

 

Criminal jurisdiction is strictly territorial but statutory crimes legislated under Congress’ Article I legislative jurisdiction extend all over the territorial geography of the United States–the 50 states united under the U.S. Constitution–or what may also be referred to as the Union.  All other crimes–crimes against Article I United States rights notwithstanding–are STRICTLY territorial in nature.  In other words, the jurisdiction depends upon the territorial sovereignty over which the crime was committed.

[stija]

Neo, I think you are conflating Congress’ Article I legislative jurisdiction over the union with Congress’ plenary or exclusive legislative jurisdiction over territory in cl. 17.

I think that’s the jist of the argument.

[stija]

This passage from New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, at 155-156, perhaps illustrates this division of authority as best as can be done in one paragraph.  Reference case law cited for additional explanations.

 

These questions can be viewed in either of two ways. In some cases the Court has inquired whether an Act of Congress is authorized by one of the powers delegated to Congress in Article I of the Constitution. See, [/size]e. g., Perez v. United States, 402 U. S. 146 (1971); McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819). In other cases the Court has sought to determine whether an Act of Congress invades the province of state sovereignty reserved by the Tenth Amendment. See, [/size]e. g., Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528 (1985); Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71 (1869). In a case like these, involving the division of authority between federal and state governments, the two inquiries are mirror images of each other. If a power is delegated to Congress in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment expressly disclaims any reservation of that power to the States; if a power is an attribute of state sovereignty reserved by the Tenth Amendment, it is necessarily a power the Constitution has not conferred on Congress. See United States v. Oregon, 366 U. S. 643, 649 (1961); Case v. Bowles, 327 U. S. 92, 102 (1946); Oklahoma ex rel. Phillipsv. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 313 U. S. 508, 534 (1941).

 
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 US 452 – Supreme Court 1991 illustrates this more eloquently:

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:

“`[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).

 

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:

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).

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).

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”:

“n 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. 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.

 

[stija]

Do you assert that the Federal government exerts sovereignty over the geography of the 50 states?  If so, what geography does the Legislature of Florida exercise sovereignty over?

Before i tell you what i assert you need to understand that Legislature of Florida exercises subject matter (corporate law, commerce, public employment, etc) legislative jurisdiction within its territorial limits.  There is NO strict territorial jurisdiction.  What would that be?  Give me an example of territorial jurisdiction not involving a subject matter regulated over such territory…go ahead.
 
Now, having said that, both governments exercise legislative jurisdiction over Florida because Florida, much like the rest of the states, has surrendered some of THEIR sovereign powers and delegated/conferred them to Congress.  All other powers, not conferred to the United States, prohibited to Florida or reserved to the people of Florida are exercised by Florida.  
 

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.
United States v. Butler at 63.

 

In other words, whilst confined to its constitutional *289 orbit, the government of the United States is supreme within its lawful sphere.
Downes v. Bidwell, at 289.

 
Both governments exercise only subject matter legislative powers delegated to them within their spheres–the spheres referring to constitutional sovereignty.
 
I would also like to change my stance, somewhat, and allege that under Article I legislation a United States citizen domiciled in CA is not a nonresident U.S. citizen but simply a U.S. citizen.  Discussing this with you has made me realize that there is no such thing as nonresident U.S. citizen in relation to Article I legislation (cl. 17 of Section 8 excluded of course) given one is not outside the nation.  When outside, the IRC places such citizen within D.C. limits for jurisdictional purposes actually, so one would still be resident and not a nonresident!
 
Thus for example, while i may be an IRC U.S. Citizen under the IRC, unless i receive payments from a public office (trade or business), or in connection therewith, there is nothing to report to the IRS under 26 USC 6041.  The IRC is operative over Article I federally legislated rights called trade or business, compensation, employee, employer, etc., but not U.S. Citizen unless such citizen is located/domiciled outside the U.S. where the Constitutional restrictions do not apply.
 
Thus, when the individual in the above paragraph contracts for employment with a Florida licensed corporation for performance within Florida, such individual is a Florida citizen contracted with a Florida (domestic or foreign) corporate citizen, and rights under the contract do not trigger any duties to perform under the IRC.  Therefore, when the employer errantly asks for federal IRS forms to be filled out, the Florida citizen should refrain from filling out any of them and instead submit a signed declaration of why he refuses–the subject matter of concern is outside federal legislative jurisdiction and strictly a matter of state created private rights, as a matter of law.  Thus, one should refuse to submit federal forms and franchise their state private rights under Article I legislation.
 
If employer refuses, two actions should follow:
 
1. First, in state court to compel execution and performance of contract under Florida law; and
2. Second, in federal court in equity for injunctive relief for filing fraudulent documents/returns. (not really sure how to do this one properly without being dragged into/under the IRC)
 
Basically, since one exists in dual political capacity, the capacity he will assume is based on the subject matter of concern and government exercising sovereignty over that subject.

[stija]

They are part of the nation–they belong to the United States government and not the United States (50 states united).

 

What’s your point man?  

 

The territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends is the only possible territory–that of the 50 sovereign states united.

 

The territories and possessions BELONGING to the United States are OWNED by the United States.  The United States can dispose of them as they please U.S. Constitutional restrictions notwithstanding.  Does the U.S. Constitution apply to Puerto Rico UNLESS Congress applies it EXPLICITLY??

[stija]

Do you contend that D.C., the territories, and the possessions are NOT part of the nation?  Yes or No?

Nope, not under the U.S. Constitution which is the subject of this topic.  More specifically, the subject is the delegated legislative sovereignty of Congress under Article I, and territories and possessions are NEITHER sovereign NOR states under the U.S. Constitution, thus they have NOTHING TO delegate to Article I, or otherwise contribute to this discussion.  
 
Under federal law though, probably passed under Article IV:3:2 authority, they form the nation through an Act of Congress ex proprio vigore.  But again, the context is Congressional Article IV:3:2 powers, which again, can ONLY have been delegated by the states.
 
The ONLY party to the constitution are the states, as sovereign political associations of people and their government extending over their geography. 
 
Why are territories and possessions belonging to the United States important or relevant to this discussion? I contend we are veering off topic here.

[stija]

This is absolutely incorrect.  The 50 states do NOT form the nation.  The 50 states are merely component or political subdivisions of the nation.  The nation also comprises DC, the territories, and the Federal government.  Additionally, DC is also not included within the meaning of “the 50 states.”

The 50 states, their people, and the United States government form the nation.  The territories are possessions of the United States and WERE NOT a party to the U.S. Constitution.

 

Furthermore, I NEVER said that D.C. was a state as that term is used in the U.S. Constitution. I said:

 

***DC included as it was part of the states when united.

 

D.C. was carved out of Maryland, Virginia, and two other states which were a party to the U.S. Constitution.  Pardon my geographical ignorance for not knowing the other two states. Downes v. Bidwell actually explains that U.S. Constitution attached to D.C. when it was PART OF the states that were party to that political document.

 

There could be no doubt as to the correctness of this conclusion, so far, at least, as it applied to the District of Columbia. This District had been a part of the States of Maryland and [/size]261*261 Virginia. It had been subject to the Constitution, and was a part of the United States. The Constitution had attached to it irrevocably. There are steps which can never be taken backward. The tie that bound the States of Maryland and Virginia to the Constitution could not be dissolved, without at least the consent of the Federal and state governments to a formal separation. The mere cession of the District of Columbia to the Federal government relinquished the authority of the States, but it did not take it out of the United States or from under the aegis of the Constitution. [/size]

[Downes v. Bidwell, at 260-1.]

 

Your opinion does not have authority here.  D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, USVI, CNMI, and American Samoa are also part of our nation, and they are not within the meaning of the 50 states.

Maybe under an Act of Congress ex proprio vigore, but under the U.S. Constitution, these areas are most definitely not states or party to it and do not form the political nation-union under that document.  The subject being discussed is Article I Section 8 delegated powers under the U.S. Constitution and NOT Acts of Congress under IV:3:2 or other Constitutional power.  Stick to it please.  Also, ONLY states can delegate/confer powers–territories are possession and have no sovereignty to delegate from.

 

What part of the U.S. Constitution do you use to support your contention that the above listed areas are states, as that word is used in the document, or a political sovereignty and party to it otherwise? I contend that there is no such legal evidence in the U.S. Constitution.

 

What territory (geography) does the Federal government exercise sovereignty over?

I’ll let you answer that yourself by saying that the only political parties to the U.S. Constitution that COULD delegate powers were states, and such states uniting and forming a union with their people, gov’ts and geography, what geographical location could the legislative powers delegated in Article I Section 8 be exercised?  China?  Canada?  Or possibly the union called the United States and its geographical territory created by unification of the 50 sovereigns who delegated such powers through their explicit consent conferring them to a new government they created and their legislative body known as Congress.

[stija]

Agreed, the sovereignty of the Federal government insofar as D.C., the territories and possessions goes, is comprehensive.

 

There are 3 different meanings of the “United States” in the Constitution, and 4 within the Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt citation.  The constitutional meanings are:  (1) the several states United, (2) the nation (14th Amndt), (3) the government (14th Amndt).  Hooven talks about the “territory over which the sovereignty of the United States (Federal government) extends.”  This description is not within the constitution.  The Constitution deals only in political entities, not geographical entitites (I:8:17 not withstanding).

 

I agree that there are 3 constitutional meanings of United States:

 

1. The 50 sovereigns (states) united–as in a nation of the United States.  ***DC included as it was part of the states when united.

2. The name of the union-nation in 1.

3. The name of the government sovereign in affairs delegated to it OVER the nation in 1.

 

The 4th meaning really is not another meaning in my opinion, but the natural consequence of 50 states being united into one nation and creating a government with certain enumerated and delegated powers over the nation.  And such nation cannot contain any other territory (geography) other than the territory of the 50 sovereigns who united to create it.

 

Do you agree that territory (or geography) is but one component of a nation, which itself is people, government, and geography?

 

Yes.  Then 50 of them sovereigns combined into one nation which can geographically contain no territory other than theirs.

 

Is a component of a whole the same as the whole?  Is a steering wheel the same as an automobile?

 

No.  A better analogy would be a bus (territory) full of people (people) with a driver in charge (govt).  Then if 50 busses combined into a sovereign union and delegated certain powers to the 51st driver in charge (a new federal govt), over which busses do you think that 51st person in charge would be exercising these powers delegated?

[stija]

No side bar discussions here.  We are going to stay on task wrt #4 until we get the facts established.  Then we can discuss within the context of the facts (admissions).

 

It was not a side discussion, it relates to our discussion.

 

Does Congress exercise territorial sovereignty over D.C., the territories, and the possessions?

 

It does not.  Congress exercises EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction–meaning territorial, subject matter, and any other possible jurisdiction  (general jurisdiction)–over D.C., as opposed to only territorial jurisdiction.

 

Does Congress exercise territorial sovereignty over the 50 states?

 

Absolutely not.  Congress exercises only subject matter jurisdiction within the states relating only to those subjects/powers delegated in Article I Section 8 clauses 1-18 (cl. 17 exclusive).  United States v. Butler says it best, but approaching the same subject of sovereign powers from the states’ perspective:

 

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.

[United States v. Butler 291 U.S. 1, at 63.]

 

In other words, each state is sovereign over everything not delegated to the United States in the U.S. Constitution, thus powers delegated in Article I are national powers to be exercised by the United States over United States (constitutional United States mind you–as that is the context).

 

What geography constitutes constitutional United States Neo?  Do you deny or admit that it constitutes geography of the union states as well? (this is kinda off topic because legislation is not territorial but operative within the constitutional United States)

 

Rather, the proper question is whether when the national government legislates in matters delegated to it, it does so in relation to your national political character or state political character?  I contend it would defeat the purpose to have dual capacities–both gov’t and us–if the national government could not legislate/mandate over the national citizenship and states over the state citizenship.

[stija]

Do you agree that Art. I, Sec. 8 powers deal with subject matter versus territorial jurisdiction (I:8:17 not withstanding)?  Apart from I:8:17, there is no reference whatsoever to territory or geography.  Agreed?

Agreed. 

 

Question: Who do you allege Congress is legislating for but the nation of the United States–the 50 states united?  It follows that nation is a political entity, with national citizens (14th Am. U.S. Citizens), and we already proved that each nation has a territory, people and government right?

 

Agree with the above assessment?  If you don’t elaborate why please. Mind you, i am not saying that Article I legislation is territorial at all–i am saying that it is national subject matter legislation, and each one of us that is a political citizen also exists in this other dual/second (paramount really) national and political capacity as a U.S. citizen, irrelevant that domicile is in a state of the union.  This is that 14th Amendment political citizen, and the U.S. constitution is political document for the union known as the United States–the same union over which the sovereignty of the United States (in matters delegated only) extends.

[stija]

OK . . . in re:4.  This discussion must stop here until we get this resolved.  Agreed?

 

Agreed.

 

Do you agree that in the nation of the United States, that sovereignty is not shared, but rather divided between either the Federal government in its sphere, or between the states in their sphere?  Either one government is sovereign in a particular area, or the other government is.  Do you agree with this?

 

Absolutely agreed!

 

Question: Which government is sovereign over Article I Section 8 legislative powers and rights?  (context)

 

I sure wish Admin would extend the time on that clock a little bit.

 

I sure wish he would chime in at some point in time.

[stija]

Agreed. You missed a number, or rather, you used 2 twice, so the numbers won’t match after the first 2, just an FYI.

 

1. Admit.

2. Admit.

3. Admit.

4. Deny.  Per same citation, the term United States can mean many things, DEPENDENT on the context. For purposes (context) of Article I legislation, other than Sec. 8, Cl. 17, the term United States means the territory (the whole union) over which legislative sovereignty of Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1-18 (exclusive of cl. 17) extends.  Do you not agree that United States is sovereign over all subjects delegated to it in Section 8 of Article I (except cl. 17) all over the union.  

“It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?”
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)

 

The sovereignty, or authority under which the laws are passed, is subject matter in character but it extends ALL OVER the union–the 50 states united as political entities which INCLUDE their GEOGRAPHY, people and government.  The United States has EXCLUSIVE rights to legislate on all matters delegated to it in Section 8 of Article I, and such powers of legislative sovereign jurisdiction are a) conferred to it by the people of the states and “b”) can only be exercised over the same sovereigns who conferred them (no sovereign can confer powers over another sovereign) involved in those subjects.  The following case illustrates this:

“It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?”
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)

Do you admit or deny the above?  

 

5. Admit.  See 4. above.

6. Admit, BUT, the instance we are using it in here is political and legal and NOT popular language. Counter admit or deny?

7. Admit.

8. Admit.  We owe allegiance and nationality to BOTH the United States and the state, if domiciled within one.  See 14th Amend.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

“Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state, allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons. Not so, with respect to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is a substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things. Allegiance and citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic. Citizenship is the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity. Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure. Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a badge of inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal. Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude. Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive. Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual. With such essential differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate. And yet, even among the nations, in which the law of allegiance is the most firmly established, the law most pertinaciously enforced, there are striking deviations that demonstrate the invincible power of truth, and the homage, which, under every modification of government, must be paid to the inherent rights of man…..The doctrine is, that allegiance cannot be due to two sovereigns; and taking an oath of allegiance to a new, is the strongest evidence of withdrawing allegiance from a previous, sovereign….”  

[Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133 (1795) ]

For all matters and powers delegated to the United States in the federal constitution, i owe allegiance to it in return for the protection rendered through those powers delegated and consented to.  For all OTHER matters i owe allegiance to my state, in regards to the matters not delegated to the United states, reserved by the Tenth to the states and not prohibited to the states by their respective constitutions–paraphrasing United States v. Butler, 296 U.S. 1:

 

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.

United States v. Butler, at 63

Thus, i owe allegiance to two sovereigns, for i exist in dual political and civil capacity, concomitant with the sovereign powers exercised by my dual governments, each sovereign within its respective sphere of powers delegated to it.  See Printz supra, in my OP.

 

 

9. Admit.  But that residual sovereignty remains with powers NOT delegated under Article I Section 8.

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.

 

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898. 919 (1996)

 

The states can ONLY retain residual sovereignty over powers they did NOT confer to the United States as expressly stated in the Tenth Amendment.

 

We disagree on a few points.  Feel free to let me know whether you deny or admit my counters to your allegations.  If not, help me help you understand why i am disagreeing.

 

S

[stija]

I agree with your last post.

 

But the OP suggests that the mandate is DESTROYED and INVALID, when it most certainly is not. That’s my problem with it.  How many of the people who read that article online are like you or me–not having signed a W-4 or other Article I franchise forms?  And one cannot sign up to be a taxpayer–have “normal taxes” withheld–but opt-out, or not be subject to the individual mandate.  If you disagree, then show where such an option exists.

 

I contend that the individual mandate is most certainly a requirement on EVERY applicable individual.  The key is the word ‘applicable,’ and i suspect it means anyone subject to to Subtitle C taxes, which would be anyone who has ‘normal taxes’ withheld.  So the OP is most certainly wrong as one cannot have just elect to have only ‘normal taxes’ withheld and ‘unvolunteer’ for the other Subtitle C mandates.