Keep and Bear Arms Home Page
This article was printed from
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit

America, wake up to jurisdiction
by Ed Lewis

"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men." ~~ Volatarine de Cleyre

A short while ago I read an article concerning Texas's law on same-sexed people engaging in oral sex. Up to a recent ruling, it was okay for different sexed people to have oral and anal sex but not for the same-sexed people to do the same. It was ruled unconstitutional.

But, this isn't about the ruling directly. After the ruling, Bill Delmore, Harris County District Attorney's office had this to say:

"This case was decided only on state constitutional grounds. The U.S. Supreme Court could not get involved because it dealt with state constitutional matters." (My emphasis)

Last week I read an article concerning the residents of the District of Columbia wanting to have representation in taxation. In other words, they want to have representatives in the Congress of the United States of America which would put them on the same status as residents of the 50 states. (In the past, this has been ruled unconstitutional which is the correct ruling since resident citizens of the District of Columbia are NOT resident citizens of the United States of America.) More on this later but first, read these rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court:

"There is a canon of legislative construction which teaches Congress that, unless a contrary intent appears, (legislation) is meant to apply only within territorial jurisdiction of the United States." [U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222]

"... The United States has no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted ..." [Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S.C. 212, 221, 223]

"... the states are separate sovereigns with respect to the federal government."

[Heath v. Alabama. 474 U.S. 82]

And, these.

"No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction." [Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S. Ct. 768]

"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." [Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528]

"...Federal jurisdiction cannot be assumed, but must be clearly shown."

[Brooks v. Yawkey, 200 F. 2d 633]

So what gives? Why are these rulings so important to the citizens of the United States of America, meaning the States which united in common cause for the defense and well-being of each individual state's citizens?

Well, it is a matter of jurisdiction. And, it is a matter that history in public education is failing to teach. It is also a matter which Congress and the rest of the federal government wishes the citizens of the 50 states, the United States of America, do not know.

First, the basics. The Constitution of the United States established a jurisdictional home for the Federal Government separate and distinct from the States forming the Union. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, states that the Congress established has the power:

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings: -- And"

[Clause 18] "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in an Department or Officer thereof." (Refers to those powers granted in Article I, Section 8)

In further support of jurisdictional separation, Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt (1945), a case which has never been overturned, ruled there are actually three (3) uses of the term, "United States":

(1) "...either as the name of a sovereign nation occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations, or

(2) "as designating the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States (the Federal Government) extends, or,

(3) " as the collective name for the states which are united by and under the Constitution."

Thus, the United States may be 'these united States, the District of Columbia along with its possessions and other federal properties (only geographic areas the Federal Government is sovereign over), or as these united States known as the United States of America.

The separation is further stated in Article X of the Constitution. It states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Please note "United States" is treated as separate from the "States".

The powers delegated to the United States, the Federal Government, are very limited. You may read them in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. What is prohibited to the Federal Government may be read in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.

What you will NOT read is that the Federal Government has plenary (absolute or unlimited) power over the citizens of the 50 states. But, it does have plenary power over resident citizens of the District of Columbia, the possessions, and any property designated as federal property. This does NOT include the 50 states forming the united States of America as they are NOT in the District of Columbia, nor a possession (states are sovereign as independent nations), nor designated federal property.

People talk of 'federal jurisdiction' and 'state jurisdiction' concerning court cases. But, why don't they think about what it means as applied to legislation by the United States, the Federal Government? (From now on, any use of United States refers to the Federal Government and the United States of America refers to the union of sovereign States.)

Get this straight. Resident citizens of the United States are NOT resident citizens of the United States of America with the same immunities nor with the same constitutional protection. They are resident citizens of the United States and are subject to its essentially unlimited power over them.

These people are not represented in the Congress of the United States of America because they are not residents of a state forming the union and, therefore, may not be represented in the organization made up of representatives and senators of the individual states forming the union, the United States of America.

Thus, if any citizen of the United States wishes to have representation, they must move and become resident citizens of one of the 50 states. Then they will be citizens of the United States of America and will have the protection and immunities all resident citizens of the Union now have (supposed to have would be more accurate).

But, here is the big question - If the United States does not have jurisdiction over State matters (as was noted concerning the Texas case above), if it does not have the power to change the Constitution without the consent of the United States of America, if it jurisdiction extends only with those geographic areas designated as the United States, then why are the people of the United States of America responding to federal laws not permitted by the Constitution?

As an example, the United States by the tax code is defined as the District of Columbia (7701(a)(10). A major exception is Section 6103(b)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code. This section lists those places from which a citizen of the United States (as defined below in 7701(a)(9) and (10)) can legally file documents. In this section, it states in:

"(B) DEFINITIONS. - For purposes of this section -" Thus, the definition of the term 'State' is (my emphasis)

"(5) STATE.-The term 'State' means - any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia (note the separation of DC from the 50 States - Author) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Meriana Islands, and ..." (Note:

The rest is concerned with municipalities)

Thus, any person with federal income tax liability may file his return from any of these locations.

This is important. In statute construct, the word 'include' or 'includes' means exactly what is stated is included. Nothing may be added in, nor any interpretation past what is stated is permitted. The law says exactly what it means and means exactly what it says. This is where the United States fools citizens of the United States of America.

Thus, the United States in establishing tax liability by the code is defined as (7701(a)(9) 'the States and the District of Columbia' with States subsequently defined in (7701(a)(10) as the District of Columbia. Therefore, if one is not a resident citizen of the United States, there is no FEDERAL income tax liability except in specified situations involving foreign derived income.

Federal income tax is just that - Federal. It applies only to the United States with geographic areas as designated, the District of Columbia, the possessions, and federal properties. Liability does not extend to resident citizens of the United States of America with domestic earnings only. Federally taxing these earnings does not fall within the powers of Congress.

As for amendments in the Constitution, especially those stating our rights as given by God, the United States may not make any law contrary to what is stated in the Constitution. In other words, any law made without proper jurisdiction and constitutional authority does not apply to the resident citizens of any State which is a part of the United States of America.

For example, any federal laws concerning the purchase of firearms by law-abiding US of A citizens need not be observed. It may regulate commerce concerning firearms being imported (just as it does foreign derived incomes from tax treaty countries) but those laws may not affect the rights of law-abiding citizens to purchase freely any firearm which has been properly imported. It is the right of each citizen to determine how he protects himself, his property, and his family and rights may not be regulated by the United States.

Then, there are the amendments concerning privacy and due process of law. If a citizen is law-abiding, no government agency has the right to stop, search, seize, or record information concerning the person, including personal information.

Just as a point of interest, what right does the federal government have to regulate drugs, including tobacco? What right does it have to tell you that you may not grow or use marijuana? Or cocaine? Is this a power granted in the Constitution?

After all, it took the 18th Amendment to make alcohol illegal but the amendment was proved unconstitutional and repealed by the 21st Amendment. In fact, nothing in the 21st prohibits making your own and selling alcohol. It may only be regulated by the Feds if it is exported from the state of residency or imported from another.

What amendment allows the United States to do the same with the so-called 'illegal' drugs? Or are all the laws concerning the drug use unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void? Clearly, without an amendment to the contrary, any drug use by any free person is legal as long as it came from their State or any applicable import laws were followed.

As free people we have the right to run our own lives without government interference. We have the right to travel freely (including making the decision as to whether we wear seatbelts or not), keep our identities to ourselves, have our property (including vehicles) not invaded by government agencies, purchase any weapon we wish for our personal defense (arms means any weapons, not just firearms) and to carry the same, exercise freedom of speech which doesn't violate the rights of others, observe or not observe any religious denomination we wish (including worship of the devil), grow or produce any drug and use the same, and so on.

Neither federal nor State legislators may make any law repugnant to the Constitution. This includes making laws contrary to the rights of Man as stated in the Constitution. Our rights are our rights not subject to the notions of legislative bodies regardless of stated intents (which usually hide hidden agenda) for proposing and passing unconstitutional laws.

Law enforcement agencies are not permitted to harass innocent people. They are not permitted to stop and search or ask questions. They are not allowed to enter people's homes uninvited or without a search warrant stating exactly who or what they are looking for.

Furthermore, although it is apparently argued successfully otherwise, it is my personal belief that Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3, denies any State of the Union the right to make a law contrary to any phrase of the Constitution. This includes no tax on property which I believe should be upheld as in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4. This clause orders there will be no tax laid without apportionment which has been interpreted in many Supreme Court cases as 'no tax on property'.

It is argued (and practiced) that Article X of the Constitution allows a state to make any law it wishes but I don't believe this. Article VI, both clauses 2 and 3, state this is not fact. Clause 2 states "...the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary not withstanding."

Clause 3 states: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and the several States (Again, not the separation between the United States and the several States), shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; ..."

Thus, Clause 2 bounds state judiciaries to any Thing in the Constitution while Clause 3 bounds all members of State Legislatures to the same. Therefore, it is my belief that any tax laid directly on a resident citizen of the United States of America, be it on property or earnings, is repugnant to the Constitution. Otherwise, property owners are no more than caretakers paying for use of the property with 'ownership' being a myth.

At any rate, it is clear there is federal jurisdiction and state jurisdiction.

To reiterate, Federal jurisdiction does not extend past the District of Columbia, the possessions of the United States, and federally designated properties. Excepting those permitted legislative acts in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, laws made by Congress do not jurisdictionally apply to the 50 States.

Neither federal nor state government may extend past the limits established in the Constitution of the United States of America. Our rights as free people must be protected by all legislative bodies as stated in Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3.

Otherwise, we are not a free people but are as oppressed as any has ever been. If not by the federal bureaucracy, then by the various states' legislators. We have become nothing more than a part of a police state under undeclared martial law, whether the enforcers be federal or local government enforcement agencies. That is not what this country is all about. But, complacency and ignorance have allowed this country to devolve into a government/serfdom state which is in many ways just as bad or worse than that before the United States of America was founded.

We, the People, must force the federal and state governments to support the Constitution of the United States and remove all laws contrary to those limits of government imposed by the Constitution. We must begin with those stealing our incomes and God-given rights.

That, Folks, is the problem - and the solution - both of which rest solely on the shoulders of the People of the United States of America.

Ed Lewis
Brookfield, Missouri