Jesus C.K. are you that bored that you went through my post to nit-pick?
Grave dig much?
You should have made mention (if you got that far) that the points you
did quote, was what can be boiled down to as an "on-going investigation" which is what it was, and I made mention of that before hand. You could have asked how my investigation on that matter was going, to which you would have discovered that I had come to my
own conclusion that everything i had found out was, indeed, humbug. While I am of the opinion that government has, and always will, use tricky legal wording to get it's way and work around the system of laws which itself has created, I ultimately found the information I researched to not be of sound standing and have dismissed it as such.
However, I think more research should be put into the 14th Amendment. I think a good case can be made for Federal/State citizenship in doing so. The geographic jurisdiction of the United States is very limited and well defined.
Federal geographic jurisdiction is limited to those places where the Unites States is the sovereign. In the states of the Union,
The People are the sovereigns. All power exercised by the state governments flows from the consent of
The People. When the federal government is operating within a state of the Union, it must respect all the rights, privileges, and immunities of
The People.
However, there are places where the people are not sovereign; where the government's power is not derived from the people, and where the US government (in the form of the Congress) is free to act much like a king of old, rather than a servant of the people. These places are specified in the
US Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:
~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, dockyards, and other needful buildings...The handshake section is found at
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:
~The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States...Together, these two sections have been interpreted by the US Supreme Court to grant Congress the authority to legislate in ways that would be unconstitutional if applied to the states of the Union. See Downes v. Bidwel, 182 US 244 (1901), and Hooven and Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 US 674 (1945).
This distinction in the scope and freedom of Congress to legislate might not be quite so onerous if Congress was required to declare, in writing, at the beginning of every bill, the section of the Constitution that empowers Congress to act, concerning each element of the proposed legislation. In that way concerned Citizens would be able to readily discern whether a law, or a portion of a law, was applicable within the states of the Union, having been authorized by one of the Constitutionally enumerated powers granted to Congress by the states. Efforts to provide such a simple and clear method of Congressional accountability have consistently failed to get to the floor of the House or the Senate for a vote, instead being killed in committee every time.
