Chapter 4: The Three United States

In the previous chapter, a handy matrix was developed to organize the key terms which define the concepts of status and jurisdiction as they apply to federal income taxation. In particular, an alien is any individual who is not a United States** citizen. The term "citizen" has a specific meaning in the regulations which promulgate the Internal Revenue Code (IRC):
 
     Every person  born or  naturalized in  the United States and 
     subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. 
 
                                [26 CFR 1.1-1(c), emphasis added] 
 
What, then, is meant by the term "United States" and what is meant by the phrase "its jurisdiction"? In this regulation, is the term "United States" a singular phrase, a plural phrase, or is it both? The astute reader has already noticed that an important clue is given by regulations which utilize the phrase "its jurisdiction". The term "United States" in this regulation must be a singular phrase, otherwise the regulation would need to utilize the phrase "their jurisdiction" or "their jurisdictions" to be grammatically correct.

As early as the year 1820, the U.S. Supreme Court was beginning to recognize that the term "United States" could designate either the whole, or a particular portion, of the American empire. In a case which is valuable, not only for its relevance to federal taxation but also for its terse and discrete logic, Chief Justice Marshall exercised his characteristic brilliance in the following passage:

 
     The power,  then, to  lay and  collect duties,  imposts, and 
     excises, may  be exercised, and must be exercised throughout 
     the United  States.   Does this term designate the whole, or 
     any particular  portion of  the American  empire?  Certainly 
     this question  can admit  of but one answer.  It is the name 
     given to our great republic, which is composed of states and 
     territories.   The District  of Columbia,  or the  territory 
     west of  the Missouri, is not less within the United States* 
     than Maryland or Pennsylvania .... 
 
                  [Loughborough vs Blake, 15 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317] 
                              [5 L.Ed. 98 (1820), emphasis added] 
 
By 1945, the year of the first nuclear war on planet Earth, the Supreme Court had come to dispute Marshall's singular definition, but most people were too distracted to notice. The high Court confirmed that the term "United States" can and does mean three completely different things, depending on the context:
 
     The term  "United States"  may be used in any one of several 
     senses.   [1] It  may be  merely the  name of  a  sovereign* 
     occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns 
     in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory 
     over which  the sovereignty  of the United States** extends, 
     or [3]  it may be the collective name of the states*** which 
     are united by and under the Constitution. 
 
             [Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)] 
                           [brackets, numbers and emphasis added] 
 
This same Court authority is cited by Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, in its definition of "United States":
 
     United States.   This term has several meanings.  [1] It may 
     be merely  the name  of a  sovereign occupying  the position 
     analogous to  that of other sovereigns in family of nations, 
     [2] it  may designate  territory over  which sovereignty  of 
     United States  extends, or  [3] it may be collective name of 
     the states  which are  united by and under the Constitution. 
     Hooven &  Allison Co.  v. Evatt, U.S. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 
     S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252. 
 
                           [brackets, numbers and emphasis added] 
 
In the first sense, the term "United States*" can refer to the nation, or the American empire, as Justice Marshall called it. The "United States*" is one member of the United Nations. When you are traveling overseas, you would go to the U.S.* embassy for help with passports and the like. In this instance, you would come under the jurisdiction of the President, through his agents in the U.S.* State Department, where "U.S.*" refers to the sovereign nation. The Informer summarizes Citizenship in this "United States*" as follows:
 
     1.   I am  a Citizen  of the  United States*  like you are a 
     Citizen of  China.   Here you  have defined  yourself  as  a 
     National from a Nation with regard to another Nation.  It is 
     perfectly OK  to call  yourself a  "Citizen  of  the  United 
     States*."   This is  what everybody  thinks the tax statutes 
     are inferring.   But  notice the  capital "C" in Citizen and 
     where it is placed.  Please go back to basic English. 
 
                    [Which One Are You?, page 11, emphasis added] 
 
Secondly, the term "United States**" can also refer to "the federal zone", which is a separate nation-state over which the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. (See Appendix Y for a brief history describing how this second meaning evolved.) In this sense, the term "United States**" is a singular phrase. It would be proper, for example, to say, "The United States** is ..." or "Its jurisdiction is ..." and so on. The Informer describes citizenship in this United States** as follows:
 
     2.   I am  a United States** citizen.  Here you have defined 
     yourself as  a person  residing in the District of Columbia, 
     one of  its Territories,  or Federal enclaves (area within a 
     Union State)  or living abroad, which could be in one of the 
     States of the Union or a foreign country.  Therefore you are 
     possessed by  the entity  United States** (Congress) because 
     citizen is  small case.   Again  go back  to  basic  english 
     [sic].   This is  the "United States**" the tax statutes are 
     referring to.   Unless  stated otherwise,  such  as  26  USC 
     6103(b)(5). 
                    [Which One Are You?, page 11, emphasis added] 
 
Thirdly, the term "United States***" can refer to the 50 sovereign States which are united under the Constitution for the United States of America. In this third sense, the term "United States***" does not include the federal zone, because the Congress does not have exclusive legislative authority over any of the 50 sovereign States of the Union. In this sense, the term "United States***" is a plural, collective term. It would be proper therefore to say, "These United States***" or "The United States*** are ..." and so on. The Informer completes the trio by describing Citizenship in these "United States***" as follows:
 
     3.   I am  a Citizen  of these  United States***.   Here you 
     have defined  yourself as  a Citizen  of all  the 50  States 
     united by and under the Constitution.  You are not possessed 
     by the  Congress (United  States**).  In this way you have a 
     national domicile,  not a  State or United States** domicile 
     and are not subject to any instrumentality or subdivision of 
     corporate governmental entities. 
 
                [Which One Are You?, pages 11-12, emphasis added] 
 
Author and scholar Lori Jacques summarizes these three separate governmental jurisdictions in the same sequence, as follows:
 
     It is noticeable that Possessions of the United States** and 
     sovereign states  of the United States*** of America are NOT 
     joined under  the title  of "United  States."  The president 
     represents the  sovereign United  States* in foreign affairs 
     through treaties,  Congress represents  the sovereign United 
     States** in  Territories  and  Possessions  with  Rules  and 
     Regulations, and  the state  citizens are the sovereignty of 
     the United  States*** united  by and  under the Constitution 
     ....   After becoming  familiar with these historical facts, 
     it becomes  clear that in the Internal Revenue Code, Section 
     7701(a)(9), the  term "United  States**" is  defined in  the 
     second of  these senses  as stated by the Supreme Court:  it 
     designates the  territory over  which the sovereignty of the 
     United States** extends. 
 
                    [A Ticket to Liberty, Nov. 1990, pages 22-23] 
                            [emphasis added, italics in original] 
 
It is very important to note the careful use of the word "sovereign" by Chief Justice Stone in the Hooven case. Of the three different meanings of "United States" which he articulates, the United States is "sovereign" in only two of those three meanings. This is not a grammatical oversight on the part of Justice Stone. Sovereignty is not a term to be used lightly, or without careful consideration. In fact, it is the foundation for all governmental authority in America, because it is always delegated downwards from the true source of sovereignty, the People themselves. This is the entire basis of our Constitutional Republic. Sovereignty is so very important, an entire chapter of this book is later dedicated to this one subject (see Chapter 11 infra).

The federal zone over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends is the District of Columbia, the territories and possessions belonging to Congress, and a limited amount of land within the States of the Union, called federal "enclaves".

The Secretary of the Treasury can only claim exclusive jurisdiction over this federal zone and citizens of this zone. In particular, the federal enclaves within the 50 States can only come under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress if they consist of land which has been properly "ceded" to Congress by the act of a State Legislature. A good example of a federal enclave is a "ceded" military base. The authority to exercise exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the District of Columbia and the federal enclaves originates in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) of the U.S. Constitution. By virtue of the exclusive authority that is vested in Congress by this clause, Congress shall have the power:

 
     To exercise  exclusive Legislation  in all Cases whatsoever, 
     over such  District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, 
     by Cession  of particular  States,  and  the  Acceptance  of 
     Congress, become  the Seat  of the  Government of the United 
     States**, and  to exercise  like Authority  over all  Places 
     purchased by  the Consent of the Legislature of the State in 
     which  the  Same  shall  be,  for  the  Erection  of  Forts, 
     Magazines,   Arsenals,   dock-Yards,   and   other   needful 
     Buildings; 
 
                  [Constitution for the United States of America] 
                                [Article l, Section 8, Clause 17] 
                                                 [emphasis added] 
 
The power of Congress to exercise exclusive legislative authority over its territories and possessions, as distinct from the District of Columbia and the federal enclaves, is given by a different authority in the U.S. Constitution. This authority is Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2), as follows:
 
     The Congress  shall have  Power to  dispose of  and make all 
     needed Rules  and Regulations  respecting the  Territory  or 
     other Property belonging to the United States**; 
 
                  [Constitution for the United States of America] 
                                 [Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2] 
                                                 [emphasis added] 
 
Within these areas, it is essential to understand that the Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations which restrict its power in the areas of land over which the 50 States exercise their respective sovereign authorities:
 
     ... [T]he  United States** may acquire territory by conquest 
     or by  treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the 
     power of  Congress conferred  by Section  3 of Article IV of 
     the Constitution ....  In exercising this power, Congress is 
     not subject  to the same constitutional limitations, as when 
     it is  legislating for  the United  States***.  ...  And  in 
     general the  guaranties [sic]  of the  Constitution, save as 
     they are  limitations upon  the exercise  of  executive  and 
     legislative power  when exerted  for  or  over  our  insular 
     possessions,  extend  to  them  only  as  Congress,  in  the 
     exercise of  its legislative  power over territory belonging 
     to the  United States**,  has made  those  guaranties  [sic] 
     applicable. 
 
             [Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)] 
                                                 [emphasis added] 
 
In other words, the guarantees of the Constitution extend to the federal zone only as Congress makes those guarantees applicable, either to the territory or to the citizens of that zone, or both. Remember, this is the same Hooven case which officially defined three separate and distinct meanings of the term "United States". The Supreme Court ruled that this case would be the last time it would address official definitions of the term "United States". Therefore, the Hooven case must be judicially noticed by the entire American legal community. See Appendix W for other rulings and for citations to important essays published in the Harvard Law Review on the controversy that surrounds the meaning of "United States" even today. In particular, author Langdell's article "The Status of Our New Territories" is a key historical footing for the three Hooven definitions. To avoid confusion, be careful to note that Langdell arranges the three "United States" in a sequence that is different from that of Hooven:
 
     Thirdly. --   ...  [T]he term "United States" has often been 
     used to  designate all  territory over which the sovereignty 
     of the United States** extended.  [a tautology] 
 
     The conclusion,  therefore, is  that, while the term "United 
     States" has  three meanings,  only the  first and  second of 
     these are known to the Constitution;  and that is equivalent 
     to saying  that the  Constitution of the United States*** as 
     such does  not extend  beyond the limits of the States which 
     are united  by and  under it,  -- a proposition the truth of 
     which will,  it is  believed, be  placed beyond  doubt by an 
     examination of  the instances  in  which  the  term  "United 
     States" is used in the Constitution. 
 
                 [Langdell, "The Status of Our New Territories" ] 
                 [12 Harvard Law Review 365, 371, emphasis added] 
 
Note carefully that Langdell's third definition and Hooven's second definition both exhibit subtle tautologies, that is, they use the word they are defining in the definitions of the word defined. A careful reading of his article reveals that Langdell's third definition of "United States" actually implies the whole American "empire", namely, the States and the federal zone combined, making it identical to Justice Marshall's definition (see above). Therefore, because it contains a provable tautology, the second Hooven definition is clearly ambiguous too; it can be interpreted in at least two completely different ways: (1) as the federal zone only, or (2) as the 50 States and the federal zone combined (i.e., the whole "empire").

So now, what is "sovereignty" in this context? The definitive solution to this nagging ambiguity is found in the constitutional meaning of the word "exclusive". Strictly speaking, the federal government is "sovereign" over the 50 States only when it exercises one of a very limited set of powers enumerated for it in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. In this sense, the federal government does NOT exercise exclusive jurisdiction inside the 50 States of the Union; it does, however, exercise exclusive jurisdiction inside the federal zone. This exclusive authority originates from 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 in the U.S. Constitution, as quoted above. Now, apply sections 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 to the jurisdictional claims of the Secretary of the Treasury for the "internal" revenue laws, as follows:

 
     The term "United States**" when used in a geographical sense 
     includes any  territory under  the sovereignty of the United 
     States**.  It includes the states, the District of Columbia, 
     the possessions  and territories of the United States**, the 
     territorial waters  of the  United States**,  the air  space 
     over the  United States**,  and the  seabed and  subsoil  of 
     those submarine  areas which are adjacent to the territorial 
     waters of  the United  States** and  over which  the  United 
     States** has  exclusive rights,  in accordance with interna- 
     tional law, with respect to the exploration and exploitation 
     of natural resources. 
                              [26 CFR 1.911-2(g), emphasis added] 
                                       [note the tautology again] 
 
 
Here's the tautology, in case you missed it: 
 
     "United States" includes any territory under the sovereignty 
     of the  United States  and over  which the United States has 
     exclusive rights. 
 
This is very much like saying: 
 
     A potato is a plant that grows in a potato field. 
 
                            [Speech of Vice President Dan Quayle] 
                                     [1992 Campaign Spelling Bee] 
Notice also the singular form of the phrase "the United States** has ..."; notice also the pivotal term "exclusive rights". When this regulation says that the jurisdiction "includes the States", it cannot mean all the land areas enclosed within the boundaries of the 50 States, because Congress does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the 50 States. Within the 50 States, Congress only has exclusive jurisdiction over the federal enclaves inside the boundaries of the 50 States. These enclaves must have been officially "ceded" to Congress by an explicit act of the State Legislatures involved. Without a clear act of "cession" by one of the State legislatures, the 50 States retain their own exclusive, sovereign jurisdiction inside their borders, and Congress cannot lawfully take any of their own sovereign jurisdiction away from the States. This separation of powers is one of the key reasons why we have a "federal government" as opposed to a "national government"; its powers are limited to the set specifically enumerated for it by the Constitution.

Technically speaking, the 50 States are "foreign countries" with respect to each other and with respect to the federal zone. A key authority on this question is the case of Hanley vs Donoghue, in which the U.S. Supreme Court defined separate bodies of State law as being "foreign" with respect to each other:

 
     No court  is to  be charged  with the  knowledge of  foreign 
     laws;   but they are well understood to be facts which must, 
     like other facts, be proved before they can be received in a 
     court of  justice.   [cites omitted]   It  is  equally  well 
     settled that  the several  states of  the Union  are  to  be 
     considered as  in this  respect foreign  to each  other, and 
     that the  courts of  one state are not presumed to know, and 
     therefore not  bound to take judicial notice of, the laws of 
     another state. 
 
                  [Hanley vs Donoghue, 116 U.S. 1, 29 L. Ed. 535] 
                        [6 S.Ct. 242, 244 (1885), emphasis added] 
 
Another key Supreme Court authority on this question is the case of In re Merriam's Estate, 36 NE 505 (1894). Before you get the idea that this meaning of "foreign" is now totally antiquated, consider the current edition of Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, which defines "foreign state" very clearly, as follows:
 
     The several  United States***  are considered  "foreign"  to 
     each other  except as  regards  their  relations  as  common 
     members of  the Union.  ...   The term "foreign nations," as 
     used in  a statement  of the  rule that  the laws of foreign 
     nations should  be proved  in a  certain manner,  should  be 
     construed to  mean all nations and states other than that in 
     which the  action is  brought;   and hence  one state of the 
     Union is foreign to another, in the sense of that rule. 
 
                                                 [emphasis added] 
 
And a recent federal statute proves that Congress still refers to the 50 States as "countries". When a State court in Alaska needed a federal judge to handle a case overload, Congress amended Title 28 to make that possible. In its reference to the 50 States, the statute is titled the "Assignment of Judges to courts of the freely associated compact states". Then, Congress refers to these freely associated compact states as "countries":
 
     (b) The Congress consents to the acceptance and retention by 
     any judge  so authorized of reimbursement from the countries 
     referred to in subsection (a) ....                     [!!!] 
 
                        [28 U.S.C. 297, 11/19/88, emphasis added] 
 
Indeed, international law is divided roughly into two groups: (1) public international law and (2) private international law. As it turns out, citizenship is a term of private international law (also known as municipal law) in which the terms "state", "nation" and "country" are all synonymous:
 
          Private international  law  assumes  a  more  important 
     aspect in  the United  States than elsewhere, for the reason 
     that the  several states,  although united  under  the  same 
     sovereign authority  and governed  by the  same laws for all 
     national purposes  embraced by the Federal Constitution, are 
     otherwise, at  least so  far as private international law is 
     concerned, in  the same  relation as  foreign countries. The 
     great majority of questions of private international law are 
     therefore subject  to the same rules when they arise between 
     two states  of the  Union as  when they  arise  between  two 
     foreign countries,  and  in  the  ensuing  pages  the  words 
     "state," "nation,"  and "country"  are used synonymously and 
     interchangeably, there  being no  intention  to  distinguish 
     between  the   several  states  of  the  Union  and  foreign 
     countries by the use of varying terminology. 
 
         [16 Am Jur 2d, Conflict of Laws, Sec. 2, emphasis added] 
 
This foreign relationship between the 50 States and the federal zone is also recognized in the definition of a "foreign country" that is found in the Instructions for Form 2555, entitled "Foreign Earned Income", as follows:
 
     Foreign  Country.    A  foreign  country  is  any  territory 
     (including the  air space,  territorial waters,  seabed, and 
     subsoil) under  the sovereignty  of a  government other than 
     the United States**.  It does not include U.S.** possessions 
     or territories. 
 
             [Instructions for Form 2555:  Foreign Earned Income] 
           [Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service] 
                                                 [emphasis added] 
 
Notice that a "foreign country" does NOT include U.S.** possessions or territories. U.S.** possessions and territories are not "foreign" with respect to the federal zone; they are "domestic" with respect to the federal zone because they are inside the federal zone. This relationship is also confirmed by the Treasury Secretary's official definition of a "foreign country" that is published in the Code of Federal Regulations:
 
     The term "foreign country" when used in a geographical sense 
     includes any territory under the sovereignty of a government 
     other than  that of  the United  States**.   It includes the 
     territorial waters  of the  foreign country  (determined  in 
     accordance with  the laws  of the  United States**), the air 
     space over  the foreign  country, and the seabed and subsoil 
     of  those   submarine  areas   which  are  adjacent  to  the 
     territorial waters of the foreign country and over which the 
     foreign country  has exclusive  rights, in  accordance  with 
     international law,  with  respect  to  the  exploration  and 
     exploitation of natural resources. 
 
                              [26 CFR 1.911-2(h), emphasis added] 
                                [note the subtle tautology again] 
 
If this regulation were to be interpreted any other way, except that which is permitted by the U.S. Constitution, then the sovereign jurisdiction of the federal government would stand in direct opposition to the sovereign jurisdiction of the 50 States of the Union. In other words, such an interpretation would be reduced to absurd consequences (in Latin, reductio ad absurdum). Sovereignty is the key. It is indivisible. There cannot be two sovereign governmental authorities over any one area of land. Sovereignty is the authority to which there is politically no superior. Sovereignty is vested in one or the other sovereign entity, such as a governmental body or a natural born Person (like you and me).
 
     This issue of jurisdiction as it relates to Sovereignty is a 
     major  key   to   understanding   our   system   under   our 
     Constitution. 
                              [The Omnibus, Addendum II, page 11] 
 
In reviewing numerous acts of Congress, author and scholar Lori Jacques has come to the inescapable conclusion that there are at least two classes of citizenship in America: one for persons born outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States**, and one for persons born inside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States**. This territorial jurisdiction is the area of land over which the United States** is sovereign and over which it exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction, as stated in the Hooven case and the many others which have preceded it, and followed it:
 
     When reading the various acts of Congress which had declared 
     various people  to be "citizens of the United States", it is 
     immediately apparent that many are simply declared "citizens 
     of the  United States***"  while others  are declared  to be 
     "citizens  of   the  United   States**,   subject   to   the 
     jurisdiction of  the United  States**."   The difference  is 
     that  the first class of citizen  arises when that person is 
     born out  of the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
     States** Government.   3A  Am Jur 1420, Aliens and Citizens, 
     explains:   "A Person is born subject to the jurisdiction of 
     the United  States**, for  purposes of acquiring citizenship 
     at birth,  if his  birth occurs  in territory over which the 
     United States** is sovereign ..."                       [!!] 
 
                        [A Ticket to Liberty, Nov. 1990, page 32] 
                                                 [emphasis added] 
 
The above quotation from American Jurisprudence is a key that has definitive importance in the context of sovereignty (see discussion of "The Key" in Appendix P). Note the pivotal word "sovereign", which controls the entire meaning of this passage. A person is born "subject to its jurisdiction", as opposed to "their jurisdictions", if his birth occurs in territory over which the "United States**" is sovereign. Therefore, a person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the "United States**" if his birth occurs inside the federal zone. Conversely, a natural born person is born a Sovereign if his birth occurs outside the federal zone and inside the 50 States. This is jus soli, the law of the soil, whereby citizenship is usually determined by laws governing the soil on which one is born.

Sovereignty is a principle that is so important and fundamental, a subsequent chapter of this book is dedicated entirely to discussing its separate implications for political authorities and for sovereign individuals. It is also important to keep the concept of sovereignty uppermost in your thoughts, where it belongs, as we begin our descent into the dense jungle called statutory construction. (This is your Captain speaking.) So, fasten your seat belts. The Hooven decision sets the stage for a critical examination of key definitions that are found in the IRC itself.

One of the many statutory definitions of the term "United States" is found in chapter 79 of the IRC, where the definitions are located:

 
     When used  in this  title, where  not  otherwise  distinctly 
     expressed  or   manifestly  incompatible   with  the  intent 
     thereof--  ... 
 
     (9)  United States. -- The term "United States" when used in 
          a geographical  sense includes  only the States and the 
          District of Columbia. 
                                                 [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/7701.html">IRC 7701(a)(9)] 
                                                 [emphasis added] 
 
Setting aside for the moment the intended meaning of the phrase "in a geographical sense", it is obvious that the District of Columbia and the "States" are essential components in the IRC definition of the "United States". There is no debate about the meaning of "the District of Columbia", but what are "the States"? The same question can be asked about a different definition of "United States" that is found in another section of the IRC:
 
     For purposes of this chapter -- 
 
     (2)  United States. -- The term "United States" when used in 
          a geographical  sense includes the States, the District 
          of Columbia,  the Commonwealth  of Puerto Rico, and the 
          Virgin Islands. 
                                 [IRC 3306(j)(2), emphasis added] 
 
Again, there is no apparent debate about the meanings of the terms "the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" and "the Virgin Islands". But what are "the States"? Are they the 50 States of the Union? Are they the federal states which together constitute the federal zone? Determining the correct meaning of "the States" is therefore pivotal to understanding the statutory definition of "United States" in the Internal Revenue Code. The next chapter explores this question in some detail.

In addition to keeping sovereignty uppermost in your thoughts, keep your eyes fixed on the broad expanse of the dense jungle you are about to enter. This jungle was planted and watered by a political body with a dual, or split personality. On the one hand, Congress is empowered to enact public laws for the 50 States, subject to certain written restrictions. On the other hand, it is also empowered to enact "municipal" statutes for the federal zone, subject to a different set of restrictions. Therefore, think of Congress as "City Hall" for the federal zone. In 1820, Justice Marshall described it this way:

 
     ...  [Counsel]   has  contended,   that  Congress   must  be 
     considered in  two distinct characters.  In one character as 
     legislating for  the states;   in  the  other,  as  a  local 
     legislature for  the district  [of Columbia].  In the latter 
     character, it is admitted, the power of levying direct taxes 
     may be  exercised;   but,  it  is  contended,  for  district 
     purposes only,  in like manner as the legislature of a state 
     may tax  the people  of a state for state purposes.  Without 
     inquiring at present into the soundness of this distinction, 
     its possible  influence on  the application in this district 
     of the  first article of the constitution, and of several of 
     the  amendments,   may  not   be  altogether   unworthy   of 
     consideration. 
 
                  [Loughborough vs Blake, 15 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317] 
                              [5 L.Ed. 98 (1820), emphasis added] 
 
The problem thus becomes one of deciding which of these "two distinct characters" is doing the talking. The language used to express the meaning of "States" in the IRC is arguably the best place to undertake a careful diagnosis of this split personality. (Therapy comes later.)
[ Next | Prev | Contents ]