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

[JamesVincent]

Another example: If "contrary" (as used in Article VI, clause 2) meant that no state law could be different from a federal law, then there could be no state vehicle traffic laws (prohibiting speeding, requiring that you stop near a school bus loading or unloading kids, etc.), since there are no such general federal laws.

Since the Tenth Amendment provides for powers not enumerated to the Federal government belonging to the States (severe paraphrasing I know) then the issue of not having a Federal ordinance involving things like traffic laws would not be a hindrance to the State's having traffic laws, unless I'm missing something.

[Famspear]

Another example: If "contrary" (as used in Article VI, clause 2) meant that no state law could be different from a federal law, then there could be no state vehicle traffic laws (prohibiting speeding, requiring that you stop near a school bus loading or unloading kids, etc.), since there are no such general federal laws.

Since the Tenth Amendment provides for powers not enumerated to the Federal government belonging to the States (severe paraphrasing I know) then the issue of not having a Federal ordinance involving things like traffic laws would not be a hindrance to the State's having traffic laws, unless I'm missing something.

Even if the Tenth Amendment did not exist, the term "contrary" as used in Article VI clause 2 would operate exactly the same as I have described. I am illustrating that the examples you gave do not negate the fact that the correct answer to my hypothetical is A. The examples you gave are not examples where the state law is "contrary" to the federal law.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Maybe these will help?


"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)

"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)

"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distilanct from the others, and each has citizens of it's own..."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

"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)

I wasn't clear. The types of citizenship are different, but the types of "citizens" are the same. Only Cruikshank and Slaughter-House even imply the types of "citizens" are different, and they have explicitly been overturned, even if the implication were correct at the time.

Don't leave out the first three case which tell us the rights each have are different. With my maxwell quote informing you that fed citizens are not protected by the first 8 amendments.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Notice how madden talks of the natural rights of state citizens being different from fed citizens rights which are civil rights.

[Patriotdiscussions]

"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)

What are you thinking this citation proves?

Since each state has its own constitution and bill of rights, a given state may have clauses that don't exist in other states. For example, the Arizona Constitution states in Article 2, Section 37: "The right to vote by secret ballot for employee representation is fundamental and shall be guaranteed where local, state or federal law permits or requires elections, designations or authorizations for employee representation." There's no similar provision in the federal constitution, so citizens of Arizona have a right under their state constitution that is different from the rights they have under the federal constitution.

That does not in any way imply that citizens of Arizona are not also citizens of the United States, or that both governments don't have concurrent jurisdiction over Arizonans.

Similarly, the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a grand jury indictment for all capital or otherwise infamous crimes. That applies to anything the federal government wants somebody to answer for. Article 1, Section 15 of the Florida State Constitution, however, states that non-capital offenses may be prosecuted based on information under oath filed by the prosecuting officer, hence NOT requiring a grand jury. The rights of a citizen facing federal prosecution are different from the rights of citizen facing state prosecution.

Those differing rights, however, don't change the fact that both the feds and the state of Florida can prosecute crimes within their jurisdiction committed within the boundaries of Florida. How does the quote in any way support your thesis that they cannot?

Rights are not given by the servant to the master, all natural rights reside in humans at birth. There is no difference in natural rights depending on where you live.

There is a serious lack of understanding of rights from you educated types it seems.

[Famspear]

....With my maxwell quote informing you that fed citizens are not protected by the first 8 amendments.

That's gibberish. And if you are a citizen of the United States, the first eight amendments to the Constitution do protect you. How and under what circumstances the amendments protect you is a separate issue.

By the way, Einstein: Your "Maxwell quote" is a reference to Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 (1900). That case was overruled by the United States Supreme Court in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).

Notice how madden talks of the natural rights of state citizens being different from fed citizens rights which are civil rights.

Notice how you continue to be clueless when it comes to legal research and analysis of legal materials.

Rights are not given by the servant to the master, all natural rights reside in humans at birth. There is no difference in natural rights depending on where you live.

There is a serious lack of understanding of rights from you educated types it seems.

No, it does not seem that there is a serious lack of understanding from us "educated types." There is, however, a continuing arrogance on your part. You obviously continue to pretend that you know what you're talking about. You do not know what you're talking about.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Notice how madden talks of the natural rights of state citizens being different from fed citizens rights which are civil rights.

“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)

[arayder]

Notice how madden talks of the natural rights of state citizens being different from fed citizens rights which are civil rights.

Specifically Madden tells us there is no national right to deposit money in an out of state bank.

However your argument, PD, which you seem to have abandoned, is that U.S. citizenship is voluntary and may be rejected, dismissed and revoked so as to escape the authority of the federal government and its courts.

Your argument is the other side of the coin. You aren't just arguing that there are some rights not protected by the 14th Amendment. You aren't just arguing that there are some rights covered by the privileges and immunities clause.

You are arguing that U.S. citizenship may be unilaterally rejected since there are some subtle differences in the rights which one may claim based on a state constitution as opposed to those claimed by virtue of the 14th Amendment.

That leap of logic is unsustainable.

[Patriotdiscussions]

No shit it was over ruled. Again for the third time, I do not quote these to imply they are case law current now OR then. I quote them because they are stating the reason why things are the way they are.


. Congress has frequently employed the Spending Power to further broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative directives. This Court has repeatedly upheld against constitutional challenge the use of this technique to induce governments and private parties to cooperate voluntarily with federal policy. E. g., California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U. S. 21 (1974); Lau v. Nichols, 414 U. S. 563 (1974); Oklahoma v. CSC, 330 U. S. 127 (1947); Helvering v. Davis, 301 U. S. 619 (1937); Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U. S. 548 (1937).


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 6&as_vis=1

[Famspear]

No shit it was over ruled. Again for the third time, I do not quote these to imply they are case law current now OR then. I quote them because they are stating the reason why things are the way they are.

Well, then you're doing a pathetic job of "stating the reason why things are the way they are" -- and you're doing a pathetic job of coming out and stating what you believe to be the truth.

In the weeks you have been here, you have tried to bob and weave, often by posting material you obviously have gleaned from goofball web sites, often by deliberately not coming out and taking a stand. And, when you do take a stand, you are shot down. And, when you are shot down, instead of admitting your error, you try to pretend that no one will notice, and you go into "move the goal post" mode.



You seem to be unwilling to accept that no one is fooled by your amateurish method.

You also seem unwilling to cut out the arrogance. Look up the verb "arrogate" in a good collegiate dictionary.

By casting aspersions on the analytical abilities of others here, you impliedly and falsely assert that you are correct about these things we are discussing, and that others are wrong about these things. That is arrogance on your part -- not only because you are wrong, but because you obviously have no training or experience that would justify the smug, phony self-assurance with which you express yourself.

[JamesVincent]

No shit it was over ruled. Again for the third time, I do not quote these to imply they are case law current now OR then. I quote them because they are stating the reason why things are the way they are.

The you're even more of an idiot then you've led everyone to believe. If they are not current law then they are not the reasons things are the way they are.

[arayder]

No shit it was over ruled. Again for the third time, I do not quote these to imply they are case law current now OR then. I quote them because they are stating the reason why things are the way they are.

Oh, my goodness. That logic is so scattered I don't know how to respond.

Things weren't what they were and aren't what they were, but they are the reasons things are as they are, except when they weren't?

What next? Are you going to quote The Code of Hammurabi and tell us it means you don't have to comply with Obama care?

[JamesVincent]

Rights are not given by the servant to the master, all natural rights reside in humans at birth. There is no difference in natural rights depending on where you live.

There is a serious lack of understanding of rights from you educated types it seems.

I don't think the lack of understanding is coming from the rest of the forum.

[arayder]

Rights are not given by the servant to the master, all natural rights reside in humans at birth. There is no difference in natural rights depending on where you live.

There is a serious lack of understanding of rights from you educated types it seems.

I don't think the lack of understanding is coming from the rest of the forum.

Not having a law degree doesn't mean one can't educate one's self about U.S. history and law. I would think that getting such knowledge would be of paramount importance if one is going around the internet telling folks what's what.

So far we have figured out that our new friend doesn't understand precedent, thinks one can opt out of U.S. citizenship and denies the reality of state and federal concurrent authority. . .and anybody who tells him otherwise is just a dummy!

[davids]

Typical sovereign brainfart in motion. Patriotdiscussions thinks that "rights" - in the abstract - are a certain thing. That is of course his opinion, and there is no source or cite he can give other than in his ultimate wisdom, he thinks it should be that way. This is what he refers to as natural law. Patriotdiscussions seems to be unable to distinguish between a conversation about the way things are in the United States, under its governing laws and documents, and the way that in his ultimate wisdom he would like them to be. There is of course a huge difference between the two concepts even if both are referred to as "rights." This is not lost on hardly anyone except vegetables and sovruns.

[notorial dissent]

I agree that each states cedes the sovereignty needed to allow congress the very limited actions expressed in the constitution, you are correct.

That however cedes no sovereignty of soil to them.

Another PD fumble, grudging insincere acknowledgment of the obvious, and a quick goal post move. Quelle surprise!!!

There are two simple and direct refutations to your latest limp claim. Eminent Domain, and Public Domain. The FedGov can condemn and take over any piece of ground within a sovereign state for a public purpose unhindered and will be the owner of it and the fountain of law for it, just as the FedGov is the sole owner and fountain of law for the Public Domain. So much for your sovereign soil fantasy.

[Pottapaug1938]

Not only do I look forward to the locking of this thread to prevent yet another inane response and goalpost move from PD, but I also look forward to him being placed on moderated status so that he doesn't waste our time with threads like the one he offers when he gets the chance.

[arayder]

. . .there is no source or cite he can give other than in his ultimate wisdom, he thinks it should be that way. This is what he refers to as natural law. Patriotdiscussions seems to be unable to distinguish between a conversation about the way things are. . .and the way that in his ultimate wisdom he would like them to be. There is of course a huge difference between the two concepts. . .

I strongly suspect PD is being coy with us.

In the sovcit subculture there is a belief that the "way things are" is a result of judges, lawyers and politicians stealing our freedom while the the ignorant "sheeple" blithely sat by sipping their lattes.

The fantasy that the sovcit subculture has uncovered this tyranny is expressed in the belief that they can go through old case law and see exactly the way things used to be in the good old days and where it all went wrong. As we see the problem is that this approach ignores the changing nature of case law.

Starting from this belief sovcits conduct their research by going to the websites run by their subculture in order to find exactly why they wanted to believe in the first place. Many sovcits believe there is no point in going to a law library or court websites for information since the courts, judges and all the lawyers are the source of tyranny in the first place and will stop at nothing to cover up their crimes with smart lawyer talk.

Faced with a solid debunking on this forum our new friend can keep only the dream alive by rationalizing that he's got it right and that his debunkers are witless government sycophants.

[Pottapaug1938]

Sovcits have, as article of faith, the belief that all courts are corrupt and constantly ignore the True Law (whatever that is); yet they constantly try to get the courts to accept their copypasta of snippets from old court decisions in the belief that, if they JUST TRY ONE MORE TIME, they will prevail.

Keep looking for that pony, fellas.

[AndyK]

Thank you all for attempting to force feed facts down PD's throat.

Since he has consistently refused to accept current law as applicable, continues to bring up quotations from the losing side of cases, and attempts to quote nonrelevant sources as if they were legally factual, it's long past time to shut down this discussion.

Yes, the people who understand the law and are familiar with the apposite cases have been having a field day refuting all of PD's blather, but enough is enough.

PD is wrong. There's no need to specify exactly where he's wrong. Suffice it to say that everything he has posted her is either incorrect, disengenuous, or flat out false.

So, the chain is pulled. Should PD wish to open yet another thead about other inane opinions, he is welcome to do so.

However, this thread is [long overdue] LOCKED