LOCKED -- What is the jurisdiction of the United States?

[Patriotdiscussions]

"The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, which are protected by the 14th Amendment, against abridgment by the states, are those which arise out of the essential nature and characteristics of the national government, the federal Constitution, treaties, or acts of Congress, as distinguished from those belonging to the Citizens of a state;. . . . " Gardner v. Ray, 157 S. W. 1147, 1150; Hammer v. State, 89 N. E. 850, 851, 173 Ind. 199, 24 L. R. A., N. S., 795, 140 Am. St. Rep. 248, 21 Ann. Cas. 1034.



“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)



“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)



“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)

“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

“It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual”.
Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36; 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)


“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

[Patriotdiscussions]

This seems to explain it, but is this a nut job site?

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/fedjur/fedjur2.htm

The report seems legit enough.

Is there something in those 321 pages that is actually relevant to your fantasies?

According to the report, it is "a general survey of the jurisdictional status of all federally owned real property in the 48 States, and a detailed survey of the status of individual such properties in the State of Virginia, Kansas, and California."

How would such a report be relevant to the "jurisdictional status" of real property that is NOT federally owned?

And what does this have to do with the "jurisdiction" of the District of Columbia, only some of which (and not all of which) is federally owned?

You're flinging crap against the wall, hoping something will stick.

Pg. 45. Since Congress has the power to create States out of Territories and to prescribe the boundaries of the new States, the retention of exclusive legislative jurisdiction over a federally owned area within the States at the time the State is admitted into the Union would not appear to pose any serious constitutional difficulties.

No Federal legislative jurisdiction without consent, cession, or reservation. -- It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possess no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise entirely by the States, subject to non-interference by the State with Federal functions, and subject to the free exercise by the Federal Government of rights with respect to the use, protection, and disposition of its property.
Necessity of State Assent to Transfer of Jurisdiction to Federal Government: Constitutional consent. -- The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State.
Pg. 66 LIMITATIONS ON AREAS OVER WHICH JURISDICTION MAY BE ACQUIRED BY CONSENT OF STATE UNDER CLAUSE 17: In general.-- Article I, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution, provides that Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation over "Places" which have been "purchased" by the Federal Government, with the consent of the legislature of the States, "for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." The quoted words serve to limit the scope of clause 17. They exclude from its purview places which were not "purchased" by the Federal Government, . . .

Chapter VII (pg 169) Relation of States to Federal Enclaves. Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction: States basically without authority. --When the Federal Government has acquired exclusive legislative jurisdiction over an area, by any of the three methods of acquiring such jurisdiction, it is clear that the State in which the area is located is without authority to legislate for the area or enforce any of its laws within the area. All the powers of government with respect to the area are vested in the United States.

[Patriotdiscussions]

This seems to explain it, but is this a nut job site?

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/fedjur/fedjur2.htm

The report seems legit enough.

Is there something in those 321 pages that is actually relevant to your fantasies?

According to the report, it is "a general survey of the jurisdictional status of all federally owned real property in the 48 States, and a detailed survey of the status of individual such properties in the State of Virginia, Kansas, and California."

How would such a report be relevant to the "jurisdictional status" of real property that is NOT federally owned?

And what does this have to do with the "jurisdiction" of the District of Columbia, only some of which (and not all of which) is federally owned?

You're flinging crap against the wall, hoping something will stick.

Pg. 45. Since Congress has the power to create States out of Territories and to prescribe the boundaries of the new States, the retention of exclusive legislative jurisdiction over a federally owned area within the States at the time the State is admitted into the Union would not appear to pose any serious constitutional difficulties.

No Federal legislative jurisdiction without consent, cession, or reservation. -- It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possess no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise entirely by the States, subject to non-interference by the State with Federal functions, and subject to the free exercise by the Federal Government of rights with respect to the use, protection, and disposition of its property.
Necessity of State Assent to Transfer of Jurisdiction to Federal Government: Constitutional consent. -- The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State.
Pg. 66 LIMITATIONS ON AREAS OVER WHICH JURISDICTION MAY BE ACQUIRED BY CONSENT OF STATE UNDER CLAUSE 17: In general.-- Article I, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution, provides that Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation over "Places" which have been "purchased" by the Federal Government, with the consent of the legislature of the States, "for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." The quoted words serve to limit the scope of clause 17. They exclude from its purview places which were not "purchased" by the Federal Government, . . .

Chapter VII (pg 169) Relation of States to Federal Enclaves. Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction: States basically without authority. --When the Federal Government has acquired exclusive legislative jurisdiction over an area, by any of the three methods of acquiring such jurisdiction, it is clear that the State in which the area is located is without authority to legislate for the area or enforce any of its laws within the area. All the powers of government with respect to the area are vested in the United States.

[arayder]

So now, PD, you are telling us that, while some of the powers of state and federal governments may be different, there are concurrent powers and authority shared by the states and the federal government.

How is that possible if as you claimed back in September "Geographically the 'United States' is ten miles by ten miles, along with any land aqquired for boatyards,etc plus any territories."?

Substance, please.

[Patriotdiscussions]

3. Definitions and Discussion of Terms
a. Legislative Jurisdiction. The term “legislative jurisdiction,” when used in connection with a land area means the authority to legislate and to exercise executive and judicial powers within such area. When the Federal Government has legislative jurisdiction over a particular land area, it has the power and authority to enact, execute, and enforce general legislation within that area.

http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r405_20.pdf

[Patriotdiscussions]

So now, PD, you are telling us that, while some of the powers of state and federal governments may be different, there are concurrent powers and authority shared by the states and the federal government.

How is that possible if as you claimed back in September "Geographically the 'United States' is ten miles by ten miles, along with any land aqquired for boatyards,etc plus any territories."?

Substance, please.

Some federal powers are given when you claim to be a us citizen. Remember a us citizen has different rights then state citizens. At least the courts think so.

[arayder]

Snap out of it, ole son!

You haven't told us how the federal government's power to create post offices and enforce federal anti-counterfeiting statutes is possible if, as you claim, the federal government has no reach outside D.C.

Neither have you explained how it is federal statues are enforced on those who have never "volunteered" to be under federal jurisdiction.

[Patriotdiscussions]

"... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the
law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these
rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and
not a person generally, nor citizen of a State ..."

Powe v. U.S. 109 F2d 147, 149 (1940)

[arayder]

Some federal powers are given when you claim to be a us citizen.

So you are telling us that federal anti-counterfeiting statues are enforceable only because the counterfeiters claimed to be "U.S. citizens"?

[Patriotdiscussions]

Snap out of it, ole son!

You haven't told us how the federal government's power to create post offices and enforce federal anti-counterfeiting statutes is possible if, as you claim, the federal government has no reach outside D.C.

Neither have you explained how it is federal statues are enforced on those who have never "volunteered" to be under federal jurisdiction.

Can you quote where I said the fed has no reach outside of dc?

Would counterfeit fall under the limited subject matter the fed has I spoke about?

Would post offices fall under the constitutional provision of needful buildings on land ceded to the Feds from the states?

[arayder]

So you agree that the power of the federal government extends beyond the District of Columbia?

A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Some federal powers are given when you claim to be a us citizen.

So you are telling us that federal anti-counterfeiting statues are enforceable only because the counterfeiters claimed to be "U.S. citizens"?

Nope, I'm saying obamacare is only enforceable against people who claim to be us citizens.

[Patriotdiscussions]

So you agree that the power of the federal government extends beyond the District of Columbia?

A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

Absolutely it extends to any territories it controls, and by control, I mean sovereignty over the land and subjects.

[arayder]

Some federal powers are given when you claim to be a us citizen.

So you are telling us that federal anti-counterfeiting statues are enforceable only because the counterfeiters claimed to be "U.S. citizens"?

Nope, I'm saying obamacare is only enforceable against people who claim to be us citizens.

But you just got through saying federal citizenship is voluntary. Are you saying that counterfeiters prosecuted by the feds volunteered to be federal citizens?

[Patriotdiscussions]

So you agree that the power of the federal government extends beyond the District of Columbia?

A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

Absolutely it extends to any territories it controls, and by control, I mean sovereignty over the land and subjects.

I never said anything different, where is your confusion at?


Yes they sign up to be us citizens thru the use of federal forms and choice of domicile.

[Patriotdiscussions]

The United States district courts are not courts of general
jurisdiction. They have no jurisdiction except as
prescribed by Congress pursuant to Article III of the
Constitution. [many cites omitted]

[Graves v. Snead, 541 F.2d 159 (6th Cir. 1976)]



The United States District Court has only such jurisdiction
as Congress confers.
[Eastern Metals Corp. v. Martin]
[191 F.Supp 245 (D.C.N.Y. 1960)]


"the Art. III judicial power exists only to redress
or otherwise to protect against injury to the complaining party, even
though the court's judgment may benefit others collaterally. A federal
court's jurisdiction therefore can be invoked only when the plaintiff
himself has suffered 'some threatened or actual injury resulting from the
putatively illegal action . . . .'"
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499, 45 L. Ed. 2d 343, 95 S. Ct.
2197 (1975), quoting Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617,
35 L. Ed. 2d 536, 93 S. Ct. 1146 (1973)


"Why, it is contended, in the first place, that consent of one party cannot give jurisdiction to the Court; and authorities have been read to this effect. No one doubts, that when it appears by the record or otherwise, that the Court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the complaint; the consent of a party cannot confer jurisdiction. But when the Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit, the party defendant can consent to appear, and his appearance is conclusive upon him; even although if he had not appeared, he might not have been reached by the process of the Court."

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND v. COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS, 37 U.S. 657 (1838)

[arayder]

So you agree that the power of the federal government extends beyond the District of Columbia?

A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

Absolutely it extends to any territories it controls, and by control, I mean sovereignty over the land and subjects.

So the federal government has "control" over the state of Kentucky and hence can prosecute me for counterfeiting money?

[arayder]

So you agree that the power of the federal government extends beyond the District of Columbia?

A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

Absolutely it extends to any territories it controls, and by control, I mean sovereignty over the land and subjects.

I never said anything different, where is your confusion at?


Yes they sign up to be us citizens thru the use of federal forms and choice of domicile.

So counterfeiters are subject to federal statue only because they used federal forms and chose to live in a place you say falls under federal jurisdiction?

Please explain to us how these law breakers and their lawyers managed to miss the idea that they could escape prosecution by not using federal forms and taking up residence in a state.

[Patriotdiscussions]

So you agree that the power of the federal government extends beyond the District of Columbia?

A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

Absolutely it extends to any territories it controls, and by control, I mean sovereignty over the land and subjects.

So the federal government has "control" over the state of Kentucky and hence can prosecute me for counterfeiting money?

Does the federal government have sovereignty over Kentucky?

Why does it need to ask it to cede land then?

What law has congress ever passed for Kentucky?

[Patriotdiscussions]

I see you like to blow hot air. I am not saying the only reason they are liable to federal statutes is this. Hell everyone is liable for the federal no murder statute.

What I am saying is a lot of federal law is only enforceable because we are federal territory residents.

They miss it like the racist misses it, or political blowhards on both sides miss it, or to be simple about it. People miss it because of their beliefs.