FEDERAL GEOGRAPHIC JURISDICTION
The geographic jurisdiction of the United States is very limited and well defined. Federal geographic jurisdiction is limited to those places where the united States is sovereign. In the states of the union, The People are the sovereigns. All power exercised by the state government flows from the consent of The People. When the federal government is operating within a state of the union, and is in contact with a de jure state Citizen, it must respect all the rights, privileges, and immunities of The People.
However, there are places where the people are not sovereign; where the government’s power is not derived from the people, and where the U.S. government (in the form of the Congress) is free to act much like a king of old, rather than a servant of the people. These places are specified in the U.S. Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 17: 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 any other needful buildings …
The handshake section is found at Article IV, Section3, Clause 2: The Congress have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States …
Together, these two sections have been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to grant Congress the authority to legislate in ways that would be unconstitutional if applied to the states of the Union. [See Downes vs. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), and Hooven vs. Evatt, 324 U.S. 674 (1945).] Downes vs. Bidwell was a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court decided whether U.S. territories were subject to the provisions and protections of the U.S. Constitution. This issue is sometimes stated as whether the Constitution follows the flag. The resulting decision narrowly held that the Constitution did not necessarily apply to territories. Instead, the U.S. Congress had jurisdiction to create law within territories in certain circumstances, particularly in those dealing with revenue, which would not be allowed by the Constitution for proper states within the Union. Here is a sound “rule of thumb” for viewing the distinctions in Congressional power: When legislating for the states of the Union, under the authority of a power granted to the federal government in the Constitution, Congress must stay strictly within the bounds of the power thus granted and limited. However, when legislating for places where the U.S. is the sovereign, Congress may do anything not expressly prohibited by the Constitution.
The two modes of legislating are exactly opposite and give rise to irresistible temptation to use the more permissive (and dangerous) legislative power against the people of the states of the Union. In his powerful dissent in Downes, Justice John Harlan stood opposed to this doctrine of irresistible temptation. Here is an excerpt from his dissent: “The idea prevails with some, indeed it has found expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independent of that instrument, by exercising such power as other nations of the earth are accustomed to … I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty, guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism … IT WILL BE AN EVIL DAY FOR AMERICAN LIBERTY IF THE THEORY OF A GOVERNMENT OUTSIDE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND FINDS LODGEMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution.”
Justice Harlan expressed grave concern that “mischievous change” would occur in our government if Congress was allowed to legislative without regard to the Constitution. His words echo those of Thomas Jefferson, who said: “Let no more be said about the confidence of men, but bind than down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” The “chains of the Constitution” that Jefferson spoke of were taken off of Congress in Downes vs. Bidwell, and “mischievous change” has indeed occurred in abundance!
This distinction in the scope and freedom of Congress to legislate might not be quite so onerous if Congress was required to declare, in writing, at the beginning of every bill, the section of the Constitution that empowers Congress to act, concerning each element of the proposed legislation. In that way concerned citizens would be able to readily discern whether a law, or a portion of a law, was applicable within the states of the Union, having been authorized by one of the Constitutionally enumerated powers granted to Congress by the states. Efforts to provide such a simple and clear method of Congressional accountability failed to get to the floor of the House or the Senate for a vote. Instead being killed in committee every time.
The prudent American will have to ask himself or herself one question: Why has Congress consistently refused to tell the American people what the specific Constitutional authority is for any law, or portion of law, that it enacts? Could this simply be coincidence; a mere oversight? Franklin D. Roosevelt stated it this way: In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, it was planned that way.” If FDR is right, then Congress’ failure to tell you what its authority is to enact various legislation is not an accident, oversight, or mere coincidence. What then is Congress’ motive. THE LUST FOR POWER!
The Deplorable Infidel (Source: Restoring the Republic … one Citizen at a time.)
AN OPINION FROM THE DEPLORABLE INFIDEL
One of the Articles of Impeachment the moron American hating Democrats proposed and have passed in the House Judiciary Committee is for Obstruction of Congress. It is based on President Trump not honoring a subpoena requesting his income tax records. Instead, he applied to the courts for relief. When the Supreme Court agreed to hear his case, this proved that the moron American hating Democrat’s charge of Obstruction of Congress was fraudulently concocted and had no constitutional merit. This article should be dismissed immediately! The reason there was only two Articles of Impeachment was so the Democrats in districts where President Trump won could vote for one article and not vote for the other. They think this will help them get reelected. When you vote to impeach, it doesn’t matter if you vote to impeach on one article or 20 articles. A vote to impeach is a vote to impeach.
A SIMPLE TRUTH FOR TODAY
If the government believes they should provide everyone with healthcare because it is a “Right”, why is it they do not provide us all with guns, because that has been a true “Right” to “Keep and Bear” for much longer than healthcare.