Quote Originally Posted by monty View Post
The way I read these court cases it appears the Supreme Court does not share your opinion.

"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."
[New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662 (1836)]


When Alabama was admitted into the union, on an equal footing with the original states, she succeeded to all the rights of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and eminent domain which Georgia possessed at the date of the cession, except so far as this right was diminished by the public lands remaining in the possession and under the control of the United States, for the temporary purposes provided for in the deed of cession and the legislative acts connected with it. Nothing remained to the United States, according to the terms of the agreement, but the public lands. And, if an express stipulation had been inserted in the agreement, granting the municipal right of sovereignty and eminent domain to the United States, such stipulation would have been void and inoperative: because the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted. 7 ”
[Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 213, 221, 223 (1845)]


“In another, not unrelated context, Chief Justice Marshall’s exposition in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 264 (1821), could well have been the explanation of the Rule of Necessity; he wrote that a court “must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by, because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them.” Id., at 404 (emphasis added)
[U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980)]

The several States of the Union are not, it is true, in every respect independent, many of the right [sic] and powers which originally belonged to them being now vested in the government created by the Constitution. But, except as restrained and limited by that instrument, they possess and exercise the authority of independent States, and the principles of public law to which we have referred are applicable to them. One of these principles is that every State[of the Union] possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory. . . .” [Underline emphasis added.] Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 722 (1878).
The "crimes" were not committed in the Federal Courthouse.


And these two court cases precede, in date, the Civil War. The Civil War brought out of it Congresses first ever subjects...."US citizens"...via the 14th amendment.
Shortly after the 14th, Congress gave its new subject citizens "rights" as not many of the "Bill of Rights" applied to these brand new subjects and therefore enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Do you see the separation between "The People" and "US citizens"?
Its in the rights you hold and possess.
Congress doesnt choose which rights you have....you do unless you are of colored skin. Then you have no choice in the matter.

Ever heard of "State citizens"?
Thats where the Bill of Rights applies....to those individuals.
A State citizen and "We the People" are one in the same.

Heres the thing with this idiot......hes applying court cases that cannot and do not apply to US citizens (which they proved he was with the 1040) in that context didnt exist until after the Civil War. And that last court case Pennoyer v. Neff applies to those who are not US citizens pre Civil War era and politics.
This idiot is picking and choosing what he whats to argue with and his picks dont even apply.....or is that you, Monty, supplying the three court cases? One of you is a completely ignorant of how whats going on.
The guy is an idiot douche with a so called high IQ