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

[arayder]

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.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

. . .Clause 17 (of Article I, section 8 ) is the 17th clause granting legislative power to Congress, and it grants EXCLUSIVE power over certain kinds of areas that might be needed for federal purposes (such as the District of Columbia for the seat of the federal government, and forts etc.), but only if the states consent. The state has to consent because the EXCLUSIVE legislative power of Congress will prevent the state from exercising any legislative power over that land that is otherwise within the state.

The other 17 clauses (clauses 1 through 16, and clause 18) grant legislative powers to Congress that are NOT "exclusive" (the states can usually legislate on the same subjects, except where Congress has decided to "pre-empt" state law and the Supremacy Clause kicks in), and those powers can be exercised ANYWHERE in ANY STATE of the United States. . . .

Like I said a couple of pages ago. . .some folks just don't or won't understand that the states and the federal government have some concurrent jurisdictions and shared authority.

It is ironic that these folks have no problem driving on a state road to get on a federal interstate highway, or insisting that the FBI spring into action when a felon crosses a state line.

[bmxninja357]

The state can let you grow all the pot you like. The feds can still walk in and seize items and prosecute you in spite of the state allowing it.

Peace
Ninj

[arayder]

Patriotdiscussions asked "What is the jurisdiction of the United States?"

I believe we have answered the question several times over, as well as the endless follow up questions.

[notorial dissent]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
This pretty well totals up the sum of Sovrunidjitjibber's, snarf choke gasp, "knowledge".

I don't want to call this grade-school civics, but it's definitely first year law school stuff. Basic federalism.
Grade School, probably not, but I spent an entire, VERY LONG year, going over it in high school, and the threat of having to take it over again the next year with the same teacher was more than enough impetus to guarantee getting through it with good grades.

You are not explaining something Sovrunidjitjibber doesn't know, you are explaining something he doesn't want to know.

It is nice to see that Sovrunidjitjibber is predictable as well as stupid, this went precisely where I expected it to go.

[LPC]

Patriotdiscussions asked "What is the jurisdiction of the United States?"

I believe we have answered the question several times over, as well as the endless follow up questions.

Yes, it's the circle of derp.

[arayder]

I believe our friend simply does not like modern American federalism. Unable to do anything about a political system he so dislikes he has chosen to pretend it doesn't really exist and that there is some sort of magic legal talisman he might call upon to make federalism go away.

Specifically our subject has fixated on the notion that U.S. citizenship and the authority of the federal government is a sort of fraud illegally foisted on freedom loving patriots such as himself.

I think it would be more honest of our new friend to simply admit that he is an anti-federalist rather than pretend the law is not the law.

I find it particularly ironic that our freedom loving friend is so dismissive of the 14th Amendment, which has been the vehicle through which personal freedom and civil liberty has been extended to countless classes of Americans who would otherwise be oppressed by bigotry and petty tyranny.

If our friend doesn't like the 14th Amendment, why doesn't he simply argue for its repeal?

[JamesVincent]

@judge roy bean,

Would a second prosecution from state to federal qualify as double jeopardy?

Peace
Ninj

No, under dual sovereignty. Since they are totally separate jurisdictions and separate laws it would not qualify as double jeopardy. You could be tried in State and Federal courts at the same time, as we've seen happen several times.

[wserra]

Would a second prosecution from state to federal qualify as double jeopardy?

Not Judge Roy, but no. It's called "dual sovereignty". Constitutional DJ only prohibits a second prosecution by the same sovereign. The federal govt can, and does, prosecute for a federal crime with the same elements (plus a federal jurisdictional element) as a previous state prosecution.

Whether the reverse - state prosecution following federal - is permitted is a matter of state law. Some permit it - in other words, adhere to the federal definition of DJ - and some don't.

[AndyK]

Would a second prosecution from state to federal qualify as double jeopardy?

Only in the defendant's plea is "What is not guilty?"

[Patriotdiscussions]

Here is the legal phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof, but at law this refers to alien enemy and also applies to Fourteenth Amendment citizens:

"As these words are used in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, providing for the citizenship of all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the purpose would appear to have been to exclude by the fewest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common Law), the two classes of cases, children born of *ALIEN ENEMIES(emphasis mine), in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, both of which, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."
United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 682, 42 L Ed 890, 902, 18 S Ct 456. Ballentine's Law Dictionary



"The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Words and Phrases as:
Residence of person in territory of nation at war with United States was sufficient to characterize him as "alien enemy" within Trading with the Enemy Act, even if he had acquired and retained American citizenship."
Matarrese v. Matarrese, 59 A.2d 262, 265, 142 N.J. Eq. 226.

[Famspear]

Here is the legal phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof, but at law this refers to alien enemy and also applies to Fourteenth Amendment citizens:

"As these words are used in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, providing for the citizenship of all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the purpose would appear to have been to exclude by the fewest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common Law), the two classes of cases, children born of *ALIEN ENEMIES(emphasis mine), in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, both of which, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."
United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 682, 42 L Ed 890, 902, 18 S Ct 456. Ballentine's Law Dictionary



"The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Words and Phrases as:
Residence of person in territory of nation at war with United States was sufficient to characterize him as "alien enemy" within Trading with the Enemy Act, even if he had acquired and retained American citizenship."
Matarrese v. Matarrese, 59 A.2d 262, 265, 142 N.J. Eq. 226.

And, your point is what, exactly? Try to collect your thoughts and express them in your own words, as simply as possible, PD.

[JamesVincent]

What, exactly, does that have to do with the OP?

[Arthur Rubin]

Here is the legal phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof, but at law this refers to alien enemy and also applies to Fourteenth Amendment citizens:

"As these words are used in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, providing for the citizenship of all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the purpose would appear to have been to exclude by the fewest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common Law), the two classes of cases, children born of *ALIEN ENEMIES(emphasis mine), in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, both of which, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."
United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 682, 42 L Ed 890, 902, 18 S Ct 456. Ballentine's Law Dictionary



"The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Words and Phrases as:
Residence of person in territory of nation at war with United States was sufficient to characterize him as "alien enemy" within Trading with the Enemy Act, even if he had acquired and retained American citizenship."
Matarrese v. Matarrese, 59 A.2d 262, 265, 142 N.J. Eq. 226.

For what it's worth, the first is dicta and a quote from an English court case, and the second is not a definition, nor related to jurisdiction.

[arayder]

What, exactly, does that have to do with the OP?

Oh, this is the episode in which the professor (played in our drama by John Houseman) discovers long ago hidden law which frees he and his law school colleagues from the clutches of the evil 14 Amendment.

[arayder]

What, exactly, does that have to do with the OP?

Oh, this is the episode in which the professor (played in our drama by John Houseman) discovers long ago hidden law which frees he and his law school colleagues from the clutches of the evil 14 Amendment.

I particularly like the part where right before the last commercial break the professor having found the Matarrese case in a dusty old book mumbles under his breath ". . .the beast has left his tracks. . .". The scene fades as the camera focuses upon the young law school student, who in later episodes becomes the professor's friend and confidant, looks on in wonder and amazement.

[Dr. Caligari]

You can beat the willful part by showing you relied on Supreme Court cases like Conner vs. us, etc.

Please show us this "Supreme Court decision" in Conner v. U.S., or be forever proven to be a liar.
Hint: there is no such "Supreme Court decision."

PD,
You are still ducking the question: where is the Supreme Court decision in Conner v. U.S.?

Are you a coward, a liar, or both?

Patriotdiscussions has posted on this thread again, but without answering the above question, which I have asked him repeatedly. I can only conclude he is both a liar and a coward.

[AndyK]

PatheticDunce keeps searching "the law doesn't apply to me" web sites and cutting-and-pasting things which sound interesting, but (as to relevance to law today) are far beyond his comprehension.

He remains firmly embedded in the schools of "there's got to be a pony somewhere"; "if you sling enough stuff at a wall, something will probably stick"; and "shoot the arrow into the wall and then paint the rings around it".

No amount of cogent argument , clear facts, refutation of his sources, or specific citation to current law or court cases will make it through his predefined conclusions. In fact, whenever he sees himself getting painted into a corner, he either moves the goalposts or abandons the thread and opens some other inane topic.

[AndyK]

Patriotdiscussions has posted on this thread again, but without answering the above question, which I have asked him repeatedly. I can only conclude he is both a liar and a coward.

What about a total maroon? Can he be all three?

[Judge Roy Bean]

There once was a troll named "PD"
Like all trolls, he dealt with facts loosely.
Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, without context you see,
Makes a fool out of him quite nicely.

[Famspear]

Earlier in this thread, PatheticDiscussions wrote:

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

Wow. That's a pretty stupid thing to say. This is yet another example of why PD is so reluctant to take a stand on anything; when he DOES try to take a stand, he immediately slips and falls on the banana peel.

Of course, the idea that this law is enforceable only against people who "claim" to be citizens of the United States is silly.

Obamacare -- or, more specifically, the "requirement to maintain essential coverage" under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148 (March 23, 2010) (the "Act"), as amended, applies to an "applicable individual." The term "applicable individual" is defined in section 5000A(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, as enacted by the Act. If you're not one of the individuals described in the exceptions listed in paragraphs (2), (3), or (4) of subsection (d) of section 5000A, then you are -- for better or for worse -- an "applicable individual", whether you "claim" to be a U.S. citizen or not.

Further, if you don't maintain the "minimum essential coverage," you may be liable for a "penalty" (also called a "shared responsibility payment") under subsection (b) of section 5000A. (However, even if you are an "applicable individual," there are various statutory exemptions with respect to the imposition of the penalty, as described in subsection (e) of section 5000A.)

Not claiming to be a U.S. citizen, or refusing to claim to be a U.S. citizen, is definitely not one of the criteria that will allow you to avoid legal liability for the penalty for failure to maintain "minimum essential coverage."