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

[Famspear]

Tell you what if you can find ANYTHING in that last century of law that specifically states that the United States is sovereign over any state(I.e. the us is sovereign over florida,etc), not that it shares sovereignty for purposes of prosecuting crimes.

Find that, I will admit defeat and study under your formidable knowledge sir.

Tell you what. If you can find ANYTHING in the last century of law (that means, the actual text of the U.S. Constitution, any statute, any treaty, any regulation, any court decision) that specifically states that YOU, "Patriotdiscussions", have any clue about what you are talking about, and actually mentions YOU BY NAME, then I will "admit defeat and study under your formidable knowledge sir."



Get a clue, bozo: The rest of us are not here to try to persuade you that you're an ignoramus.

You obviously couldn't find or figure out the law on the subject of sovereignty if it were scotch-taped to your nose.

You're an ignoramus, and the book on that is closed.

[Arthur Rubin]

Lol. What is funny is you are thinking I posted that quote as case law or precendent. When in fact I quoted it for the words included in the quote.

What my quote says is the rights associated with the first 8 amendments do not apply to us citizens who only have privileges and immunities.

But please feel free to say it means something different, I would love to hear it.

Words have meanings. If it's dicta, it may not have the meaning you think it does. (If it were a ruling, then there would eventually be Court interpretation as to what it meant, so we need not speculate.)


I think I may have selected the wrong one of your quotes from cases (or briefs) which you are misinterpreting. Please repeat the quote, and I'll tell you what the words mean.

The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal Government.

The obvious meaning is that not all the rights covered by the first eight amendments are necessarily "privileges and immunities" covered by the 14th Amendment, but it could refer to the Article IV Section 2 "privileges and immunities" clause. I don't see any rational interpretation that it implies different classes of citizen have different privileges.

[Famspear]

Now, back to the little test that I presented to "Patriotdiscussions" earlier in this thread:

Suppose the state legislature of Florida were to enact a law providing for residents of Florida to file bankruptcy in Florida bankruptcy courts that are set up under the Florida law. Let us assume that the Florida Constitution says that the Florida legislature can enact such a law. Which of the following would be correct?

A. In bankruptcy cases filed by Florida residents in the Florida bankruptcy courts, Florida state bankruptcy judges would be required to declare the Florida bankruptcy law to be unconstitutional, as a violation of the United States Constitution.

B. In bankruptcy cases filed by Florida residents in the Florida bankruptcy courts, Florida state bankruptcy judges would be required to follow the Florida Constitution, and would declare the Florida bankruptcy law to be constitutional.

The correct answer, of course, is A.

Where a Florida state constitution, statute, etc., is contrary to the U.S. Constitution, or to a U.S. statute, etc., the state court judge of Florida will be required to declare the Florida law to be unconstitutional, as a violation of the United States Constitution.

The United States of America (through its Federal government) has sovereignty over Florida, and Florida state authorities, including the governor, the judges, etc., are bound to follow Federal law instead of a Florida law where the Florida law is contrary to the Federal law.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

--U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 2.

The power to legislate on the subject of bankruptcy law is specifically allocated by the U.S. Constitution to the U.S. Congress, which has the power:

...To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States...

--U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 4.

The phrase "uniform Laws" means, essentially, that each state cannot have its own separate, comprehensive set of laws on the subject of bankruptcy.

Our legal system is full of stuff like this, Einstein.

The fact that you continue to suggest that others here demonstrate to you some sort of proof that the U.S. Federal government has "sovereignty" over Florida is an example of why no one here takes you seriously.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
Tell you what if you can find ANYTHING in that last century of law that specifically states that the United States is sovereign over any state(I.e. the us is sovereign over florida,etc), not that it shares sovereignty for purposes of prosecuting crimes.

Find that, I will admit defeat and study under your formidable knowledge sir.

If it hit you over the head you wouldn't admit to it.

How do you explain things like the FCC or the FAA air traffic control system and what folks like the Army Corps of Engineers do with rivers?

[Famspear]

PatheticDiatribes can't seem to bring himself to grasp even the basics about sovereignty. When a state -- even an independent nation such as was the Republic of Texas prior to its admission to the Union -- becomes part of the United States of America, that state, by the very act of becoming a state, relinquishes some of her sovereignty.

For example, when this happens, the United States of America (and not the state) comes to have paramount rights in, and full dominion and power over, certain things for which the state had such exclusive rights prior to its admission to the Union.

[Patriotdiscussions]

The obvious meaning is that not all the rights covered by the first eight amendments are necessarily "privileges and immunities" covered by the 14th Amendment, but it could refer to the Article IV Section 2 "privileges and immunities" clause. I don't see any rational interpretation that it implies different classes of citizen have different privileges.

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)

[Famspear]

Dear "PatriotDiscussions": A state relinquishes part of its full sovereignty to the Federal government when the state joins the Union known as the United States of America.

Do you have any other questions?

[arayder]

So you found someone who shares your beliefs regarding state sovereignty?

While your somebody-else-says-the-same-thing-as-me argument may not win the day it at least beats your previous ruses of posting dead case law, non-binding dicta and non-existing case cites.

Now you have to convince the reader why Mr. Haw's argument, which like yours runs counter to over a century of U.S. law, is valid and true.

The floor is yours on this point. . . .

Tell you what if you can find ANYTHING in that last century of law that specifically states that the United States is sovereign over any state(I.e. the us is sovereign over florida,etc), not that it shares sovereignty for purposes of prosecuting crimes.

Find that, I will admit defeat and study under your formidable knowledge sir.

Given the floor you have predictably resorted to a yet another disingenuous debate trick. In this this case you use the straw man ploy to avoid an honest response.

Nobody here is claiming that the federal government has more authority than the limited power granted in the Constitution and its Amendments. By disingenuously pretending your debunkers are arguing otherwise you are avoiding making an honest response. Indeed you are avoiding your own argument.

Incredibly you ask what authority the federal government has in the states other than sharing the responsibility to prosecute certain crimes after you have been shown countless examples of exclusive federal and concurrent state/federal authority.

You should admit to being dishonest and manipulative poster as well as being "defeated".

[Patriotdiscussions]

Lol yeah your not going to do anything then swing from the Feds nuts so in that respect I guess I am as defeated as your definition of concurrent sovereignty.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Dear "PatriotDiscussions": A state relinquishes part of its full sovereignty to the Federal government when the state joins the Union known as the United States of America.

Do you have any other questions?

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.

[Arthur Rubin]

The obvious meaning is that not all the rights covered by the first eight amendments are necessarily "privileges and immunities" covered by the 14th Amendment, but it could refer to the Article IV Section 2 "privileges and immunities" clause. I don't see any rational interpretation that it implies different classes of citizen have different privileges.

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.

[Famspear]

Dear "PatriotDiscussions": A state relinquishes part of its full sovereignty to the Federal government when the state joins the Union known as the United States of America.

Do you have any other questions?

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.

Ah, so now you're moving the goal posts again. You admit that the states cede some sovereignty, but now you're throwing in a "new" term: "sovereignty of soil". You haven't defined the term yet. Many legal terms have more than one meaning. So, which meaning are you using?

PS: If you're using the term "soil" in the literal sense (as in, physical dirt or minerals, etc., located in some physical place where the state formerly had sovereignty), then I can think of an example where the state certainly does cede "sovereignty of soil" to the federal government when the state joins the Union.

And in case you're wondering, I'm not talking about military bases located in the state, either. I'm talking about certain places where the state had absolute sovereignty prior to being admitted to the Union.

[arayder]

Lol yeah your not going to do anything then swing from the Feds nuts so in that respect I guess I am as defeated as your definition of concurrent sovereignty.

Substance please, PD.

Pages ago after having been given countless examples of the concurrent jurisdiction of state and federal courts you silently bailed out and started asking about concurrent sovereignty.

Now after having been given examples of shared federal state authority you have retreated again and so as to just keep talking you are palavering about "sovereignty of soil".

This after having recognized pages ago that the states may be compelled to give up "sovereign soil" for army, navy and air force bases!

[arayder]

The obvious meaning is that not all the rights covered by the first eight amendments are necessarily "privileges and immunities" covered by the 14th Amendment, but it could refer to the Article IV Section 2 "privileges and immunities" clause. I don't see any rational interpretation that it implies different classes of citizen have different privileges.

Maybe these will help?

. . ."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.

Again PD cites old dead case law.

Considering that he has been corrected countless times regarding this gambit and more than once on the Slaughter House cases in particular, one has to question the probity of our visitor!

[chronistra]

"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?

[Famspear]

Older regulars at Quatloos may remember the old television game show, Password. In the show, when a new word was being introduced for the contestants, the off-screen announcer's voice could be heard (only by the TV viewers) to say, in a low, almost whispering voice, "The password is ....." (perhaps with the word also displayed on the screen for the TV viewer).

That's sort of what we have here now.

In a low, whispering voice:

PatriotDiscussions is now off in a corner by himself somewhere, trying to figure out what the various legal meanings of the term "sovereignty of soil" could be -- somewhat regretting, now, that he even introduced the term into this thread, after having seen Famspear's response. PD is worried that Famspear already has his fingers on the text of the court case which explodes PD's latest claim: That under the U.S. Constitution, no sovereignty of soil is ceded by a state to the Federal government when the state joins the Union.

PD's concern is well founded.

[AndyK]

Goal posts have been moved at least three (i.e. whenever PD faces facts which don't fit into his lunatic planet) times in this thread.

Since it is going nowhere, lock-down time will be 9:00 PM EDT Monday, October 27 unless PD comes up with something of his own original work [as opposed to cut-and-paste from assorted lunatic sites.]

The clock is running.

[JamesVincent]

The correct answer, of course, is A.

Where a Florida state constitution, statute, etc., is contrary to the U.S. Constitution, or to a U.S. statute, etc., the state court judge of Florida will be required to declare the Florida law to be unconstitutional, as a violation of the United States Constitution.

I would beg to differ using two current examples. We may very well be talking about the same thing from different ways but let's let it roll.

Colorado and Washington State passing laws that make recreational marijuana use and possession legal while Federal law continues to be that maryjane is an illegal drug. We know very well that the Federal government will enforce it's law against the illegal use and possession of the drug but both states do have laws making the use and possession legal. Therefore we have a state law that, while it does not counteract or stop the Federal law, is in direct opposition of that Federal law.

A law in Florida that I have talked about before, namely the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for crimes involving a weapon. During a case in Florida a Florida judge declared that he felt the sentencing was unconstitutional since it overrides the ability to reduce or enhance a sentence based on outside factors. Mainly, IIRC, that it takes away a defendants right to be heard and have sentence mitigation. So, while the judge entered a sentence of three years, instead of the mandatory twenty, an appeal, by the prosecution, won in Florida's Court of Appeals and the sentence was changed to the twenty years. BTW there is already a Federal law providing for mandatory sentencing in Federal cases involving weapons, not sure how one works against or for the other.

[Famspear]

The correct answer, of course, is A.

Where a Florida state constitution, statute, etc., is contrary to the U.S. Constitution, or to a U.S. statute, etc., the state court judge of Florida will be required to declare the Florida law to be unconstitutional, as a violation of the United States Constitution.

I would beg to differ using two current examples. We may very well be talking about the same thing from different ways but let's let it roll.

Colorado and Washington State passing laws that make recreational marijuana use and possession legal while Federal law continues to be that maryjane is an illegal drug. We know very well that the Federal government will enforce it's law against the illegal use and possession of the drug but both states do have laws making the use and possession legal. Therefore we have a state law that, while it does not counteract or stop the Federal law, is in direct opposition of that Federal law.

No, I don't think the laws are in opposition at all -- not in the sense that the word "contrary" is used in Article VI, clause 2.

There are plenty of instances where a given conduct is legal under state law but illegal under federal law, and other instances where conduct is illegal under state law but legal under federal law. These situations are not "contrary" at that term is used in Article VI, clause 2. If it were, then pretty much all state laws would have to mirror federal law.

The main reason that separate state laws on bankruptcy would be "contrary" to the U.S. Constitution is that the U.S. Constitution empowers the U.S. Congress with the authority to pass uniform (nation-wide) laws on bankruptcy.

A law in Florida that I have talked about before, namely the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for crimes involving a weapon. During a case in Florida a Florida judge declared that he felt the sentencing was unconstitutional since it overrides the ability to reduce or enhance a sentence based on outside factors. Mainly, IIRC, that it takes away a defendants right to be heard and have sentence mitigation. So, while the judge entered a sentence of three years, instead of the mandatory twenty, an appeal, by the prosecution, won in Florida's Court of Appeals and the sentence was changed to the twenty years. BTW there is already a Federal law providing for mandatory sentencing in Federal cases involving weapons, not sure how one works against or for the other.

Again, nothing in what you are describing is "contrary" to a federal law (as far as I know), whether it be the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute or treaty.

[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.

Similarly, if "contrary" (as used in Article VI, clause 2) meant that no state law could be different from a federal law, then every state would have to have an affirmative law on its books that mirrored the Lacey Act of 1900, 16 USC sec. 3371 et seq., which (among other things) makes it a federal crime to import fish where such importation would be a violation of the law of a foreign country. I doubt that each and every state has a statute that affirmatively mirrors the Lacey Act. Therefore, the Lacey Act describes conduct that is criminal under federal law but legal under state law. That does not make the state law "contrary" to the federal law as that term is used in Article VI, clause 2.

PS: One or more states might actually have a law that mirrors or is similar to the Lacey Act; I don't know. I'm just using that as an example, as I doubt that all fifty states have such laws.