What exactly is a "state" and the "United States"? A concise question and answer.

The 14th Ammendment provides - "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."

What is a "state"?

  • Supreme Court determination(as SCOTUS can not write law) of the Constitutional Law says "a state is a people permanently occupying a fixed territory". See United States v. Kusche D.C. Cal 56 Supp, 210, 207, 208(1944).
  • Supreme Court determination of the Constitutional Law also says "the members of the American confederacy are the only states contemplated in the constitution". See Barney v. Baltimore, 6 Wall. 280, 18 L.Ed. 825.(1867)

What areas are defined by the Constitution as republic "states" in the Union?

  • All 50 states of the Union.

Are the Union "states" comprised of "living people"?

  • Yes.

Do the 50 sovereign republic "states" of the Union have sovereign jurisdiction over themselves?

  • Yes, but when constitutional rights are infringed upon by any "state" of the Union, the federal government, under the Supremacy Clause in Article VI can be used to defend constitutional rights and also appeals can be made to the Supreme Court of the land which has original jurisdiction.

Is the District of Columbia a "state" and why?

  • No from a constitutional perspective - but yes when precisely defined in a statute(an act of Congress) applying its own (INTERNAL) jurisdiction.

In other words, is the District of Columbia a Union "state"?

  • No.

Where does the federal government define itself, the District of Columbia, as a "state", and does the federal government define other things as "states"?

  • 'DC' is defined at 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101 (a)(36) - "the term "state" includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands of the United States
  • 'New York City' is defined as a "state" at 20 CFR chapter 111, subpart B 422.103 (b) (2)
  • This power is inherent from the Act of 1871 on February 21 in which Congress passed the before mentioned act to provide an "Executive Administrative" government for public servants under international law to enforce Statutes and Codes.

Is Puerto Rico one of the Constitutional republic "states" of the Union and why?

  • No.
  • Because Supreme Court determination of the Constitutional Law says "the practical interpretation put by congress upon the Constitution has long been...to the effect that the Constitution is applicable to territories acquired by purchase or conquest". See Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244(1901).
  • Supreme Court determination of the Constitutional Law also says "we are therefor of the opinion that the island of Puerto Rico is a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not part of the United States within the revenue clauses of the Constitution." See Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244(1901).

Are Guam and the Virgin Islands Constitutional republic "states" of the Union?

  • No.

So what are Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands from the standpoint of the Constitution?

Does the District of Columbia have sovereign jurisdiction(INTERNAL) over itself and its territories?

  • Yes, but when constitutional rights are infringed upon by any unconstitutional federal government law, the "states" of the Union under the 9th and 10th Ammendments, do not have to follow such laws which go beyond the constitutions 'authoriized' powers, and can defend constitutional rights and also appeals can be made to the Supreme Court of the land because the "Constitution is applicable to territories" per Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244(1901) and the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. This why each state constitutions are worded near exact the Constitution of the land.

Ok, now onto, what is the "United States"?

How many "United States are they speaking about in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244(1901)?

  • In that case - TWO
  • See also O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 53 S.Ct. 740(1933)

Are there any other defintions of the "United States" in Supreme Court determination of the Constitutional Law and where?

  • Yes. in the case of Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652(1945)

How is the "United States" defined there?

  • 1) the context of its position in the family of nations.
  • 2) the context of territory over which the federal government is sovereign.
  • 3) the context of the 50 sovereign republic "states" of the Union. under the Constitution.

Since we know how the judicial branch of the government defines the Constitutional "United States", where and how does the federal government define itself as the "United States"?

  • 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(38), "the term 'United States', except as otherwise specifically herin provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the "United States". - It is also so defined in a number of other places in their code.

Did the above statute define or reference another "United States" and what was it?

  • Yes, from a federal perspective it referenced a defined continental United States

What is the continental United States?

  • 8 C.F.R. Sec. 215.1(f) says, "the term continental United States means the District of Columbia and the several "States", except for Alaska and Hawaii".

What are the several "States" per Statute law? (Not Supreme Court determination of the Constitutional law)

  • The term "States" plural of "State" is defined in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101 (a)(36), "The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands of the United States."

Are the Constitutional states of the Union apart of these terms?

  • No.

So what is the plain english reading of the above C.F.R. and U.S.C. definitions?

  • In plain english it reads as follows: 'The term 'continental United States' means the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the "United States", except Alaska and Hawaii'.

So, can the "states" defined by the federal government in their statutes be likened to some kind of 'federal incorporated STATES'?

  • Perhaps, yes, with the understanding that it relates to overlays of the republic states, or congressional / legislative / territorial areas of jurisdiction. Art. I and Art. IV. Overlays of PUBLIC POLICY and NOT Public Law of the republic before 1933.

If so, are 'federal states', the same as Constitutional "states" of the Union?

  • No.

Why does Congress word things in this manner?

  • This circular wording is done because the 'Rules of Statutory Construction' FORBID adding anything to the statues AND Statutory definitions SUPERSEDE rather than ENLARGE ordinary definitions. (statutory defintions take the place of or rather define for that specific document)

Can the above statement be proven and why?

  • Yes, because
  • 1) Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485(1987) says "when a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that terms ordinary meaning"
  • 2) Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393 n. 10(1979) says "It is axiomatic that the statutory definiton of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term."
  • 3) Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502(1945) says "As a rule, 'a definition which declares what a term 'means'...excludes any meaning that is not stated'"
  • 4) Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456 169 S.W.2d 321, 325(1943) says "The maxim of 'expressio unis est exlusio alterius', the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another"

What is so special about Alaska and Hawaii, since today, we know they are "states" of the Union and are outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal government?

  • That statute was written when Alaska and Hawaii were territories and not yet admitted to the Union. They are no longer included in these definitions since 1959.

Do federal statutes determine the citizenship of a living person who was born in a "state" of the Union?

  • No.

Why?

  • The Constitution does not grant Congress the authority. The states are outside of their subject matter jurisdiction. Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855(1936) says "It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275, 38 S.Ct. 529. 3 A.L.R. 649 Ann.Cas.1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect to the internal affairs of the states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation". [ See also Treasury Order 150-02 ]

So based on the above information, a living man or woman born in a state of the Union is defined by the 14th Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States, and those born in the District of Columbia or a territory are defined by U.S.C. statute law. And therefore naturalization is available only in states of the Union or the "United States"***{3} and not available in unincorporated territories. See Eche v. Holder, 694 F.3d 1026(2012). The federal government cannot occupy the same physical space as the states of the Union, but does operate as an overlay when jurisdiction is found; contracted(i.e. consent) or conceded(i.e. "implementing a federal program"[Justice Scalia on 'Dual Sovereignty' - Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)]).

What federal statute defines those born in the District of Columbia?

  • 8 U.S.C. Sec 1401 and all federal statutes.

Research perfomed from 'without the United States'. [ 28 U.S. Code Sec. 1746 ]




Peace be unto you. Thank you for visiting!