The following text of the Panphlet titled COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM Written by Mr. Gerald brown was dowmloaded from the internet for the enlightment and intellectual knowledge of the readers of the articles on this web sight, which will, hopefully  entice those readers to show their appreciation for Mr. Brown dedicated work by purching copies of his work from the following address.  By way of first hand knowledge, I can strongly recommend a copy of the book “In their Own Words,” as additional reading to firmly cement the concepts reviewed in the pamplets in your own mind.  I receive no commercial benefit for inclucing the material here.

Ken Creamer, Web Site Manager

 INFORMATION ON ORDERING THE BELOW AND ACCOMPANIMENT INFORMATION:

This treatise is available in booklets. They are convenient to give to people whom you wish to inform and educate. The updated version of Cooperative Federalism, How the States of the Union are Separate, Distinct, and Foreign to the United States. This is a 70 page book that I sell for $7 plus $2 for shipping. The special price on this book for PAC patrons:

$8 for 1 book includes shipping.

$15 for 2 books includes shipping.

$21 for 3 books includes shipping.

Add $6 for each additional book up to 9

$60 for 10 books includes shipping.

Also there is the 450 page book “In Their Own Words” which is composed of over 1700 citations with more than 6,000 cross references and three indexes for serious study. The book is compiled exclusively of extracts from federal and state authorities establishing the jurisdictional authority of the federal and state governments. The book draws special attention to the issues of sovereignty, citizenship, the rights of Americans, the binding nature of regulations, construction and interpretation of law, federal taxation, and remedies for the innocent. It is written in 9.5 font with 3/4 inch margins, so the pages are packed. There is a $50 charge to cover costs on this book.

Send check or blank U.S. postal money order to:

Gerald Brown

1040 S. Mt. Vernon Avenue G-118

Colton, California 92324

 

 

 

COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM © Revised Edition-printed with permission

Authored by Gerald Brown, Ed.D.

 INTRODUCTION

 Dr. Gerald Brown is co-author of IN THEIR OWN WORDS, a 450 page resource book compiled  exclusively  of  extracts  from  federal  and  state  authorities  establishing  the jurisdictional authority of the federal and state governments.

 

 

 

 

 

The book draws special attention to the issues of sovereignty, citizenship, the construction

and interpretation of law, federal taxation, and remedies for the innocent. All cases were Shepardized prior to publication for timeliness and currency. Nearly all the citations in this essay can be found in that book.

 COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM, HOW THE STATES OF THE UNION ARE SEPARATE,

DISTINCT, AND FOREIGN TO THE UNITED STATES

 Things are not as they seem in American history and law. Most often, people speak and write  as  if  America  is  one  country  operating  under  one  government  that  has  plenary authority throughout a single nation. Most often, people speak and write under the notion that  any  government  in  America,  whether  it  be  local,  state,  or  federal,  is  all  part  of  one gigantic system. The federal government is often described as both a national government and a central government. It is sometimes described as an umbrella government over the States.  Conversely,  the  States  are  typically  described  as  regions  or  subdivisions  of  the United   States.   History   textbooks   in   schools   and   colleges,   newspapers   in   common circulation, and other forms of media tell stories that lead one to believe that federal law supersedes State law because federal law is the law of the land and nation and, thus, State law must yield to the “higher” authority.

 The problem with all this is that none of it is accurate or true to our American heritage. Every one of these positions is based on an assumed premise that is false. The result is that the American people are deceived regarding the proper role these governments are to have in their lives and acquiesce to government requests when the agents of government have no lawful authority to make the request.

 From  its  beginning  the  federal  government  was  designed  to  be  a  government  of  limited jurisdiction for specific, enumerated purposes, and not one of plenary jurisdiction over all of  American  society.  The  passion  for  individual  liberty  the  Founding  Fathers  had  is reflected in the design of the federal government as a government of limited authority that would  not  interfere  in  the  lives  of  Americans,  but  would  promote  and  protect  personal liberty.   For   decades   we   Americans   have   been   slowly,   unwittingly,   and   nearly imperceptibly surrendering our unalienable rights to our federal government in many ways. This has allowed that government to grow into a huge, unwieldy machine in its behavior back toward the citizens of the States. In turn, each of the States exercises power over its people   not   authorized   by   fundamental   law.   Those   in   control   of   the   machinery   of government  seem  to  be  more  interested  in  building  the  empire  of  government  than  in protecting and promoting the personal liberties upon which American society was founded and  upon  which  it  has  flourished.  Because  we  have  lost  sight  of  the  nature  of  the relationship  between  the  federal  and  State  governments  and  the  limited  authority  each possess, our individual rights and liberties have been trampled on, Americans are routinely coerced  into  doing  things  that  fundamental  law  does  not  require,  and  both  property  and freedoms are being threatened and lost.

 This  essay  is  a  brief outline  of some  of the  legal  aspects  of early  American  history,  the step-wise   progress   of   how   the   United   States   government   came   into   existence,   the relationship between the States of the Union and the United States government as recorded in historical documents and court cases, and how it all applies to us today in the principle of  cooperative  federalism.  I  will  show  that  the  States  of  the  Union  existed  before  the United   States   government,   that   the   people   of  the   states   created   the   United   States government  as  a  federal  government,  not  as  a  national  government,  and  that  the  United States  government  has  limited  authority  within  any  of  the  States  of  the  Union.  I  will provide,  in  summary  format,  the  dominant  features  of  cooperative  federalism  as  it  is designed to operate in the American experience. My purpose is to expose the fallacy of the assumed premise that the federal government is superior to the States of the Union, that federal law supersedes State law, and that the United States of America is “one nation”. Of course, this has strong implications with respect to the issues related to federal authority within the 50 States of the Union on any topic of law. I begin by establishing the context and setting the foundation as to why the States of the Union are nations and how they are separate, distinct, and even foreign to the United States.

 I  understand  the  disbelief  and  frustration  many  folk  display  with  the  position  I  express when  I  say  that  the  States  of  the  Union  are  separate,  distinct,  and  foreign  to  the  United States. When I first began my search for truth in this legal jungle, my mind was clouded with the rhetoric of the history textbooks and media jargon.

 I  believe  that,  fundamentally,  the  disbelief  is  based  on  the  popular  notion  which  this current generation has very effectively been taught—the rhetoric that the United States is “one  nation  under  God”,  when  in  fact,  The  United  States  of  America  is  a  collection  of nations banded together for a common purpose. Because historians, politicians, journalists, and others are fond of referring to the mass of American society as a “nation”, it is not well understood that the federal government has only limited authority that is separate, distinct, and  foreign  to  the  States  of  the  Union.  That  the  United  States  is  separate,  distinct,  and foreign to the States of the Union is the basis for cooperative federalism in America and is a most fundamental part of our history and law. And it shows up in myriad ways which we often overlook. To understand this, one needs to go back in time to gain an overview of these issues.

 COLONIES BECOME SOVEREIGN NATIONS

 Prior  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence  there  was  no  general  government  among  the colonies connecting one colony to any other save the relationship each had to the British crown.  Each  colony  was  established  according  to  the  terms  of  its  own  charter  and  its officials  answered  directly  to  the  British  government  accordingly.  The Declaration  of Independence sought to terminate that relationship for each American colony. While the Declaration was worked out in a General Congress with representatives from each of the colonies,  it  did  not  create  a  general  government  nor  a  formal  confederation  among  the newly declared States. The Declaration of Independence begins with a statement regarding the authority of governments to exist and claims that this authority is founded on God’s approval and on the consent of the governed. The authors continue to cite truisms about the nature  of  man  and  society,  but  offer  not  the  slightest  legal  basis  for  any  of  their declarations,  claiming  rather  that  their  statements  are  self-evident.  The  majority  of  the document consists of a listing of claims that the King had abused the colonists by heavy handed ways. All this builds to the final paragraph where the declaration for independence is actually made. This culminating paragraph sets out the nature of these newly declared political claims, to wit:

 “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, I with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

 The Declaration of Independence does not portend to create a single nation. If it did, its name should be “The State of New Britain”, or “The State of America”, or “The State of The New World”, or any other name representing a single entity. But the proper name of our  political  arrangement  is  in  the  plural,  not  the  singular.  Also,  the  Declaration  of Independence did not create a name for this alliance of American states. That came two years  later  with  the  Articles  of  Confederation.  At  the  time  of  the  Declaration,  these American states were united in purpose and action to be free and independent of British rule first perhaps, but free and independent of each other as well.

 By referring to Great Britain as a state, this paragraph tells us that the Founding Fathers understood a state to have the same status as any nation on the world scene. It is common to  refer  to  Great  Britain  as  a  nation  or  a  country,  but  most  Americans  are  surprised  to notice  that  Great  Britain  is  a  state.  The  first  legal  document  in  American  history  uses precisely that language.

 Under  international  law  as  well  as  American  law,  the  words  “state”  and  “nation”  mean exactly the same thing. Each State in our Union has its own constitution, its own land over which it exercises jurisdiction, its own citizens, its own legislative, executive, and judicial branches  of  government,  police  powers,  prison  system,  and  military  (both  the  state’s militia  and  the  National  Guard  are  under  the  control  of  the  governor  of  the  State  as commander-in-chief). At the inception, each of the States issued its own money and had tariff laws which operated on the importation of goods from each of the other states as well as from states outside of American society. Of course, if we stop to think about it, we hear from  time  to  time  on  the  news  today  about  the  “State  of  Israel”  as  well  as  the  periodic gathering of the representatives of the “G-8 states” or the “G-8 summit”. These G-8 states are not Tennessee, New York, California, or other States of the Union or subdivision of some larger entity. These states are the industrial and economic powerhouses of the world – France,  Great  Britain,  Germany,  Japan,  etc.  These  nations  are  identified  at  the  United Nations  as  “member  states”.  Thus,  it  is  perfectly  within  the  proper  usage  of  the  terms “state” and “nation” to conclude that the Declaration of Independence created not one, but thirteen brand new nations or countries. The U.S. Supreme Court stated in the case of The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia, 30 U.S. 1; 8 L.Ed. 25 (1831) that “The terms “state”  and  “nation”  are  used  in  the  law  of  nations,  as  well  as  in  common  parlance,  as importing  the  same  thing;…”  Thus,  the  state  of  Delaware  is  a  nation.  The  state  of Pennsylvania is a nation. The state of New Jersey  is  a  nation.  The  state  of  Georgia  is  a nation.  The  state  of  Connecticut  is  a  nation,  and  so  on.  Each  of  the  newly  declared American States is a nation that is separate, distinct, and foreign to each of the others as well as all other nations of the world. The claim to a change in status of being equal to the State of Great Britain, as opposed to being a dominion or canton of the British realm, was precisely what led to the American Revolution and it is the character which all States of the Union possess.

 It is popular in some quarters today to think that Congress has the authority to create states. But that notion is not true to our history and law. Notice the following explanation in Chisholm. Ex’r v. Georgia, (Feb. 1794), from the U.S. Supreme Court:

“A State does not owe its origin to the Government of the United States, in the highest or in any of its branches. It was in existence before it. It derives its authority from the same pure and sacred source as itself: The voluntary and deliberate choice of the people… A State is altogether exempt from the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States, or from any other exterior authority, unless in the special instances where the general Government has power derived from the Constitution itself.” p. 448  

“The question to be determined is, whether this State, so respectable, and whose claim soars so high, is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States? This question, important in itself, will depend on others, more important still; and may perhaps, be ultimately resolved into one, no less radical than this- “do the people of the United States form a NATION?”

 “By that law the several States and Governments spread over our globe, are considered as forming a society, not a NATION.” [Italics & caps original.] Chisholm. Ex’r v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1794)

 Here  the  U.S.  Supreme  Court  informs  us  that  our  political  arrangement  of  cooperative federalism does not make a nation, but rather a society. While the people of the several states share many things in common, each State retains its national character and political independence. Just a few years later the U.S. Supreme Court further stated in a landmark case dealing with the authority of a State to levy a tax on the operation of the United States within  the  State  of  Maryland,  “No  political  dreamer  was  ever  wild  enough  to  think  of breaking  down  the  lines  which  separate  the  states,  and  of  compounding  the  American people  into  one  common  mass.”  M’Culloch  v.  The  State  of  Maryland  et  al,  17  U.S.  (4 Wheat.) 316; 4 L.Ed 579 (1819). How times have changed. As we look around today, it appears that many political dreamers have been wild enough to attempt exactly what the Supreme Court justices in 1819 never dreamed could be possible. But it is historically and politically incorrect, as well as contrary to the determination of the U.S. Supreme Court, to refer to American society as a nation or a country. It is proper to refer to the American political alliance as a society.

THE ALLIANCE THAT MADE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 At the Declaration of Independence and the call to arms that immediately followed, it was widely  believed  that  the  colonists  could  not  prevail  against  the  British  military  power unless  patriots  throughout  the  states  were  to  work  in  concert  with  each  other.  To  bring about such cooperation, the Articles of Confederation were proposed in 1778, two years after the Declaration of Independence was made. The loose association that characterized the  general  cooperation  among  the  people  of  the  states  began  to  change  as  the  newly declared nations began to ratify the Articles of Confederation. Article I is the first instance where the American confederation was formalized with a title which named this alliance “The United States of America.” Article II preserves the sovereignty and independence of each State, to wit:

 “Article I. The style of this Confederacy shall be ‘The United States of America.’”

 “Article II. Each State retains its Sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.” Articles of Confederation—1778

 Through  the  Articles  of  Confederation  the  Founding  Fathers  recognized  that  each  State was   sovereign   and   independent   of   each   other   and   that,   while   the   Declaration   of Independence expressed the collective will of the people of the American States united in purpose and action, that document did not attempt to create a single, unified government with one jurisdiction—it merely recognized the several governments that were already in existence. And it did not create a federal government.

Here  can  be  seen  that  “The  United  States of  America”  is  an  alliance  of  nations  that  are separate,  distinct,  independent,  and  foreign  to  each  other,  and  do  not  make  “one  nation under God” as stated in the Pledge of Allegiance which was written many years later. The United States of America is an alliance of nations whose people have banded together in a political pact for a common (not “national”) purpose. The United States of America is a confederation of sovereign States, not a consolidation of subject states into a single nation.

 This relationship is not just an interesting fact of history, it is current law. The index of the California  Family  Law  Code  (established  1994)  for  the  entry  “foreign  law”,  directs  the reader  to  the  statutes  regarding  extradition.  There  one  will  find  annotated  references  to foreign  jurisdictions.  Interestingly,  cases  from  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  Missouri  and  other States  of  the  Union  are  the  only  cases  referenced  as  foreign  law.  The  index  to  the California  Education  Code  for  the  entry  “in-laws” has the subheading “Death in foreign states,  leave  of  absence”  and  references  EDUC  44985.  The  only  language  in  that  code section that comes close to supporting the concept of “foreign states” is the phrase “out-of-state travel”. Thus, anything outside California is foreign to California. Since all the States in the Union have the same status with respect to each other, this principle applies to every State of the Union. Each State in the Union is separate, distinct, and foreign to every other as the laws of one State do not operate within the borders of any other state.

 While the Articles of Confederation were proposed in 1778, they were not ratified by all thirteen States until 1781, mainly because of issues involving the status of western lands. Upon ratification, Congress was authorized to survey the western territory by the Land Act of 1785. The Ordinance of 1787 provided for the government of the Northwest Territory, the  first  territorial  government  created  by  the  United  States.  Because  this  land  was  not within any State, it was under the collective control of all the States of the Union through Congress.  This  model  has  been  used  by  Congress,  and  later  the  federal  government, throughout   American   history   for   establishing   territorial   governments   in   any   of   the territories belonging to America. There are currently 22 such territories. A complete list of these  can  be  found  in  the  Domestic  Mail  Manual.  The  most  notable  among  these  are American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the  Northern  Mariana  Islands.  Just  as  the  Northwest  Territory  did  not  have  its  own sovereignty, so these territories do not have sovereignty.

 WHY “CONGRESS”?

 Why did the Founding Fathers choose the name “Congress” as the name of the political body  where  the  representatives  from  the  several  states  would  meet  to  work  out  their differences? They could have called their meetings a Parliament, an Assembly, a Forum, a Convention, the United States Legislature, or possibly something else. But why did they select the name “Congress” as the name for their meeting place? Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 1951, page 373 defines “Congress” as:

 “CONGRESS. In International Law. An assembly of envoys, commissioners, deputies, etc., from different sovereignties who meet to concert measures for their common good, or to adjust their mutual concerns.

 “In American Law. The legislative assembly of the United States, composed of the senate and house of representatives (q.v.). U.S. Const. art. 1, section 1

 Congress, the legislative body of the United States, is a place where representatives from different sovereignties (i.e., the sovereign States of the Union) meet to work out problems for  their  common  good.  Thus,  the  very  word  “Congress”  has  embodied  within  it  the concept  that  the  sovereignty  of  any  one  State  is  separate,  distinct,  and  foreign  to  the sovereignty and jurisdiction of every other State in the Union. However,while the Articles of Confederation recognized a Congress, the solutions proposed and agreed to there were not binding on the States, and each State was left to decide to what extent it would comply with  the  solutions  worked  out  in  Congress.  Although  historians  love  to  refer  to  this arrangement  as  a  weak  central  government  or  weak  national  government  without  the executive and judicial branches of government, in reality, there was no central or national government that applied to the states collectively. Congress was only a forum where issues could be discussed and solutions proposed, and it was up to the States to accept, reject, or modify   the   solutions   as   each,   in   its   sovereign   wisdom,   saw   fit.   The   Articles   of  Confederation served to keep the States 

Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                         Page 6 of 40

 bound together in Union but they did not make the States subservient to Congress.

 THE UNITED STATES A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

 On September 17, 1787, eleven years after the Declaration of Independence and nine years after  the  Articles  of  Confederation  were  first  proposed,  the  Constitution  for  the  United States  of  America  was  proposed  and  subsequently  sent  to  the  States  of  the  Union  for ratification.   This   document,   the   U.S.   Constitution,   upon   ratification   of   nine   States (accomplished by the vote of New Hampshire on June 21, 1788) created the United States government  as  a  federal  government  with  limited,  enumerated  authority.  Without  this document there would be no United States government as we have it today.

 Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the U.S. Government were operational within a state just because nine States in the Union had ratified the document. Only upon its own ratification of this document did the State cede the limited authority to the United States government for this federal government to have even limited authority within that state. Neither were the  non-ratifying  States  permitted  to  participate  in  any  federal  functions  without  this ratification. For example, neither North Carolina nor Rhode Island participated in the first presidential election of 1789 because neither State had ratified the U.S. Constitution. North Carolina  ratified  on  November  21,  1789  and  Rhode  Island  ratified  on  May  29,  1790. Without this ratification, the new United States government did not exist for these States even though they were both members of the American Union pursuant to the Articles of Confederation.

 The U.S. Constitution did not create a central government nor a national government over these thirteen nations. The purpose of this new government was “to form a more perfect union,”  not  a  nation.  The  words  “nation”  and  “national”  do  not  appear  in  the  U.S. Constitution. The word “nations” (plural) is used twice (art. I, sec. 8, cls. 3 and 10), but in both instances it is used in reference to geopolitical powers outside of American society. The U.S. Constitution could not bring into existence a national government because there were  already  thirteen  sovereign  nations  in  the  American  “league  of  friendship.”  Black’s Law  Dictionary,  Revised  4th  Edition,  1968,  sets  out  the  distinction  between  a  national government and a federal government at p. 1176, to wit:

 “NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. The government of a whole nation, as distinguished from that of a local or territorial division of the nation, and also as distinguished from that of a league or confederation.

 “A national government is a government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the “social compact,” and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government. A federal government is distinguished from a national government, by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact.”

 Did  you  catch  that?  Black’s  Law  Dictionary  says  that  the  government  formed  by  a community of states is not a “national government”! How often we say it wrong! Rather than calling this new government a general government, central government, or national government (the U.S. Constitution does not provide a specific

Cooperative Federalism [v.040408]                                                                                                       Page 7 of 40

 name, title, or style for the new federal government), it would be more accurate to refer to the federal government as a coordinating  government.  The  role  of  the  federal  government  is  to  coordinate  various responsibilities among the States of the Union. To this extent and for this purpose only, the states delegated some of their authority to the new government (which is called the United States government by common convention). However, they specifically withheld authority from the United States government for those things not specifically delegated to it in the U.S. Constitution and preserved that relationship in the 10th Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights. The U.S. Constitution calls for the United States government to provide for a common defense (not a national defense), a common coin (not a national coin), regulation of interstate commerce, to establish post offices and post roads throughout the states, and other things stated in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. It was given a territory (the District of Columbia) that was separate from the States of the Union because it was to be foreign to the sovereignty of any state and not under the jurisdiction of any single state. The United States government is to be the agent of the people of the States and is not the same entity as “The United States of America” which is the alliance of American States. The United States government was formed to serve the community of American States. The People v. Naglee (Dec. 1850) California Supreme Court

 “In determining the boundaries of apparently conflicting powers between the states and the general government, the proper question is, not so much what has been, in terms, reserved to the states, as what has been, expressly or by necessary implication, granted by the people to the national to government; for each state possesses all the powers of an independent and sovereign nation, except so far as they have been ceded away by the constitution. The federal government is but the creature of the people of the states, and, like an agent appointed for definite and specific purposes, must show an express or necessarily implied authority in the charter of its appointment to give validity to its acts.” People ex rel. Attry. Gen. v. Naglee, 1 Cal. 234 (1850)

 The  nature  of  the  federal  government  has  not  changed  as  American  history  marches forward. The U.S. Constitution requires that the federal government is still a government of limited, enumerated authority.

 FEDERATIONS OUTSIDE OF AMERICA  

Considering  how  sophisticated  the  arrangement  between  the  States  and  the  federal government is, one might easily wonder where the Founding Fathers got their ideas about a federal  government  that  would  serve  to  coordinate  common  issues  among  these  newly declared  American  nations.  For  starters,  they  had  to  look  no  farther  than  the  mother country. What they called the State of Great Britain in the Declaration of Independence is actually  a  collection  of  three  countries  bound  together  by  the  English  monarch  whose jurisdiction  was  originally  limited  to  England,  but  who  over  time  conquered  Wales  and Scotland.  To  varying  degrees,  Ireland  and  portions  of  France  were  also  ruled  by  the English Crown, but the English were not able to keep their holdings in France for more than a few years and the Irish were so continually rebellious against English rule through the years that the British Parliament recognized the Irish Free State in the early 1920’s as a self-governing  dominion.  Ireland  became  totally  independent  of  all  British  rule  in  1948.

 Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                         Page 8 of 40

 Only a few counties around Ulster in the northern part of Ireland elected to remain under British rule under the name of Northern Ireland. The collection of these four countries of England,  Scotland,  Wales,  and  Northern  Ireland  are  properly  known  as  the  United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the people of all four send their elected representatives to the British Parliament.

 At  the  height  of  its  power  the  British  Empire  was  far  more  extensive  than  these  four countries. “The sun never sets on the British Empire” was a slogan promoted by the British when the Empire encompassed more than a fourth of the world’s land mass and a third of the  world’s  population.  But  two  world  wars  and  other  political  and  economic  factors reduced  the  British  Empire  to  a  loose-knit  Commonwealth  of  Nations  whose  members today are recognized as being independent nations which may or may not give allegiance to  the  British  Crown.  The  Statute  of  Westminister  (1931)  put  in  legal  form  the  Balfour Report  of  1926  wherein  the  British  Parliament  declared  that  Great  Britain  and  the  self- governing dominions were “equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another.” They are independent in foreign as well as in domestic affairs. However, allegiance to the British Crown is still evidenced in Canada, for example, by the decoration of British royalty on Canadian  money  and  the  National  Anthem  being  “God  Save  the  Queen”.  During  the Summer  Olympics  of  2000  held  in  Sydney,  Australia,  Americans  were  reminded  that Australians still pledge allegiance to the British monarch. The rise and fall of the British Empire  is  reminiscent  of  the  same  cycle  experienced  by  the  classical  Roman  Empire  of centuries past.

 The  United  Kingdom  is  but  one  example  of  nations  that  have  aligned  themselves  for specific political and/or economic purposes. There are several other federations that should be reviewed.

 The  former  Union  of  Soviet  Socialist  Republics  (USSR)  was  an  alliance  of  Eastern European  and  Asiatic  nations  making  up  what  was  commonly  called  the  Soviet  Union. This alliance came into existence following the overthrow of the Romanov tsars of Russia in 1917. While Russia was the dominant state within the Soviet Union, it was only one of 15 socialist states in the federation.

 One unique factor that sometimes chaffed Western powers was the fact that three Soviet states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, were admitted into the United Nations as member states while at the same time fully members of the Soviet Union. This effectively gave the Soviet  Union  four  votes  at  the  United  Nations.  When  the  USSR  fell  apart  in  1991,  the fifteen sovereign states making up their alliance were still in place and each has maintained its independence.

 The  Socialist  Federal  Republic  of  Yugoslavia  is  another  notable  federation  of  several Balkan nations banding together to form a geopolitical alliance after the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian empire in 1918. The nations involved were Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Serbia, and Macedonia. In 1921 Montenegro, which has had a long history of strong political ties with Serbia, joined the alliance.  Yugoslavia  struggled  to  maintain  its  viability  as  a  federation  until  1945  when  General Marshall Tito established it as a republic. With the death of Tito in 1980, the people of the individual republics of Yugoslavia began to express a desire for the federal government to lighten  its  grip  and  recognize  greater  autonomy  for  the  republics  and  their  people.  But those  in  control  of  the  machinery  of  their  federal  government  were  not  willing  to  do  so even though their federal constitution allowed any republic to secede.  What happened to these six countries lately?   

Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                         Page 9 of 40

 With  encouragement  and  aid  of  western  nations,  the  Bosnia  Parliament  was  the  first  to declare  independence  from  the  federal  government  of  Yugoslavia  in  April  1991.  The Croatia and Slovene Parliaments each declared independence in June 1991. Each of these three  nations  was  admitted  into  the  United  Nations  as member  states  in  May  1992.  The people  of  Macedonia  achieved  their  independence  in  a  peaceful  way  in  the  year  from September 1990 to September 1991. In January 1992 it severed its relationship with the federal government of Yugoslavia and applied for membership in the United Nations in the summer of 1992. Armed forces from several western nations currently occupy Kosovo, a territory  annexed  by  Serbia  centuries  ago, but which is now populated mainly by ethnic Albanians. In March 2002, representatives of Serbia and Montenegro, the two remaining nations  in  the  alliance,  signed  an  agreement  to  dismantle  the  federal  government  of Yugoslavia and create a new government that will more directly serve the needs of these two nations.

 Currently the European Union (EU) is in the process of attempting to establish a strong political  alliance  of  sovereign  nations  in  Europe  similar  to  what  the  Founding  Fathers established on American soil more than 200 years ago. The Treaty of Rome of 1957 calls for  an  alliance  of  European  nations  that  would  promote  a  common  unit  of  economic exchange,  customs,  free  trade  among  the  member  states,  and  common  rights  among  the peoples  of  the  member  states.  This  will  include  citizenship  in  the  European  Union  and freedom  to  emigrate  to  any  member  state  and  fully  participate  in  its  political  affairs including  holding  elective  office.  There  are  15  nations  currently  participating  in  the alliance and 12 more that have applied for membership. While the Europeans have a great diversity of language, history, and culture, significant forces there are struggling to make progress toward a united Europe. It will be interesting to see if countries outside of Europe seek to have the United Nations make adjustments in their voting power there.

 With this overview in mind, one can see that the political arrangement of the United States of  America  is  not  as  unique  as  some  historians  have  made  it  out  to  be.  The  United Kingdom  is  a  union  of  four  nations.  The  British  Empire  was  a  collection  of  some  63 colonies, protectorates, and dominions. The Soviet Union was a federation of 15 nations. Yugoslavia  was  a  federation  of  six  nations.  The  European  Union  is  an  alliance  of  15 nations  with  12  more  countries  waiting  to  join.  The  United  States  of  America  is  a federation  of  50  nations.  Furthermore,  the  United  States  government  is  sovereign  over some 22 additional territories.

 STATES OF THE UNION RULE

 The people of the States of the Union are to control the policies and activities of the United States government through their Congress. It is the role of Congress to enact statutes that give direction to the executive and judicial branches of the United States government in fulfilling their responsibilities to the American people. To accomplish this, the voters of the  States  send  their  representatives  and  senators  to  Congress  at  the  time  prescribed,  as well  as  elect  the  president  and  vice-president  every  four  years.  It  is  not  the  role  of Congress,  the  executive  branch,  or  the  judicial  branch  of  the  United  States  to  give directions to

 Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 10 of 40

 the  States  of  the  Union  except  for  those  things  that  have  been  specifically assigned  to  the  United  States  in  the  U.S.  Constitution.  Even  today  the  President’s Executive  Orders  apply  only  to  the  District  of  Columbia,  the  federal  territories,  and  the enclaves within the states that have been ceded to the United States.

 It may be interesting to note at this point that the Congressional representatives from the federal  territories  have  only  observer  status  in  Congress.  While  they  may  be  allowed  to express views in Congress that represent the interest of those who live in their territory, they are not permitted a vote in Congress as they do not represent the people of a sovereign state.  These  territories  are  sometimes  considered  to  be  foreign  to  the  United  States  of America  (USA).  For  example,  in  the  International  Olympic  Games,  American  Samoa, Guam,  the  Commonwealth  of  Puerto  Rico,  the  U.S.  Virgin  Islands,  and  the  Northern Mariana  Islands  each  enters  under  its  own  flag  and  not  under  the  flag  of  the  USA. However,  at  the  United  Nations,  these  same  territories  are  not  listed  separately  because they  are  under  the  sovereignty  of  the  United  States  government  and  are  not  considered foreign to the United States. At the United Nations, the representative of the United States government speaks on their behalf as well as on behalf of the States of the Union. This is so because the insular possessions and other territories are property of the United States government.  The  States  of  the  Union  delegated  exclusive  authority  to  the  United  States government  to  represent  their  interests  when  dealing  with  political  issues  outside  of American society. While the observers represent the interests of the people who live in the insular  possessions  and  other  territories,  they  also  represent  the  interests  of  the  United States  government  over  these  territories.  These  observers  cannot  vote  on  issues  before Congress because the territory they represent is subject to the collective will of the citizens of the States of the Union as expressed in Congress.

 The  insular  possessions  and  other  territories  of  the  United  States  do  not  have  the  same status  as  the  States  of  the  Union  with  respect  to  the  United  States  government.  The territories of the United States are under the sovereignty of the United States government which  is  the  same  sovereignty  the  United  States  government  has  over  the  District  of Columbia.  As  already  shown,  each  of  the  States  of  the  Union  has  its  own  sovereignty which predates the creation of the United States government which makes each of them historically and inherently separate, distinct, and foreign to the United States government which they created. When dealing with issues within American society, the sovereignty of the United States is separate from the sovereignty of the States of the Union. The States of the  Union  are  not  districts,  cantons,  subdivisions,  or  territories  of  the  United  States government, while the insular possessions and other territories are property of the United States and subject to its sovereignty.

Both historically and legally, the sovereign States of the  Union  are  the  fundamental  political  units  in  the  American  geopolitical  arrangement. Representatives  to  Congress  are  elected  by  the  voters  of  various  congressional  districts within   a   State.   The   purpose   for   the   decennial   census   is   to   determine   how   many congressional representatives each State will have according to population. Originally, the U.S. Constitution called for U.S. senators to be appointed by the State legislatures, thereby ensuring that the States would have substantial direct control over the federal government. That was changed by the 17th Amendment so that U.S. senators are elected by the voters of  an  entire  State.  But  the  president  and  vice-president  of  the  United  States,  who  are required to be citizens of different states, are elected by the Electoral College and not by the popular vote of the aggregate of the voters in the States. The electors to the Electoral College  are  selected  by  the  vote  of  the  people  of  the  individual  States  of  the  Union  on  election day. Because the election of the U.S. president and vice-president is not dependent on popular vote, it is possible that a candidate could be the most popular candidate and win less than the majority popular vote, but win a majority vote in the Electoral College. This actually happened to Bill Clinton twice.

Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 11 of 40

 Moreover, four times in U.S. history the man with the largest popular vote has lost in the Electoral  College.  The  first  was  in  the  1824  election  when  Andrew  Jackson  won  more votes than the other three candidates and the most electoral delegates at 99 when 131 were required  to  win  the  office  of  the  president.  So  the  selection  of  a  president  became  the responsibility  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  John  Quincy  Adams,  who  had  won  84 electors on his own, cut a deal with Henry Clay, who had won 37 electors, and Clay urged support  of  Adams.  Clay  had  won  the  fewest  electors  among  the  four  candidates  which meant he was out of the running as the House of Representatives would decide who would be president. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, the House is permitted to consider only the top three candidates. William H. Crawford had won 41 electors, but suffered a stroke and was not considered as candidate thereafter. The House of Representatives elected Adams president and Adams nominated Clay as his Secretary of State for his part in helping him win the presidency.

 The second was in the 1876 election when Democrat Samuel Tilden won a majority of the popular vote, but lost to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes in the Electoral College by one vote. Challenges were made regarding the vote in several jurisdictions and the vote was not settled until two days before the inauguration ceremony.

 The third was in the 1888 election when Grover Cleveland, running for re-election, won nearly a hundred thousand votes more than Benjamin Harrison, but won only 168 electors to  Harrison’s  233  electors  when  201  Electoral  College  votes  were  required  to  win  the presidency.  Grover  Cleveland  ran  for  president  a  third  time  in  1892  and  won  both  the popular  vote  and  277  Electoral  College  delegates  when  223  were  required  to  win  the presidency.  Grover  Cleveland  is  the  only  person  to  win  the  popular  vote  in  three presidential  elections,  but  won  the  Electoral  College  vote  in  only  two  of  those  three elections.

 The fourth was the recently completed election of 2000 where Al Gore won the popular vote by the aggregate of the American population by more than 300,000 votes over George W. Bush, but lost in the Electoral College by a vote of 271 to 267. The popular vote was very close in at least three States. In Florida, the less than 1% difference in the margin of victory required an automatic recount by that State’s law. Bush was certified the winner after  the  recount,  but  court  challenges  to  the  vote  totals  and  counter  challenges  to  the recount standards would take another month before the U.S. Supreme Court would vacate the challenges from Gore to allow the electoral votes from Florida to be applied to Bush’s total.

 The Electoral College protocol exists because the citizens of the States of the Union elect the president and vice-president of the United States and the popular vote for a candidate applies only within each state. There is no such thing as a “national election” in America, only a presidential election. The offices of president and vice-president are the only offices in  America  where  the  voters  of  the  States  collectively  express  their  wishes  on  the  same day. This is because each State of the Union is a sovereign nation and has retained the right to express its wishes on this issue by the vote of its own citizens separate and distinct from the vote expressed by the citizens in any neighboring state.

 Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 12 of 40

 SEPARATE, DISTINCT, AND FOREIGN

 The notion that the States of the Union are separate, distinct, and foreign to each other also applies to the relationship the States of the Union have to the United States government. This relationship is embodied in both state and federal court decisions. State of Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co, 127 U.S. 265, 8 S.Ct. 1370, 32 L.Ed. 239 (1888); Robinson v. Norato, R.I., 43 A.2d 467 (1945); Salonen v. Farley, 82 F.Supp. 25 (1949); 19 C.J.S. Corporations

§ 883 citing In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.Y. 505, 141 N.Y. 479 (1894), and affirmed in United States v. Perkins, 163 U.S. 625, 41 L.Ed. 287 (1896). While Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. doesn’t specifically use the word “foreign”, the next two cases, as well as the esteemed legal encyclopedia Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), do use that term. Here are quotes from those cases and C.J.S.  

Robinson v. Norato (July 25, 1945) Rhode Island Supreme Co

 “In the sense of public international law, the several states of the union are neither foreign to the United States nor are they foreign to each other. But such is not the case in the field of private international law.”

“That it is the settled view of the Supreme Court that, on questions of private international law, the states are foreign to the United States would seem to be clear from the decision in State of Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 8 S.Ct. 1370, 32 L.Ed. 239. In that case Wisconsin, on a judgment obtained in one of her courts against a Louisiana corporation, brought suit in the United States Supreme Court. On the theory that Wisconsin was a foreign state and that the suit was founded upon a penal statute, the court held that it would not entertain the suit to enforce that statute, saying, 127 U.S. at page 289, 8 S.Ct. at page 1374, 32 L.Ed. 239, of the opinion: ‘By the law of England and the United States the penal laws of a country do not reach beyond its own territory, except when extended by express treaty or statute to offenses committed abroad by its own citizens; and they must be administered in its own courts only, and cannot be enforced by the court of another country.’ That case has been frequently cited by the Supreme Court and never has it been qualified in any manner.”

 “The supremacy clause of the federal Constitution cannot, in our opinion, be legitimately construed to compel state courts to take jurisdiction and enforce such penal statutes. On that score such statutes of the several states and the United States stand upon an equal footing. They are to be enforced or not enforced according to the rule of comity in private international law and not by reason of any constitutional mandate.”

 “To summarize our position, we hold that, in the consideration of a statute like the one before us, this court has the right and authority to determine its character before allowing it to be enforced in the courts of this state; that if we find it to be penal we may refuse to enforce it regardless of its federal origin; and that the federal Constitution does not require us to treat the United States in a matter of this nature more favorably than we do a sister state of the Union. The contrary view would make the state courts, nolens volens, in effect, inferior federal courts to enforce all federal statutes, whenever Congress so declares.” Robinson v. Norato, 71 R.I. 25, 643 A.2d 467, 162 A.L.R. 362 (1945)

 Salonen v. Farley (Jan. 18, 1949) U.S. District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Covington District“ The government of the

 Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 13 of 40

 United States is foreign as to the states of the union within rule of private international law that penal statutes of one sovereignty will not be enforced by another.”

 “The defendants have correctly stated the well established principle of law that the Government of the United States is foreign as to the States of the Union within the rule of private international law that the penal statutes of one sovereignty will not be enforced by another. Robinson v. Norato, 71 R.I. 25, 643 A.2d 467, 162 A.L.R. 362; State of Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co, 127 U.S. 265, 8 S.Ct. 1370, 32 L.Ed. 239. It is universally recognized that foreign jurisdictions will not enforce penal statutes of another state. Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Wallace, 223 U.s. 481, 32 S.Ct. 205 56 L.Ed. 516; The Antelope, 10 Wheat 66, 23 U.s. 66, 6 L.Ed. 268, wherein Chief Justice Marshall made the short statement that, ‘The Courts of no country execute the penal laws of another.”’ Salonen v. Farley, 82 F.Supp. 25 (1949)

 19 Corpus Juris Secundum, § 883

 “The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.” 19 C.J.S. Corporations § 883 citing In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.Y. 505, 141 N.Y. 479 (1894), and affirmed in United States v. Perkins, 163 U.S. 625, 41 L.Ed. 287 (1896).

 The editors of C.J.S. reached this conclusion based on the issues and language surrounding the estate of William W. Merriam, a resident of Suffolk county, New York. At his death, Mr.  Merriam  willed  his  entire  estate  of  both  real  and  personal  property  to  the  United States.  The  tax  assessor  for  New  York  imposed  a  tax  against  the  United  States  for  the inheritance  of this  estate  and  the  United  States filed  suit.  The  Court  of Appeals  of New York stated, “The U.S. government, as a body corporate, is capable of taking a legacy; and a  legacy  to  it  is  subject  to  the  legacy  tax,  since  such  tax  is  imposed  on  the  right  of succession, and not on the property.” And continuing, “Stock in a foreign corporation is subject to the legacy tax.” The decision of the State court was upheld in the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Perkins, (supra.).

 The concept that the States of the Union are foreign to each other also applies to the issues of money and finance as expressed in the following case.

 Bell v. Anderson (Jan. 30, 1941) Superior Court of Pennsylvania

 “It is not necessary that a note or domestic bill of exchange be protested, but protest is required only with respect to foreign bills of exchange; the states of the union being foreign as to each other in that regard.” Bell v. Anderson, Penn., 17 A.2d 647 (1941)

 The concept is further illustrated by a case dealing with the schooling of children who lived on land owned by a Veterans Administration Hospital in Pennsylvania.

 Schwartz   v.   O’Hara   Tp.   School   Dist.   et   al.,   (Nov.   24,   1953)   Supreme   Court   of Pennsylvania

 “Township school district was not required to furnish free educational facilities for children who resided on grounds of federal Veterans Administration Hospital, which was located in township, where jurisdiction of grounds had been ceded by the Commonwealth to the United States.”

 The appellant’s further contention is that the children here under consideration are residents of the 0’ Hara Township School District … and are, therefore, entitled to attend the Township s schools free of charge.

 Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 14 of 40

  In support of this contention the appellant cites Sec. 1301 of the Pennsylvania School Code, 24 P.S. § 13-1301, which declares that ‘Every child, being a resident of any school district, *** may attend the public schools in his district, *** “a’ and Sec. 1302 which provides that ‘A child shall be considered a resident of the school district in which his parents or guardian of his person resides.’ But, neither the parents nor the guardians of these children reside in O’Hara Township. To be a resident of a particular political subdivision of a State a person must reside on land over which the State has jurisdiction. It has long been held that persons living on Federal reservations are not residents of the States wherein such reservations are situated. In the present instance, the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction of the area of 0 Hara Township on which the Veterans Administration Hospital is located. Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Section 8, ci. 17; and Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 5 S.Ct. 995, 29 L.Ed. 264. Nor is such jurisdiction impaired in the slightest degree by reason of the minor reservation in the act of cession of concurrent State jurisdiction merely for service of process. In Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe, supra, the Supreme Court said, 114 U.S. at pages 532-533, 5 S.Ct. at page 999, ‘When the title is acquired by purchase by consent of the legislatures of the states, the federal jurisdiction is exclusive of all state authority. This follows from the declaration of the constitution that congress shall have ‘like authority’ over such places as it has over the district which is the seat of government; that is, the power of ‘exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever.’ Broader or clearer language could not be used to exclude all other authority than that of congress; and that no other authority can be exercised over them has been the uniform opinion of federal and state tribunals, and of the attorneys general.”’ Schwartz v. O’Hara Township School District, et al., 100 A.2d 621 (1953)

 In  this  last  case,  the  parents  of  eight  children  living  on  the  grounds  of  this  Veterans Administration Hospital sought to have their children educated in the public schools of the local township for free only to discover that the township’s school district could not enroll them for free because the land where the eight children lived was not under the jurisdiction of the State of Pennsylvania, but was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States government. Because the United States government has the exact same authority over that Veterans Hospital grounds as it has over the District of Columbia, the hospital grounds is a territory or enclave of the United States within the State of Pennsylvania and is separate, distinct, and foreign to the State. Although the court didn’t use the word ‘foreign’ in this case to describe the relationship between the United States and the State of Pennsylvania, the written description supports the conclusions drawn in the Robinson and Salonen cases. The United States is foreign to the States of the Union when dealing with issues within American  society,  and  the  authority  of  the  State  does  not  extend  into  a  federal  enclave within its boundary.

 The role of Congress today with respect to the issues that have not been delegated to the United States government by the U.S. Constitution is limited to making recommendations or offering contracts to the States. For example, see the Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955, Statutes at Large, 84th Congress, 1st Session, Ch. 656-P.L. 296, Aug. 9, 1955, where Congress  made  recommendations  to  the  several  states  that  they  enact  legislation  or  take administrative action to allow members of the armed forces to vote by absentee ballot in any primary, special, or general election for which they might otherwise be eligible to vote. Congress can only make recommendations to the sovereign States of the Union where the people of the states have not delegated authority to the United States in the U.S. Constitution. Since the adoption of the organic Constitution for

 Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 15 of 40

 the  United  States  of America in 1788, delegations of authority to the United States can only be accomplished through the amendment process.

 While  the  United  States  generally  can  contract  with  any  State  for  a  mutually  agreeable purpose, the United States is not allowed to create a political advantage for one State over another. The contract with a State, or with all of the States, does not constitute a delegation of  authority  of  the  citizens  of  the  States  of  the  Union  to  the  United  States  as  such delegation of authority can only be accomplished by the collective will of the people of the States  through  the  amendment  process  stated  in  the  U.S.  Constitution.  Such  a  contract operates only on the respective State government and can create no new obligation on the people who live therein.

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

 So  how  is  it  that  the  States  of  the  Union  are  not  foreign  to  the  United  States  under  the principles of public international law, but are foreign to the United States and each other under the principles of private international law?

Public international law deals with the authority the States of the Union delegated to the United States government to represent American interests outside of American society.  Private  international  law  deals  with  the  role  of  the  federal  government  within  American society where federal legislation might conflict with State law and where the delegation of authority to the United States government is limited or absent.

 When the people of the States adopted the U.S. Constitution and created the United States government,  they  transferred  exclusive  right  to  that  government  to  represent  American political interests to nations outside of American society. (See U.S. Constitution Article I, section 10, clause 1.) Thus, the United States government is responsible for providing for such  things  as  America’s  military  defense  as  well  as  the  diplomatic  core  representing American  interests  throughout  the  world.  While  the  States  of  the  Union  may  engage  in commercial agreements with political powers outside of America, the States of the Union are  foreclosed  from  negotiating  political  agreements  with  geopolitical  powers  outside  of American society as authority for this has been exclusively delegated to the United States government. But the States did reserve the right to give final consent to any political treaty negotiated  by  the  executive  branch  by  requiring  the  president  to  submit  the  proposed agreement or treaty to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent. (See U.S. Constitution Article II, section 2, clause 2.) The Senate originally represented the interests of the State legislatures  with  respect  to  the  policies  and  activities  of  the  United  States  government. Even though the manner in which senators obtain their offices to the United States Senate has changed, the United States government is not permitted to establish treaties with other governments without the approval of the senators representing the citizens of the States of the Union and thereby binding the States to an international agreement. When the States are acting in concert with each other through Congress for a purpose outside of American society, the States of the Union and the United States government collectively make up a single entity and are not foreign to each other. It is in this sense and this sense only that the United States of America comprises a single nation.

 Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 16 of 40

 But the authority of the United States government is entirely different when dealing with issues  within  American  society.  There  is  no  similar  authority  granted  to  the  federal government when Congress or the president, through the various executive departments, deals  with  the  States  of  the  Union  and  the  people  who  live  therein.  In  fact,  the  10th Amendment  restricts  the  policies  and  activities  of  the  federal  government  within  the sovereign   States   to   only   those   things   specifically   delegated   to   the   United   States government  in  the  U.S.  Constitution.  Thus,  the  United  States  has  no  inherent  legislative jurisdiction  within  the  States  of  the  Union  except  for  those  things  that  have  been specifically delegated to the United States government in the U.S. Constitution. Except in the  case  where  the  States  of  the  Union  have  delegated  authority  to  Congress  to  enact legislation pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, the laws enacted by Congress are domestic to the  District  of  Columbia,  the  federal  territories  or  insular  possessions,  and  the  enclaves within a state that have been ceded to the United States government. Without a specific constitutional  footing,  the  laws  of  Congress  are  foreign  to  the  States  of  the  Union,  and under  the  principle  of  the  conflict  of  laws,  foreign  law  never  supersedes  nor  takes precedence  over  any  law  that  is  domestic  to  the  State.  Remember,  the  United  States government  is  a  federal  government  with  limited,  enumerated  authority,  not  a  national government with plenary authority. The States of the Union have always been fully grown up nations, each with its own sovereignty.

When  Lewis  &  Clark  were  commissioned  by  President  Thomas  Jefferson  to  make  their expedition across the Louisiana Territory, they were instructed by President Jefferson to invite the Indians they met along the way to visit him in Washington, D.C. The letter that Merriweather Lewis wrote for the Indians makes 14 separate references to the President of the United States as the Great Chief of the seventeen great nations of America. Of course, the reference to the seventeen great nations of America is an obvious reference to the fact that there were 17 States in the Union during the time Jefferson was president. President Thomas  Jefferson  himself  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Osage  Indians  after  they  had  visited Washington, D.C. and twice in this letter he made reference to the “17. United nations in whose name  I speak to you, and take you by the hand.” Letters of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, with related documents, 1783-1854, Donald Jackson, Ed, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1962, p. 199. Thomas Jefferson, the principal author and one of the signers of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  third  president  of  the  United  States,  clearly understood that each of the States in the Union is a free, independent, and fully grown up nation and the federal government is the agent of these sovereign States.

 About  this  same  time,  the  U.S.  Supreme  Court  was  considering  the  interesting  case  of M’Ilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee (1804). This case centers around a man born in New Jersey who chose to remain loyal to the King when the Declaration of Independence was made and soon joined the British army. He was commissioned an officer, given command of a group  of  men,  and  fought  for  the  government  of  the  King  of  Great  Britain,  mostly  in Pennsylvania. At one point he was captured, sentenced to prison, escaped, returned to the King’s  army  in  New  York,  given  another  commission,  and  fought  in  one  or  two  more battles before the end of the war. At the conclusion of the war, he accepted the offer the King made to Americans who had fought in his army to move to Britain and live out their days  there  as  a  loyal  British  subject  as  payment  for  the  service  provided  the  mother country.

Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 17 of 40

 After  a  few  years  of  living  in  Britain,  he  received  word  that  a  relative  in  Trenton, New Jersey, had died and willed him 200  acres  of  land  in  Trenton, whereupon he decided to return to New Jersey to claim his inheritance. Upon presentation of the proper documents of inheritance to the county clerk, he requested his name be placed upon the deed as the owner. The clerk refused, citing his status as a British subject and not a citizen of New Jersey as the reason his name  could not be entered upon the record as the owner of the land. Suit was filed, which worked its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court to sort out the principles of law. Upon reviewing various principles of citizenship and state law regarding citizenship and expatriation, the U.S. Supreme Court offered this interesting opinion:

 M’Ilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee (1804) U.S. Supreme Court

 “…it is a recognized principle that a man may owe allegiance to two countries at the same time, and therefore, may lawfully have the intention of owing allegiance to both Great Britain and New Jersey.” p. 286. [Bold added.] M’Ilvaine v. Coxes Lessee, 8 U.S. 279 (1804)

 The  present  generation  is  conditioned  to  anticipate  that  the  court  would  equate  the  two countries of Great Britain and the United States, and the reader might easily overlook the actual words used by the court. But here the United States Supreme Court recognized that Great Britain and New Jersey are two countries, equal to each other for the purposes of citizenship, allegiance and inheritance of property. Once again, the Founding Fathers, as members of the United States Supreme Court in 1804, recognized that each State of the Union is a fully grown up, sovereign nation equal to other nations of the world for these purposes.

 THE LIMITED AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL LAW

 American  history  and  law  books  commonly  refer  to  the  limited  authority  of  the  federal government,  but  the  scope  of  the  limitation  is rarely  discussed.  Another  interesting  case that sheds light on the scope of the legislative authority of the U.S. government is the 1821 case  of  Cohens  v.  Virginia.  If  one  looks  in the  bar  exam review  books  available  to  any student  preparing  to  take  the  bar  exam,  Cohens v.  Virginia  is  cited  there,  of  course,  for other purposes. However, this amazing statement describing the legislative authority of the United States is found in that United States Supreme Court case, to wit:

 Cohens v. Virginia (1821) U.S. Supreme Court

 “It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects but extending all over the Union; the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia.”

“It cannot be denied that the character of the jurisdiction which Congress has over the district, is widely different from that which it has over the states; for, over them, Congress has not exclusive jurisdiction. Its powers over the states are those only which are specifically given, and those which are necessary to carry them into effect.” Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)

  Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 18 of 40

 Notice that the United States Supreme Court did not say that this is complicated, complex, confusing,  or  difficult  to  understand.  They  said  “IT  IS  CLEAR…”!!  [Emphasis  mine.] There  was  no  doubt  in  their  minds  about  the  limited  authority  of  the  United  States government regarding its operations within any of the States of the Union. While Article III  of  the  U.S.  Constitution  authorizes  judicial  jurisdiction  for  United  States  courts throughout   the   States   of   the   Union,   the   United   States   government   does   not   have sovereignty nor inherent legislative jurisdiction within the States of the Union. Notice how the   U.S.   Supreme   Court   expressed   the   inherent   sovereignty   of   the   United   States government in the following case:

 United States v. Coe (Oct. 29, 1894) U.S. Supreme Court

 “It must be regarded as settled that section 1 of article 3 does not exhaust the power of congress to establish courts. The leading case upon the subject is American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511, 546, in which it was held in respect of territorial courts (Chief Justice Marshall delivering the opinion) that while those courts are not courts in which the judicial power conferred by article 3 can be deposited, yet that they are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government over the territories, or of the clause which enables congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States.” [Bold added.] United States v. Coe, 155 U.S. 76, 15 S.Ct. 16 (1894)

 The inherent sovereignty of the United States is over the territories and not over the States of the Union. This is certainly not the only time the court has ruled on this issue. The U.S. Supreme Court had earlier delivered the following explanation of the limited authority of the federal government in a case dealing with public land in New Orleans:

 The Mayor, &c., of New Orleans v. United States (1836) U.S. Supreme Court

 “The government of the United States, as was well observed in the argument, is one of limited powers. It can exercise authority over no subjects except those which have been delegated to it. Congress cannot, by legislation, enlarge the federal jurisdiction, nor can it be enlarged under the treaty-making power.”

 “Special provision is made in the constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the states over places where the federal government shall establish forts or other military works. And it is only in these places, or in the territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction.”

 “All powers which properly appertain to sovereignty, which have not been delegated to the federal government, belong to the States and the people.” The Mayor. &c., of New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. 662; 10 Pet. 662; 9 L.Ed. 573 (1836)

 Consider the case of Ellis v. United States, 206 U.S. 246; 27 S. Ct. 600 (1907), where the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to apply the minimum wage law of the United States to the dredging of Chelsea Creek in Boston Harbor, Massachusetts. In this case a contract had been  let  to  dredge  Chelsea  Creek.  The  contract  included  a  bonus  for  completing  the dredging by a certain date. Because Chelsea Creek had been dredged on prior occasions, the contract called not only for dredging the creek bottom, but for installing timber pilings along the creek bank to prevent the channel from filling in so quickly. The timber pilings were  ordered  from  the  Northwest,  but  the  delivery  was  delayed  for  a  couple  of  months which placed in jeopardy the completion of the work in time to earn the bonus. When the timbers arrived, the supervisors organized the crews to work around the clock so as to meet the contract deadline to collect the bonus. The crews were required to work

 Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 19 of 40

   more  than eight hours in a day. The men worked hard, the deadline was met, and the company was able  to  collect  the  bonus  for  completing  the  work  on  time.  But  now  the  men  wanted  a portion  of  the  bonus  for  their  hard  work.  Because  the  contracts  the  men  had  with  the company were silent on this issue, the men were not entitled to any of the bonus paid to the company. But, believing that federal law might be made to apply to them, the men filed suit to have the recently enacted minimum wage law of the United States apply to their work which would force the company to pay them one-and-a-half-times the regular wage for  time  worked  beyond  the  eight-hour  work  day.  In  its  deliberations,  one  of  the  main concerns of the United States Supreme Court was whether the laws of the United States could   apply   to   the   work   done   at   Chelsea   Creek   in   Boston   Harbor.   Notice   these conclusions.

 

Ellis v. United States (1907) U.S. Supreme Court 

 “Congress possesses no power to legislate except such as is affirmatively conferred upon it through the Constitution, or is fairly to be inferred therefrom.”

 “An act which may be constitutional upon its face, or as applied to certain conditions, may yet be found to be unconstitutional when sought to be applied in a particular case.”

 “The work of dredging in Chelsea creek, in Boston harbor, as shown in the record, is not part of the ‘public works of the United States’ within the meaning of the statute in question.”

 “It is unnecessary to lay special stress on the title to the soil in which the channels were dug, but it may be noticed that it was not in the United States. The language of the acts is ‘public works of the United States.’ As the works are things upon which the labor is expended, the most natural meaning of ‘of the United States’ is ‘belonging to the United States.’’’ Ellis v. United States, 206 U.S. 246; 27 S.Ct. 600 (1907)

 The  conclusion  of  the  U.S.  Supreme  Court  could  not  be  more  clear:  Chelsea  Creek  in Boston Harbor is not in the United States as defined in the federal statute under question. Chelsea Creek is in Massachusetts and the state of Massachusetts, as a sovereign State of the Union, is not under the general legislative jurisdiction of the United States Congress nor  the  executive  branch  of  the  federal  government.  The  States  have  not  delegated  the work of dredging creek bottoms to the United States nor have they delegated the regulation of  wages  to  the  United  States.  Massachusetts  has  not  been  absorbed  into  the  federal government  so  as  to  make  Massachusetts  a  territory,  insular  possession,  canton,  district, region, part, or subdivision of the United States government. Massachusetts is separate and distinct from the places where the United States has general legislative and/or executive jurisdiction. The term “of the United States” means “belonging to the United States”. The land making up the States of the Union are not territories of the United States. The States do not belong to the United States as though they are property or territories of the United States government. The States of the Union have a sovereignty that predates the creation of the federal government. Consequently, the court concluded that the minimum wage law of the United States did not apply to the work done at Chelsea Creek.

 This is in perfect agreement with the case of Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281; 69 S. Ct. 575 (1949), wherein the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “Legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within territorial jurisdiction of the United  States.” As seen in the Ellis case, Chelsea Creek in Massachusetts

 Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 20 of 40

 was  not  within  the territorial, legislative jurisdiction of the United States.

 Toward  the  end  of  the  19th  century,  a  request  was  made  to  consolidate  the  laws  of Congress  into  a  single  code  that  would  apply  to  both  the  District  of  Columbia  and  the States  of  the  Union.  The  committee  given  this  responsibility  found  the  task  impossible. Notice  this  following  statement  found  in  1  D.C.  Code,  History  (1981),  which  gives  an overview of the authority of Congress to pass legislation either for the District of Columbia and  other  federal  places,  and  how  that  differs  from  its  authority  over  the  States  of  the Union.

 

1 D.C. Code, History (1981)

 “The general collection [of revised statutes] might perhaps be considered, in a limited sense, as a code for the United States, as it embraced all the laws affecting the whole United States, within the constitutional legislative jurisdiction of Congress, but there could be no complete code for the entire United States, because the subjects which would be proper to be regulated by a code in the states are entirely outside the legislative authority of Congress.” Statement made on December 5, 1898 by Mr. Justice Walter S. Cox of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, District of Columbia Code, 1981 Edition, Vol. 1, History, p. 10

 Not  only  was  this  distinction  in  authority  well  understood  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the District  of  Columbia,  this  distinction  in  authority  has  long  been  understood  by  the members of the United States Supreme Court. Notice the ruling made at the end of the 19th century.

 

Caha v. United States (Mar. 5, 1894) U.S. Supreme Court

 “This statute (Rev. St. § 5392, defining the crime of perjury] is one of universal application within the territorial limits of the United States, and is not limited to those portions which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government, such as the District of Columbia. Generally speaking, within any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are no part of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.” [Bold added.] Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211 (1894)

 That  court  had  earlier  held  that  officers  of the  United  States  government  cannot  expand their authority simply by claiming to have authority to act.  

Buffington (Collector) v. Day (Apr. 3, 1871) U.S. Supreme Court

 “The Government of the United States, therefore, can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the Constitution, and the powers actually granted must be such as are expressly given, or given by necessary implication.” Buffington v. Day, 11 Wall. 113; 78 U.S. 122 (1871)

 This principle of law and limited jurisdiction was well understood throughout America into the  middle  of  the  20th  century  as  evidenced  by  the  following  California  appellate  court decision.

 Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 21 of 40

 People v. Kelley (Feb. 25, 1942) District Court of Appeals, Second District, Division 2, California

 “An act of Congress does not have sanctity of constitutional provision, and even though the act is valid within orbit of activities of Congress, the operation of the act can affect only those subjects over which the central government has jurisdiction.” People v. Kellev, 122 P.2d 655 (1942)

 In  California,  the  legislature  set  up  the  California  State  Lands  Commission  with  the responsibility of keeping an index of all land within the state that has been ceded to the United States and the level of jurisdiction that has been granted to the United States for each of the identified properties. This is in harmony with 40 U.S.C., § 255 and 50 U.S.C., § 175 which specifies that, “Unless and until the United States has accepted jurisdiction over lands hereafter to be acquired as aforesaid, it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been accepted.” A few years ago I wrote to the California State Lands Commission  requesting  that  they  identify  the  level  of  jurisdiction  which  California  has granted to the United States for four properties, specifically: (1) the land where my home was located, (2) the land where the public school at which I teach is located, (3) the land where my employment records are kept at the school district office, and (4) the land where my pay warrant is processed by the county office of education. In a letter dated January 8, 1996, James R. Frey, staff counsel for the Commission responded in part:

 “Because these parcels are not federally owned the United States does not have any legislative jurisdiction.” /s/ ”James R. Frey,” Staff Counsel

Additionally, in a letter dated February 26, 1996, I received the following explanation regarding the basis of federal jurisdiction over these lands:

 “I trust that you are aware that the jurisdiction ceded under [California] Government Code Section 126 is legislative jurisdiction and that the cession process is based on Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution. Further the United States must have a real property interest in the land prior to a cession. Consequently, if the United States does not have a real property interest, the State of California cannot and has not ceded legislative jurisdiction to the United States.”

/s/ “James R. Frey,” Staff Counsel

 In these two letters the staff counsel for the California State Lands Commission seems to tell me that the Acts of Congress have no application to these properties and he even tells me why: the United States does not own these properties and the State of California has not ceded legislative jurisdiction to the United States. Perhaps you have a similar office in your State from which you can obtain a similar response.

 The legislative jurisdiction of the United States involves the Acts of Congress—Congress being the legislative body of the United States. There are two ways that Acts of Congress become operable within any State of the Union. One way is for the States of the Union to collectively   delegate   authority   to   the   United   States   government   through   the   U.S. Constitution respecting a certain issue. It is easy to see what authority has been granted as that authority will  be  stated in the U.S. Constitution. For those issues that have been so delegated, federal law applies throughout the Union and takes precedence over State law. The  other  way  is  for  a  State  legislature  to  cede  a  portion  of  its  own  land  to  the  U.S. government. It thereby removes the specified land from its own

 Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 22 of 40

 jurisdiction,  making  it federal  land  and  subject  to  federal  law.  However,  the  U.S.  Constitution  authorizes  this process of cession only over land purchased by the United States government and for those things itemized in Article I, section 8, clause 17, “which the same shall be, for the erection of   forts,   magazines,   arsenals,   dock-yards,   and   other   needful   buildings…”   The   U.S. Constitution does not authorize a general operation of federal law, authority, or jurisdiction on territory of the State by the cession process or any other process.

 If the United States has no legislative jurisdiction over lands of the State that have not been ceded  to  the  U.S.  government,  and  the  United  States  government  has  not  accepted jurisdiction over lands within any State of the Union pursuant to the limiting requirements set out in federal law at 40 U.S.C., § 255 and 50 U.S.C., § 175, it necessarily follows that the  Acts  of  Congress  have  no  inherent  legal  force  of  authority  over  the  properties mentioned in my letters to the California State Lands Commission. It further necessarily follows that if the United States has no legislative jurisdiction, the agents of the executive branch lack authority to carry out any mandate of federal law or regulation. Thus, the land where I live, the land where I work, the land where my employment records are kept, and the  land  where  my  pay  warrant  is  processed  are  not  inherently  subject  to  the  Acts  of Congress nor to the agents of the executive branch of the United States government. The legislative Acts of Congress do not inherently operate within the States of the Union nor do the agents of the executive branch have inherent authorization to enforce laws outside their proper jurisdiction.

 When agents of the government overstate their authority, impose their demands on those over  whom they  have  no  legitimate  authority, and  fail  to respect  the  limitations  of  their own proper authority, they invariably trample on the rights of individuals and society and demonstrate  contempt  for  lawful  government  in  whose  name  they  carry  out  such  deeds. Such  an  improper  exercise  of  power  results  in  the  loss  of  private  property  and  the restriction of liberty, and is as much an act of violence against individuals and society as is carried  out  by  common  criminals.  To  paraphrase  the  introduction  to  the  little  book  The Law  by  French  economist,  statesman,  and  author  Frederic  Bastiat  written  in  1850  when France was rapidly turning to socialism: This is the law perverted! The law becomes the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself becomes guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

 DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP

 At its inception, all citizens in the American states were citizens of one of the States of the Union. Citizens generally called themselves citizens of their State unless traveling outside of America. Any reference to being a citizen of the United States was a generic expression and had no legal application. Prior to the enactment of the 14th Amendment, the California Supreme Court discussed the issue of being a citizen of the United States and provided the following explanation:

Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 23 of 40

Ex Parte-Frank Knowles (July 1855) California Supreme Court

  “By metaphysical refinement, in examining the form of our government, it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. But constant usage—arising from convenience, and perhaps necessity, and dating from the formation of the Confederacy— has given substantial existence to the idea which the term conveys. A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing.”

 ‘The States had the power to naturalize foreigners, and there was no necessity for this power to be surrendered to the General Government.”

 “Hence the necessity arose, not that Congress should have power to naturalize, but should have power to prescribe to the states a rule to be carried out by them, and which should be uniform in each. If this were not so, it follows conclusively that there is no mode by which a foreigner can be made expressly a citizen of a State, for I have already shown there is no such thing, technically as a citizen of the United States. Consequently, one who is created a citizen of the United States, is certainly not made a citizen of any particular State. It follows, that as it is only the citizens of the State who are entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, if the process is left alone to the action of Congress through her federal tribunals, and in the form which they have adopted, then a distinction both in name and privileges is made to exist between citizens of the United States ex vi termini, and citizens of the respective States. To the former no privileges or immunities are granted; and it will hardly be contended, that political status can be derived by implication against express legal enactments. Ex Parte-Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)

 Because each of the States of the Union has a separate sovereignty from that of the United States government, there are at least two types of citizenship in America: State citizenship and United States citizenship. While most Americans readily and unwittingly claim to be United  States  citizens,  the  provisions  of  these  two  types  of  American  citizenship  are distinct from each other. The California Supreme Court stated it succinctly as follows:

 Tashiro v. Jordan (May 20, 1927) California Supreme Court

 “That there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other is well established by the decisions of the courts of this country.” Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

 Citizenship is always tied to a sovereign government. Because the States of the Union are the fundamental political units in American society, the first and fundamental citizenship a person  living  in  one  of  the  States  of  the  Union  may  have  is  with  one’s  State.  The  U.S. Supreme  Court  made  it  clear  more  than  sixty  years  ago  that  State  citizenship  is  the fundamental citizenship in America.

 Madden v. Kentucky (Jan. 29, 1940) U.S. Supreme Court

 “This position is that the privileges and immunities clause protects all citizens against abridgment by states of rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship. This court declared in the Slaughter- House cases that the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Thirteenth and Fifteenth were adopted to protect the negroes in their freedom. This almost contemporaneous interpretation extended the benefits of the privileges and immunities clause to other rights which are inherent in national citizenship but denied it to those which spring from state citizenship.” (pp. 90-91, 594) The Court has consistently

 Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 24 of 40

 refused to list completely the rights which are covered by the clause, though it has pointed out the type of rights protected. We think it quite clear that the right to carry out an incident to a trade, business or calling such as the deposit of money in banks is not a privilege of national citizenship.” (Pp. 92-93, 595.) [Bold added.] Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83; 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

 The  California  Supreme  Court  discussed  the  effect  of  the  14th  Amendment  on  the individuals within a State in a case dealing with voter registration of women.

 

Van Valkenburg v. Brown (Jan. 1872) California Supreme Court

 “It is claimed that the plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and of this State. Undoubtedly she is. It is argued that she became such by force of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, already recited. This, however, is a mistake. It could as well be claimed that she became free by the effect of the Thirteenth Amendment, by which slavery was abolished; for she was no less a citizen than she was free before the adoption of either of these amendments. No white person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution. The history and aim of the Fourteenth Amendment is well known, and the purpose had in view in its adoption well understood. That purpose was to confer the status of citizenship upon a class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States, who could not be brought within the operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, had at the same time left them without the status of citizenship. These persons were not white persons, but were, in the main, persons of African descent, who had been held in slavery in this country, or, if having themselves never been held in slavery, were the native-born descendants of slaves. Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment it was settled that neither slaves, nor those who had been such, nor the descendants of these, though native and free born, were capable of becoming citizens of the United States. (Dread Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393.) The Thirteenth Amendment, though conferring the boon of freedom upon native-born persons of African blood, had yet left them under an insuperable bar as to citizenship; and it was mainly to remedy this condition that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.”

“This is recent history—familiar to all… pp. 46-47.

 “…each state was a sovereign and independent state, and the states had confederated only for the purposes of general defense and to promote the general welfare.” p. 49.

 “This circumstance [privilege of elective franchise] has given rise to a notion in some quarters that the privilege of voting and the status of citizenship are necessarily connected in some way—so that the existence of the one argues that of the other. But the history of the country shows that there was never any foundation for such a view.” p. 50. [Brackets original.] Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43 (1872)

 Americans have generally lost sight of the purpose of the 14th Amendment misconstruing that it operates directly on the individual inherently making every State citizen a citizen of the   United   States.   However,   the   U.S.   Supreme   Court   has   explained   that   the   14th Amendment operates on the State and does not operate on the individual.

 Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 25 of 40

 Minor v. Happersett (Mar. 29, 1874) U.S. Supreme Court

 “The [Fourteenth] Amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.”

 “The Amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as he already had. No new voters were necessarily made by it. Indirectly it may have had that effect, because it may have increased the number of citizens entitled to suffrage under the Constitution and laws of the States, but it operates for this purpose, if at all, through the States and the state laws, and not directly upon the citizen.”

 “All the States had governments when the Constitution was adopted.”

 “These governments the Constitution did not change.” [Brackets and Bold added.] Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 627 (1874)

 The rights, privileges and immunities one has as a citizen of a State were not changed by the Civil War nor by the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is how a federal court explained it in 1873.

 United States v. Anthony (June 18, 1873) Circuit Court, N.D. New York

 “The rights of citizens of the states and of citizens of the United States are each guarded by these different provisions. That these rights are separate and distinct, was held in the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. [83 U.S.] 36, recently decided by the supreme court. The rights of citizens of the state, as such, are not under consideration in the 14th amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the 14th amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions. The rights of citizens of the states have been the subject of judicial decision on more than one occasion. Corfield v. Coryell [Case No. 3,230]; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. [79 U.S.] 418, 430; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. [75 U.S.] 168. These are the fundamental privileges and immunities belonging of right to the citizens of all free government, such as the right of life and liberty, the right to acquire and possess property, to transact business, to pursue happiness in his own manner, subject to such restraint as the government may adjudge to be necessary for the general good.”

 “The right of voting, or the privilege of voting, is a right or privilege arising under the constitution of the state, and not under the constitution of the United States. The qualifications are different in the different states. Citizenship, age, sex, residence, are variously required in the different states, or may be so. If the right belongs to any particular person, it is because such person is entitled to it by the laws of the state where he offers to exercise it, and not because of citizenship of the United States.” [Bold added, brackets original.] United States v. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. Page 829, (Case No. 14,459) (1873)

 

Jones v. Temmer (Aug. 11, 1993) U.S. District Court, D. Colorado

 “The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873). Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. Id.

 Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 26 of 40

 Accordingly, it is not necessary that plaintiffs have non-resident status in order to bring a claim under the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment.” Jones v. Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (1993).

 It is often presumed today by journalists, judges, and others that American citizenship rests primarily with the United States, that State citizenship and voter registration is dependent on  U.S.  citizenship,  and  that  State  citizenship  in  the  modern  scheme  of  things  is  an antiquated  concept  that  was  extinguished  with  the  14th  Amendment.  However,  the  U.S. Supreme Court has noted the distinction between the status of U.S. citizenship and State citizenship in well over 35 cases beginning with the Slaughter-House cases in 1872 and continuing through to the present. Moreover, the two types of citizenship have never been intrinsically tied to each other.

 Crosse v. Bd. of Supervisors of Elec. (July 21, 1966) Court of Appeals of Maryland

 “State has right to extend qualifications for state office to its citizens, even though they are not citizens of the United States.”

 “Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.” Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A.2d 431 (1966)

 Diversity of citizenship is a prerequisite to jurisdiction in federal district courts. Citizens of the same state (who are under the same sovereignty and jurisdiction) are foreclosed from access to the federal district courts unless a federal question is at issue. Moreover, federal law at 28 U.S.C., § 1332(a) requires that those who file suit in federal district court must be “(1)  Citizens  of  different  States;  or  (2)  citizens  of  a  State  and  citizens  or  subjects  of  a foreign state…” When Congress originally enacted this provision for federal district courts to have jurisdiction over controversies between citizens of various states, it did not include a provision for citizens of foreign states to bring suit therein. The History note provides the following information.

 28 U.S.C., § 1332, History

 “The revised section conforms with the views of the United States Attorney for Puerto Rico, who observed that the Act of April 20, 1940 permitted action between a citizen of Hawaii and of Puerto Rico, but not between a citizen of New York and Puerto Rico, in the district court. This changes the law to insure uniformity. The 1940 amendment applied only to the provision as to controversies between “citizens of different States.” The new definition in subsec. (B) [redesignated (d); see the 1985 Amendments note] extends the 1940 amendment to apply to controversies between citizens of the Territories or the District of Columbia, and foreign states or citizens or subject thereof.” [Brackets original.] 28 U.S.C., § 1332, History: Ancillary Laws and Directives, p. 2

 This observation, made by the United States attorney for Puerto Rico while Hawaii was still a Territory of the United States, recognized that citizens of Hawaii and Puerto Rico could access the federal district courts because they were citizens of different states. But he further observed that the federal district courts did not have jurisdiction over controversies between  citizens  of  Puerto  Rico  (who  are  citizens  of  the  United  States)  and  New  York because citizens of New York are under a sovereignty and jurisdiction that is foreign to the United States, and there was no provision for citizens of foreign States to file suit therein. Congress added the provision 

Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 27 of 40

 for citizens  of  foreign  states  to  have  access  to  the  federal district courts to resolve this problem. This is because Puerto Rico and the other territories belonging to the federal government are under the sovereignty of the United States, while each of the States of the Union has a sovereignty and jurisdiction that is separate, distinct, and foreign to that of the United States.

 Finally, the United States government has acknowledged that one who is a citizen of one of the States of the Union may be a nonresident alien with respect to the United States. This classification was revealed after Frank Brushaber of New York lost his case against the Union Pacific Railroad for withholding a portion of the annual dividend he expected to receive from having invested in Union Pacific Railroad. He argued that he was not subject to the tax because Union Pacific Railroad with headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah, was a corporation of the state and not subject to federal taxation. He lost his case on the single issue  that  Union  Pacific  Railroad  was  a  corporation  chartered  by  Congress  whose headquarters  were  established  in  Salt  Lake  City  when  Utah  was  still  a  Territory  of  the United States. Thus, Union Pacific Railroad was domestic to the United States government and the nature of the corporation did not change when the people of the Territory of Utah were allowed to form a State and enter the Union.

 Treasury Decision 2313 (Mar. 21, 1916)

Just  a  few  days  after  his  case  was  settled,  the  Commissioner  of  the  Internal  Revenue referred to Mr. Brushaber as a nonresident alien in Treasury Decision 2313 when he wrote:

“Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway [sic] Co., decided January 24, 1916, it is hereby held that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporation is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913.” Treasury Decision 2313, March 21, 1916

 As a citizen of New York, Frank Brushaber was not living in territory that belonged to the United States government, nor was he intrinsically a citizen of the United States. Thus he was  identified  as  a  nonresident  alien  by  the  Commissioner  of  the  Internal  Revenue.  By purchasing bonds of a federally chartered corporation he entered into a privileged capacity with the United States government and his income in the form of the dividends from bonds issued by a federally chartered corporation was taxable by the United States government. By  the  ownership  of  those  bonds,  he  was  engaged  in  the  trade  or  business  within  the United States. His legal standing as a citizen of New York and subsequent classification as a nonresident alien with respect to the United States is in perfect harmony with the notion that the States of the Union are separate, distinct, and foreign to the United States.

 Corporations  are  classified  as  domestic  on  one  hand  and  foreign  or  nonresident  on  the other  hand.  A  domestic  corporation  is  one  that  operates  within  the  territory  of  the government  that  creates  it.  A  foreign  or  nonresident  corporation  is  one  that  operates  in territory  outside  of  the  territory  of  the  government  that  creates  it.  Thus,  a  corporation created by the State of California is domestic to California, while a Delaware corporation operating  within  California  is  foreign  or  nonresident  to  California.  This  same  principle applies to corporations created by the United States government.

 ooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 28 of 40

 COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM DELINEATED

 Now can be seen how the two sides of the puzzle fit together to accomplish cooperative federalism among the State and federal governments within American political arangement.

 From the side of the States of the Union:

 - Each State in the Union is a complete government with its own constitution, its own citizens, its own legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, its own elected and appointed officials to operate the government, and retains every right to protect its integrity;

- The States of the Union are to control all the policies and activities of the United States government collectively through their elected officials sent to Congress;

 - The people of the States of the Union as well as the District of Columbia elect the president and vice-president of the United States through the vote of their electors as part of the Electoral College;

 The laws of each of the States operate only within its borders, and its laws do not invade any land within its borders that have been ceded to the United States, except by mutual agreement;

 - Each of the States of the Union is sovereign and foreign to the others, as well as to the United States.

 Conversely, from the side of the United States government:

 - Where the U.S. Constitution delegates responsibility to the United States, the federal government is to coordinate and standardize certain government functions and the Acts of Congress may operate within the States of the Union and take precedence over State law;

 - Where the delegation of authority to the United States is absent from the U.S. Constitution, the Acts of Congress do not invade the territory of the States of the Union and federal law is foreign to the State;

 - The Acts of Congress give direction to the executive and judicial branches of the United States government;

 - The United States government is to be the exclusive representative of American political interests to the world;

 - The United States has exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, the territories of the United States, and enclaves within a State ceded to the United States government, and it is over these places that the United States has inherent jurisdiction and sovereignty.

 Any  other  operation  of  law  between  a  State  and  the  federal  government  is  done  on  the basis of contract or comity. Insofar as the agents of government operate contrary to these restrictions, their actions are based on sophistry. So far as I am aware, there has not been a second revolution in America to throw off the principle of cooperative federalism. There appear to be many in the employ of the federal government who would like to dissolve the States of the Union, convert their territories into property of the federal government, and thereby turn America into a single nation for the purpose of building the federal empire and leaving the citizens with no fundamental or natural rights. Likewise there appear to be  many State officials who have acquiesced to the 

 Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 29 of 40

 demands of the federal agents to increase control  over  the  lives  of  the  citizens  of  the  States.  Only  as  We  the  People  exercise  our unalienable rights and respectfully demand that our governments, both State and federal, carry out their proper functions within the rule of law will liberty ring long upon the land of America.

 THE TERRITORIES, THE INCHOATE STATES OF THE UNITED STATES

 One of the issues that complicates our understanding of how the Acts of Congress are to be carried out is the fact that the United States government is in possession of a number of territories and has exclusive authority to pass legislation for those territories in the same manner as it has over the District of Columbia. The territories of the United States do not enjoy the same status that the States of the Union have with respect to the United States government. Consider the following cases.

 Smith v. United States (1869) Territory of Washington

 “In a qualified sense, territorial courts are United States courts. They exercise the combined jurisdiction of Circuit and District Courts of the United States.”

“A Territory is not a State, nor is the word State used as synonymous with Territory.”

 “A Territory is not a State. Nor are the words ‘Territory’ and ‘State’ used as synonymous or convertible terms in the acts of Congress.”

 “Besides, a Territory sustains no such relations to the government of the United States as does a State. The several States of the Union possess all the powers and attributes of independent nations, except such as they have delegated by the Constitution to the United States. Not so with a Territory.” Smith v. United States, 1 Wash. T. 262 (1869)

 Territory v. Alexander (Mar. 22, 1907) Supreme Court of Arizona

 “A territory is not a sovereignty. Such legislative powers as it may possess are delegated powers which may be granted or withheld at the will of Congress.” Territory v. Alexander, 11 Ariz. 172, 89 P. 514 (1907)

 While it was true in 1869 that the words “Territory” and “State” were not synonymous or convertible terms in the Acts of Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court found in the case of O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 53 S.Ct. 740 (1933), that a territory is a state as that word is used in treaties with foreign powers, such as the Treaty of Paris with Spain for  the  insular  possessions  in  1899,  for  the  purpose  of  ownership,  disposition  and inheritance  of  property.  The  territories  are  inchoate  states  under  the  sovereignty  of  the United States. Notice these explanations.

86 Corpus Juris Secundum, § 10

 § 10 — “State” Compared and Distinguished

 “The word ‘state’ is often used in contradistinction to ‘territory,’ and it is only in exceptional cases that the word applies to a territory. The chief distinction between a state and territory is in the matter of sovereignty and the relation of each to the government of the United States.”

 Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 30 of 40

 “Embryo or inchoate state. Although a territory has been regarded as an embryo or inchoate state, the use of the term ‘territory’ does not necessarily involve the idea or promise of future statehood.” 86 Corpus Juris Secundum, Territories § 10.

 O’Donoghue v. United States (May 29, 1933) U.S. Supreme Court

 “The impermanent character of these governments has often been noted. Thus, it has been said, ‘The territorial state is one of pupilage at best,’ Nelson v. United States (C.C.) 30 F. 112, 115; ‘A territory, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, is an inchoate state,’ Ex parte Morgan, (D.C.) 20 F. 298, 305; ‘During the term of their pupilage as Territories, they are mere dependencies of the United States.’ Snow v. United States, 18 Wall. 317, 320, 21 L.Ed. 784.” O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.s. 516, 53 S.Ct. 740 (1933)

 The  United  States  Supreme  Court  did  what  they  called  an  “exhaustive  review”  of  the differences  between  the  Article  III  courts  which  were  created  as  a  forum  for  resolving disputes  between  citizens  of  foreign  states  (States  of  the  Union)  on  one  hand  and  the territorial or legislative courts created under Articles I and IV in the case of O’Donoghue, supra. Shepard’s shows that this case has not  been  reversed,  overturned,  or  modified  by any later ruling. Following is a quote from that case showing the limited jurisdiction of the United States government with respect to the States of the Union, references to two U.S. tax code sections, and my comments.

 O’Donoghue v. United States (May 29, 1933) U.S. Supreme Court

 “As the only judicial power vested in Congress is to create courts whose judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, it necessarily follows that, if Congress authorizes the creation of courts and the appointment of judges for a limited time, it must act independently of the Constitution and upon territory which is not part of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution.” O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 53 S.Ct. 740 (1933)

26 U.S.C., § 7441 states, “There is hereby established, under article I of the Constitution of the United States, a court of record to be known as the United States Tax Court. The members of the Tax Court shall be the chief judge and the judges of the Tax Court.”

 26 U.S.C., § 7443(e), “Membership…” states, “(e) Term of Office. – The term of office of any judge of the Tax Court shall expire 15 years after he takes office.”

 It is clear from these Title 26 code sections that the U.S. Tax Court is an Article I court whose judges serve for a limited time, namely 15 years. When we consider the significance of the O’Donoghue ruling quoted above, we see that the U.S. Tax Court and the issues that would  properly  be  accepted  in  Tax  Court,  as  well  as  the  administrative  procedures established under the Internal Revenue Code and its regulations, have nothing to do with the States of the Union and/or the people who live therein, except as an individual may have entered into some privileged capacity with respect to the federal government or any of its instrumentalities.

 How  does  Congress  get  away  with  making  all  those  references  to  the  “States”  in  the Internal  Revenue  Code?  

In  that  same  O’Donoghue  ruling,  the  court  set  out  four  general conclusions regarding the differences between the States of the Union on one hand and the District of Columbia and the territories on the other:

 Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 31 of 40

 “1. That the District of Columbia and the territories are not states within the judicial clause of the Constitution giving jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different states:

 “2. That territories are not states within the meaning of Rev. St. section 709, permitting writs of error from this court in cases where the validity of a state statute is drawn in question;

 “3. That the District of Columbia and the territories are states as that word is used in treaties with foreign powers, with respect to the ownership, disposition, and inheritance of property;

 “4. That the District of Columbia and the territories are not within the clause of the Constitution providing for the creation of a supreme court and such inferior courts as ‘Congress may see fit to establish.’”

 The  third  conclusion  in  the  list  is  at  odds  with  the  other  conclusions  (as  well  as  our common understanding of what the word “state” means) and it appears to be the basis upon which Congress uses the word “state” in Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code. Under the treaty with Spain, the territories (insular possessions) were called “states” for the purpose of ownership, disposition, and inheritance of property. These states include such territories as  the  Philippines  (which  elected  to  become  independent  of  the  United  States  in  1946), Puerto Rico, The U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.  It  is  these  inchoate  states,  and  not  the  sovereign  States  of  the  Union,  that  are subject to the Internal Revenue Code. Neither does Congress include any of the States of the Union in the general definition of the terms United States” or “State” in Title 26. There are two code sections in the Internal Revenue Code that make reference to “the 50 States” (§ 4612(a)(4) & § 6103(b)), but Congress makes it clear that these definitions of “the 50 States” do not have a general application as each definition applies only in a limited sense of that code section or subchapter. Moreover, Congress deleted references to Alaska and Hawaii  in  Title  26  as  each  of  these  Territories  was  admitted  into  the  Union  thereby recognizing that the Internal Revenue Code has no inherent operation within the States of the Union. (See Alaska Omnibus Act, P.L. 86-70, 73 Stat. 141 and Hawaii Omnibus Act, P.L. 86-624, 74 Stat. 411 where references to Alaska and Hawaii were removed from the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 “each relating to a special definition of ‘State”’.)

 The  federal  codes  typically  refer  to  the  “States  of  the  United  States”  as  places  where federal law has operation. But it is critically important to make the distinction between the “States of the United States,” that is, those states that belong to the United States (i.e., the territories),  and  the  “States  of  the  Union,”  which  do  not  belong  to  the  United  States government,  but  which  formed  The  United  States  of  America  under  the  Articles  of Confederation before there was a U.S. Constitution and a federal government in America. The  federal  government  is  a  creation  of  the  people  of  the  States  of  the  Union,  and  the States  of  the  Union  have  not  become  absorbed  into  the  federal  government  which  they created. Of course, most of those working for the federal government and the legal system have  it  turned  around  exactly  backwards  and  no  one  in  that  government  today  wants  to look at the conclusions of the O’Donoghue case because it would put real restrictions on the operations of the federal empire.

 Title 26, The Internal Revenue Code, applies inherently only to the inchoate “States of the United  States”  and  has  no  inherent  application  within  the  sovereign  States  of  the  Union and the people who reside therein. In 1962, to clarify the meaning of the word “State” in federal tax statutes, the Secretary of the Treasury wrote definitions for the terms “State” and “United States” at 26 CFR § 31.3132(e)-i. In his own words:

 Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 32 of 40

 26 CFR § 3l.3132(e)-1

 “(a) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term ‘State’ includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States, and (when used with respect to services performed after 1960) Guam and American Samoa.

 “(b) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term ‘United States’, when used in a geographical sense, means the several states (including the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States), the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. When used in the regulations in this subpart with respect to services performed after 1960, the term ‘United States’ also includes Guam and American Samoa when the term is used in a geographical sense. The term ‘citizen of the United States’ includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.” [Bold added.] 26 CFR § 31.3132(e)-1

 This regulation shows that the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States understood that each of the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii, which were under the sovereignty and legislative jurisdiction of the United States government as inchoate States before admission to the Union, no longer qualified as “States” as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations for  Title  26,  the  Internal  Revenue  Code,  after  admission  into  the  Union.  As  Congress admitted  each  of  these  entities  into  the  Union,  they  were  thereby  granted  a  separate sovereignty  on  the  same  footing  as  the  original  States  that  formed  The  United  States  of America.  The  relationship  of  the  United  States  government  with  respect  to  Alaska  and Hawaii  was  not  the  same  before  as  it  now  is  after  the  admission  of  these  Territories  as States of the Union. Before their admission into the Union they were subject to the United States government in every way and their representatives in Congress had only observer status. However, upon admission to the Union, the representatives of Alaska and Hawaii in Congress  joined  the  representatives  from  the  other  States  of  the  Union  in  providing direction to the United States government through their votes in Congress. Moreover, the United  States  government  lost  its  inherent  sovereignty  over  these  former  Territories  and was now restricted from exercising any authority over these new sovereign States where the delegation of authority was absent from the U.S. Constitution. While the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii were part and parcel of the United States, upon admission to the Union as  States,  they  each  became  separate,  distinct,  independent,  and  foreign  to  the  United States government— taking on the same character as the other States of the Union from the inception of our political alliance.

 There is, then, a double application for the word “State” in American history and law. The territories  and  insular  possessions  of  the  United States  are  inchoate  States  of  the  United States because they belong to the United States government. These inchoate States of the United States must not be confused with the sovereign States of the Union which banded together under the Articles of Confederation to make The United States of America and soon  after  created  the  United  States  government  via  the  U.S.  Constitution  and  thereby established the principle of cooperative federalism as part of American political life.

 Both Congress and the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury have been careful to artfully define these terms in compliance with the concept of cooperative federalism and the rulings of the  rulings of the Supreme Court.

Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 33 of 40

Unfortunately, few seem to understand the distinction between the 50 sovereign States of the Union and the 22 inchoate States of the United States which we usually  refer  to  as  the  territories.  The  territories  have  no  sovereignty  as  they  are  the property of the United States government. Thus, the term “States of the United States” as expressed  in  federal  codes  and  regulations  normally  includes  only  the  territories  as inchoate states which belong to the United States.

 The  Internal  Revenue  Code  and  the  regulations  which  give  guidance  to  its  proper implementation  are  internal  to  the  federal  government,  its  instrumentalities,  and  the territories upon which Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction, but not the States of the Union. It naturally follows that the administrative  procedure  set forth in the Internal Revenue  Code  and  the  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  is  incorrectly  applied  by  federal officials  to  individuals  living  within  the  territory  of  the  sovereign  States  of  the  Union. Pursuant  to  O’Donoghue,  such  application  appears  to  be  unconstitutional  as  it  oversteps the   authority   delegated   to   the   United   States   government   in   the   U.S.   Constitution. Moreover, it is contrary to the principle of cooperative federalism.

 THEY CANT, BUT THEY DO

 Our   most   fundamental   documents   (i.e.,   U.S.   and   State   Constitutions)   place   clear limitations on the government’s authority to take action against citizens. These limitations were in place for the protection, security, and general welfare of the people—to prevent the agents  of  government  from  becoming  a  uniformed  gang  acting  against  individuals  or groups within American society without just cause or due process of law. Our government officials,  both  State  and  federal,  are  required  to  observe  and  promote  these  limitations. Throughout our history some of the best analytical minds have upheld these principles of law in favor of the liberties of individual citizens in a free society. The government even promotes the rhetoric of these freedoms around the celebration of Independence Day when it  does  its  best  to  generate  feelings  of  patriotism  by  extolling  the  virtues  of  liberty.  But often the promotion of personal freedom is tied to the concept of obedience to government so that the citizen is led to believe that obedience to government is the essence of liberty. However, it is a truism that personal liberty is self-determined and self—directed.

 In spite of the limitations embodied in law, there are those in control of the machinery of government  who  continue  in  their  efforts  to  build  the  empire  of  the  governments  and unwittingly  chip  away  at  the  free  exercise  of  the  unalienable  rights  of  the  people.  One example is the widely held misunderstanding that one must have a Social Security Number (SSN) in order to get a job and work in America. However, every State in the Union is a right to work State, which means that there can be no law that requires a person to seek permission  from the  government  in  order  to  make  a  living.  Americans  have  the  right  to contract  and  the  U.S.  Constitution  restricts  the  government  from  making  any  law  that would impair or diminish that right. The Social Security Administration has confirmed in writing that it is not necessary for a person to have an SSN in order to work or live in the United States. Here it is in their own words:

  Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 34 of 40

 Letter from Dept. of HHS (Mar. 24, 1995)

“The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security number (SSN) to live or work in the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one.”

 “We do not have the authority to require an employer to provide or deny employment or services to anyone who refuses to disclose his or her number. This is a matter between the individual and the employer.” Department of Health & Human Services letter from Vincent Sanudo, Director, Office of Public Inquiries, March 24, 1995.

 Can there be any mistake about what this means for those in the work place? Providing an SSN to an employer is an optional, voluntary act, done, if at all, as an agreement between the employer and the employee, but not as a requirement of law. Taco Bell learned this several years ago when one of its employees refused to supply an SSN to the corporation. The corporation consequently refused to pay the employee his earnings under the notion that an SSN was required by law for employment. The employee filed a grievance with the Equal  Employment  Opportunity  Commission  (EEOC)  which  carried  on  the  negotiations with  Pepsi  Co,  the  parent  company  of  Taco  Bell.  The  result  was  that  Taco  Bell  was required to pay the employee his full earnings without the employee submitting an SSN. Moreover,  the  Taco  Bell  employment  application  (form  PCN  98118  Rev.  5/98)  now clearly  states  that  an  SSN  is  “optional”.  Stop  by  your  local  Taco  Bell  and  pick  up  this application  form  just  to  see  for  yourself.  This  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  26  CFR  § 31.3402(n)  &  (p)  which  specifies  that  the  withholding  must  be  at  the  desire  of  the employee and that the withholding agreement may be canceled at any time by either the employer or the employee. As Americans, we have the right to the fruits of our industry. That means  the worker is entitled to one’s full  earnings  without  government  taxation  or any other interference.

 Another example of chipping away at the free exercise of one’s rights is the practice of direct  taxation  by  the  federal  government.  The  U.S.  Constitution  prohibits  the  direct taxation  of  individuals  by  the  federal  government  in  Article  I,  section  9,  clause  4.  It  is widely  misunderstood  today  that  the  16th  Amendment  (the  income  tax  amendment) removed  this  restriction.  But  some  24  years  after  the  16th  Amendment  was  declared ratified, the Alabama Supreme Court had this to say about the authority of the federal and State governments to tax citizens:

 Beeland Wholesale Co. v. Kaufman (Mar. 18, 1937) Supreme Court of Alabama

 “State may tax its citizens personally provided no Constitutional restriction is violated, but federal government cannot tax citizens personally except in proportion to census.” [Bold added.] Beeland Wholesale Co. v. Kaufman, 174 So. 516 (1937)

 Perhaps   in   the   intervening   years   since   this   conclusion   was   a   made   we’ve   simply overlooked  this  rule  of  law.  Yet,  every  year  in  April  (“tax  time”)  the  media  dutifully carries stories about individuals or businesses that have failed or refused to file federal tax returns and the ominous results that are sure to follow. Rarely is there any mention of the lawful  limitations  on  the  government’s  authority  to  actually  collect  a  direct  tax  on  the ordinary citizen working to make a living regardless of the amount earned. These stories amount to nothing more than intimidation by agents of the government and the government licensed  media,  and  the  stories  must  be  understood  in  their  proper  context.  To  be  sure, there are individuals and businesses that certainly have a federal tax liability, but a careful review of the law shows that the federal authority for taxation applies to very few who live and work in the States of the Union.

Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 35 of 40

 Yet another vexing issue is the presumption that the laws of the United States controlling illicit drug use have inherent application within the States of the Union. A thorough search of the U.S. Constitution turns up no delegation of authority from the citizens of the States of the Union to the United States government regarding the enforcement of illicit drug use. So how do the agents and agencies of the United States government lawfully enforce these laws within the States of the Union without constitutional authority? The commerce clause, you  say?  If  a  constitutional  amendment  was  needed  to  enforce  the  laws  of  the  United States within the States of the Union for the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol in  the  days  of  prohibition,  why  is  a  constitutional  amendment  not  needed  for  the  same enforcement authority regarding the illicit use of drugs? The federal government’s “war on drugs” should be carried out within its jurisdiction, which includes the coastline, navigable waterways, and exterior borders of the States of the Union, until an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is proposed by Congress and adopted by the required number of States of the Union.

 Several States have amended their constitutions and statutes to allow for the medical use and  cultivation  of  marijuana.  The  federal  courts  have  no  authority  to  nullify  these provisions  of  State  law  except  as  a  certain  provision  might  be  in  conflict  with  the  U.S. Constitution. The commerce clause does not apply since there is no commercial activity involved. And the commerce clause does not apply to intrastate commerce. Because the U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue of personal drug use, federal drug laws are foreign to the States of the Union and the federal courts trample on the Tenth Amendment to the U.S.  Constitution,  as  well  as  the  rights  and  liberties  of  individuals,  whenever  it  applies federal  drug  laws  to  people  within  the  States  of  the  Union.  The  laws  of  the  State  take precedence  over  any  federal  law,  code,  statute,  or  regulation  where  federal  law  has  no constitutional foundation.

 I do not make this argument because I have any sympathy for drug use—I certainly don’t! But when it comes to the authority of the federal government, the authority of the State, and the rights of the individual, the most fundamental documents in our society place the individual   first.   Moreover,   the   States   of   the   Union   have   priority   over   the   federal government  except  for  those  things  that  have  been  specifically  delegated  to  the  federal government. Any federal statute, code, or regulation that is not founded on the Constitution is foreign to the State.

 A description of how we got ourselves into this mess would require a lengthy historical account  which  is  beyond  the  scope  of  this  essay.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  Americans  have generally  acquiesced  to  the  demands  of  the  agents  of  the  federal  government  not  out  of respect for, but general ignorance of, the law and the limitations of federal authority. What is certain is that careful study and application of specific provisions for taxation, drug use, and  other  issues  will  be  necessary  for  getting  the  mess  straightened  out  so  that  those  in charge of the machinery of government understand and operate according to the limitations of the law. Vigilance is the price of freedom, which is never really free. A citizen has the responsibility  to  be  informed  and  to  do  one’s  best  to  promote  the  understanding  that government must operate within its proper realm. One U.S. Supreme Court jurist said it this way:

  Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 36 of 40

 American Communications Ass’n v. Douds (May 8, 1950) U.S. Supreme Court

“It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.” American Communications Ass’n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382; 70 S.Ct. 674 (1950)

 This principle applies most strongly to those who serve in the employ of the government. They should know both the authority under which they operate and the limitations of that authority, and be willing to hue to the law in all circumstances. This will manifest itself when the love for personal liberty is a priority in the government workplace.

 The agents of the United States government have been attempting to expand their empire by stealth, misinformation, sophistry, coercion, and otherwise in a variety of ways for many years. But the only way that the jurisdiction of the federal government can legitimately be expanded is by the amendment process. However, the bottom line seems to be this: U.S. government officials and agents will continue to push for the expansion of their authority and power so long as the population generally goes along with the programs. The conundrum in our “free society” is that all too often the general population is quite willing, even eager, to give up fundamental rights in exchange for the ease of government solutions to either real or imagined problems. There is plenty of blame to go around for this—politicians, bureaucrats, journalists, historians, attorneys, courts, etc. But ultimately, the individual is responsible.

 THE IMPORTANCE OF PERSONAL LIBERTY

 Personal  liberty  is  the cornerstone  of  American  society.  The  majority  of those  who  first arrived on American soil came here to escape the religious intolerance of the governments of  Europe.  In  many  places  in  the  Old  World,  coercive  measures  had  been  instituted  to ensure compliance. Unfortunately, the Puritan leaders in America had not learned the great lessons of personal liberty and their governance led to the Salem witch hunts and scarlet letters. There was no room for the free expression of one’s thoughts if those thoughts were divergent from that of the political leaders. Roger Williams established Rhode Island as a place where the civil government offered respect for equality of opinions before the law and incorporated liberty of conscience as the cornerstone of its government’s limitations. This became the model of government followed by other colonies as well as the model for the  Bill  of  Rights  when  the  federal  government  was  formed.  Americans  have  a  proud tradition of promoting personal freedom.

 Personal liberty is a most powerful ingredient in society, not only to satisfy the inherent yearning of the human spirit to be free, but for several very practical societal concerns. R.J. Rummel,  political  science  professor  emeritus  at  the  University  of  Hawaii,  has  analyzed statistical  data  from  190  countries  and  70  variables,  and  published  the  results  and  his conclusions  in  his  book  Saving  Lives,  Enriching  Life.  In  the  overview  of  this  book  he states:

 Saving Lives, Enriching Life (Jan. 17, 2001)

 “Our accumulated scientific and scholarly knowledge, and the results of vast social and economic experiments involving billions of people over three centuries, now enable us to claim, with even more confidence than saying that orange juice is good for you, that we can creeate perpetual peace, long life and secure lives, abundant food, wealth, and prosperity.” R.J. Rummel, Saving Lives, Enriching Life, www2.hawaii.edu/powerkills, p. 3, January 17, 2001.

 Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 37 of 40

 What is it that promotes these values? Freedom. The central theme that runs through his book  is  that  freedom promotes  the  best  of  what  is  good  in  the  world  and  works  against undesirable  results.  Drawing  on  the  broad  data  available,  Rummel  explains  in  graphic detail how freedom is a human right and promotes social justice, economic, scientific and technological  development,  agricultural  production,  low  rates  of  violence  and  crime, personal satisfaction, political stability, and is a solution to war and a moral good. In short, freedom is a human right that creates prosperity and human security.

Compared with other societies where personal liberty has not been respected, America is a beacon  of  hope  to  the  downtrodden  yearning  to  be  free.  But  could  freedoms  be  lost  in America? Might there be forces at work to erode the personal liberties that Americans have historically enjoyed and perhaps taken for granted? Have freedoms already been lost that were enjoyed by Americans in years past? Certainly. Rummel’s data show that government coercion  is  counterproductive  to  the  good  of  society  as  a  solution  to  a  wide  range  of problems. If freedom creates prosperity and human security, then power impoverishes and kills.

 American society has flourished primarily because of the profound respect for the personal liberty  and  the  limitations  on  government  action  that  is  embodied  in  America’s  most fundamental documents. As governments become stronger and encroach on the rights of individuals, those limitations are weakened, American society suffers the consequences of an  exacting,  perhaps  intolerant  government  and,  step-by-step,  the  people  lose  their freedoms.

 CONCLUSION

 I  began  this  essay  by  stating  that  my  purpose  was  to  expose  the  fallacy  of  the  assumed premise that federal law supercedes State law and that the United States of America is one nation.  I’ve  traced  the  history  and  law  that  shows  that  the  States  of  the  Union  are  fully nations in their own right that are separate, distinct, and foreign to each other and to the United States government as well. This is not just an interesting historical construct; it is the current legal and political relationship the States of the Union have with respect to the United States government.

 In any given Act of Congress, it is important to determine whether the Act is founded on some  part  of  the  U.S.  Constitution  whereby  the  States  of  the  Union  have  delegated authority to the United States government and thereby bound themselves and the people who live therein to the Acts of Congress on that issue. Without the proper delegation of authority, the Acts of Congress apply only to the territory belonging to the United States and such Acts have no legal operational effect within the States of the Union. Moreover, without  this  delegation  of  authority,  the  agents  of  the  United  States  government  are without  authority  to  enforce  the  Acts  of  Congress,  Presidential  Executive  Orders,  or regulations created by any secretary of the president’s cabinet.

 The  principle  of  cooperative  federalism,  one  of  the  most  fundamental  principles  of American history and law, is based on the notion that the States of the Union are separate, distinct, and foreign to the United States

 Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 38 of 40

 government. This principle served as the basis for establishing  the  United  States  government  in  its  own  territory  called  the  District  of Columbia  where  it  has  exclusive  jurisdiction,  while  it  has  only  limited,  enumerated jurisdiction  outside  of  the  federal  district.  It  is  the  basis  upon  which  the  name  of  the legislative body for the United States government was determined to be Congress” where envoys of sovereign States meet to work out solutions to common problems. It is the basis upon  which  the  U.S.  Supreme  Court  could  cite  Great  Britain  and  New  Jersey  as  two countries equal to each other for the purpose of citizenship and inheritance of property. It is the basis upon which the citizens of a State have access to the federal district courts to file suit  against  a  citizen  of  another  State  where  diversity  of  citizenship  or  settling  a  federal question is a prerequisite to the jurisdiction of federal courts. It has only been since World War II or so that we’ve lost sight of this fundamental legal principle. Losing sight of this principle  has  given  those  in  control  of  the  machinery  of  government  a  tremendous advantage over “we the people”.

 The United States government is a federal government and not a national government. It is not  an  umbrella  government  that  has  supremacy  or  general  legislative  jurisdiction,  or sovereignty over the States of the Union and the people who live therein. The States of the Union   are   not   cantons,   districts,   territories,   or   subdivisions   of   the   United   States government; nor are they States of the United States, that is, States belonging to the federal government.  The  50  States  are  a  collection  of  fully  grown  up  nations  that  make  up  the Union which we call The United States of America.

 Personal liberty is the cornerstone of American society. Personal liberty and the necessary limitations on government activity are the most powerful aspects of American society that have made and kept America the land of the free. Individual freedom is a human right that is at the heart of social justice, economic, scientific, and technological advancement, food production, personal satisfaction, low rates of violence and crime, political stability, and peace.  Without  personal  liberty, America  would not be the beacon of hope to the world that  it  has  been  throughout  its  history.  Without  vigilance  to  preserve  freedom  as  an unalienable right, America runs the risk of losing its historical stance in favor of personal liberty. Perhaps in some instances, it has already happened.

It  is  only  when  government  operates  within  its  proper  limitations  that  the  liberties  of individuals and society can be preserved. For too many years, bureaucrats have operated as if the only limitations were on the people making up American society generally and not on  themselves  as  the  agents  of  government.  If  we  ever  hope  to  restore  the  proper operations of our federal and State governments as governments of limited authority, and preserve our unalienable rights, privileges, immunities, and freedoms, those who serve in government  must  come  to  cherish  these  limitations  as  passionately  as  did  the  Founding Fathers.

 Also, although the courts say the things evidenced herein, there is a fraud going on. As there are conflicting statements put out by the courts due to the 14th Amendment system we request that you read: http://www.pacinlaw.org/pdf/Some_Questions.php

 

 

 

The above set out text of the Panphlet titled COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM Written by Mr. Gerald brown was dowmloaded from the internet for the enlightment and intellectual knowledge of the readers of the articles on this web sight, which will, hopefully entice those readers to show their appreciation for Mr. Brown dedicated work by purching copies of his work from the following address. By way of first hand knowledge, I can strongly recommend a copy of the book “In their Own Words,” as additional reading to firmly cement the concepts reviewed in the pamplets in your own mind.  I receive no commercial benefit for inclucing the material here.

Ken Creamer, Web Site Manager

 Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 39 of 40

 

 INFORMATION ON ORDERING THE ABOVE AND ACCOMPANIMENT INFORMATION:

 This treatise is available in booklets. They are convenient to give to people whom you wish  to  inform  and  educate.  The  updated  version  of  Cooperative  Federalism,  How  the States  of  the  Union  are  Separate,  Distinct,  and  Foreign  to  the  United  States. This is a 70 page book that I sell for $7 plus $2 for shipping. The special price on this book for PAC patrons:

 $8 for 1 book includes shipping.

$15 for 2 books includes shipping.

$21 for 3 books includes shipping.

Add $6 for each additional book up to 9

$60 for 10 books includes shipping.

 Also there is the 450 page book “In Their Own Words” which is composed of over 1700 citations with more than 6,000 cross references and three indexes for serious study.  The book is compiled exclusively of extracts from federal and state authorities establishing the jurisdictional  authority  of  the  federal  and  state  governments.   The  book  draws  special attention  to  the  issues  of  sovereignty,  citizenship,  the  rights  of  Americans, the  binding nature of regulations, construction and interpretation of law, federal taxation, and remedies for the innocent.  It is written in 9.5 font with 3/4 inch margins, so the pages are packed. There is a $50 charge to cover costs on this book.

 Send check or blank U.S. postal money order to:

 Gerald Brown

1040 S. Mt. Vernon Avenue G-118

Colton, California   92324

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cooperative Federalism  [v.040408]                                                                                                      Page 40 of 40

Leave a Reply