Defining the “United States” There are 3

February 26, 2011 by ppjg

Guest Author: Danny Martinez (c)copyright 2011

_____________________________________________

“To fully understand the impact of changing the wording from navigable waters to waters of the
United States one must understand the clear meaning of what “United States” means.”

________________________________________________

UNITED STATES

In April 2, 2009, S. 787 the Clean Water Restoration Act was

th
introduced to the 111 Congress, which was a bill to amend the “Federal Water Pollution Control
Act” to clarify the jurisdiction of the United States over waters of the United States. Section 1
Short Title says “This Act may be cited as the Clean Water Restoration Act.” The purpose of the
Act was to (1) to reaffirm the original intent of Congress in enacting the Federal Water
Pollution control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500; 86 Stat. 816) to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States; and
(2) to clarify define the waters of the United States that are subject to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)as those features that were treated as such
pursuant to the final rule (including the preamble that final rule) published at 53 Fed. Reg.
20764 (June6, 1988) and 51 Fed Reg 41206 (November 13, 1986) and other applicable rules
and interpretations in effect on January, 8, 2001.” [emphasis added]

This act has caused a lot of reaction from the states in regards to their sovereignty and their
jurisdiction over waters within the boundaries of their respective states. This has not been
diminished in any manner as Sect. 3 Findings (5) “Congress Supports the policy in effect under
section 101(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251(g)), which states that
the authority of each State to allocate quantities of water within its jurisdiction shall not be
superseded, abrogated or otherwise impaired by this Act. ….” [emphasis added]

To fully understand the impact of changing the wording from navigable waters to waters of the
United States one must understand the clear meaning of what “United States” means.

In 1945 the Supreme Court in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) defined the
term “United States” as having three distinct meanings ; “The term “United States” may be
used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the
position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the
territory over which the sovereignty to the United States [672] extends, or it may be the
collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.”

The first definition of “United States” makes reference under International Law such as France,
England, Spain etc.

The Second definition of “United States” makes reference to territory over which the sovereignty
of the United States extends such as the 10 square miles of Washington D.C., Guam, American
Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico etc. This would include any insular possession within the boundaries
of the states that has been ceded to the United States in compliance with Article 1 Section 8
Clause 17 of the Constitution “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:

The Third definition of “United States” makes reference to the collective name of the sovereign
50 states united under international law. We are not one Central Government as we are a union
of states united under the Constitution with the states granting specific and restricted enumerated
powers to the agent for the states united “United States”. This is made clear in Article IV Section
3 Admission of States to the Union and Article 1 Sections 1-8 of the Constitution of the United
States of America. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/16.html ;
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/

The United States Code at 28 U.S.C. 1603 defines “United States” as follows: (c) The “United
States” includes all territory and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States”. This confirms the provisions of Article I Section 8 Clause 17.

In the event the jurisdictional issue is not quite understood Article I Section 8 Clause 18 grants
jurisdiction only over those enumerated powers listed in Article I Section 8 such as power to
coin money; power to regulate commerce between the states such as the 6 navigable waters
(commerce) such as the Mississippi River, the Hudson River etc. Article I Section 8 Clause 18 is
as follows “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution
the foregoing Powers, and other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the
United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”.
 The tenth Amendment of the Constitution makes this very clear that unless the Constitution has
granted the “United States” authority to do something it is without it “The powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people”. [emphasis added]

 Share this:


 Print

 Email


 Facebook

 StumbleUpon



 Reddit


 Digg

Posted in Constitution, PROPERTY RIGHTS, WATER | Tagged Constitution, Danny Martinez,

enumerated powers, jurisdictional authority, navigable waters, public laws, state sovereingty,
state's rights, UNITED STATES, waters of America | 16 Comments

Like
3 bloggers like this post.

16 Responses

1. on March 4, 2011 at 01:40 d daxx

Thank you Glenn D.

2. on March 2, 2011 at 20:56 ppjg

Bureau of Land Mis-mangement

3. on March 2, 2011 at 19:06 Jetgraphics

Do not forget the power and jurisdiction granted to the Federal government by :
(a) 304 million “contributors” via FICA,
(b) bankruptcy (1933), and
(c) State of Emergency (1933)

http://mises.org/daily/3056

Senate Report 93-549

War and Emergency Powers Acts

“A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under
emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental
procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by
laws brought into force by states of national emergency.”

4. on March 2, 2011 at 14:41 d daxx

Glenn D What does blm stand for?

5. on March 2, 2011 at 08:11 anadianant

Maritime law. It is the law of the land and the sea.

Capitalization. UNITED STATES…. JOE Q PUBLIC…
The issue of who is who is what is what has been so cleverly hidden in plain sight that the
 resulting cognitive dissonance induced if the “truth” ever came out would splinter the
republic that isn’t. In fact, “citizens” are not party to the Constitution.

Please grab key phrases that make you angry. Google is your friend. What you find will
shock you.

Hacking at the roots just does not cut it anymore, if you get my drift, marti-timely
speaking.
The hydra is huge and has had a long time to grow.
Legal-ease is legal-difficult for good reason.

Anadianant

http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/truth-about-america-truth-about-us/

6. on March 1, 2011 at 15:11 Jim Prentice

[“the United States” is the name of the federal government]

Consider the case of Ellis v. United States, 206 U.S. 246; 27 S.Ct. 600 (1907)

A Company had won the contract to dredge out Chelsea Creek which is in Boston Harbor
Mass. Part of the contract called for installing pilings along the creek to prevent the creek
from filling in with silt. Part of the contract rewarded a ‘Bonus’ to the company if they
completed the project on time.
There was a delay in receiving some of the materials required for he job and the company
was falling behind on time. When the materials arrived the Company had the men work
24 hours a day, on rotating 12 hour shifts, which was beyond the standard eight hour day.
The project was completed on time and the company won the bonus. However the
workers thought that they should share in the bonus even though their contract did not
entitle them to any part of the bonus.

The men filed suit and lost, but then they believed that the recently passed minimum
wage law passed by Congress could be made to apply to their situation and that they
should have been paid one and a half times their normal pay for every hour worked over
eight hours.
This case ended up in front of the Supreme Court of the United States, and here is what
the Court said.

“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 works of dredging in Chelsea Creek, in Boston harbor as shown on 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 act 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)

Chelsea Creek is in Boston harbor, which is in the State of Massachusetts. The U.S.
Supreme Court stated that Massachusetts is NOT IN “the United States.” And for good
reason. This decision was based on law.

In effect, what the U.S. Supreme Court said is that they had no jurisdiction over the
controversy. All controversies are predicated on jurisdiction. Jurisdiction, over the
person, over the geographical location, and over the subject matter in controversy.

The Supreme Court had ‘jurisdiction’ over the subject matter, i.e. the “Minimum Wage
Law”. However that law could ONLY be applied in the District of Columbia and other
places where the federal government has jurisdiction, such as military instillations,
enclaves, Territories and possessions of the United States. The Court did not have
jurisdiction over Massachusetts or over the Company who had the contract to do the
dredging.

Actually none of the several states are in the “United States.” Each State of the Union of
States is a separate individual, sovereign, Nation.

Did you notice what the Supreme Court said about the word “of.” “Of” means belonging
to. So the United States OF America means that “the United States” belongs to America.
It is the property of America. America is fifty Nations united by compact for very limited
reasons.
“, the most natural meaning of “of the United States” is “belonging to the United States.”

Read that again to make sure you got it in your head. Words can be confusing when we
don’t pay attention to the proper use of words.

Now consider Chisom, Ex’r v. Georgia (Feb 1794)

“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.” Chisolm, Ex’r v. Georgia 2 Dall. 419 1 L.Ed. 440
(1794)

Then again in 1819; “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;
L.Ed 579 (1819)

And a Court case from Blacks Law Dictionary.

National Government: Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Edit. At Page 1176.

“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 a people of a single state or nation, united as
a community by what is termed a “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.” Piqua Branch Bank v. Knoup, 6 Ohio St. 393.

“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.”
[Caha v. United States 152 U.S. 211 (1894)]

“Legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within
territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281; 69 S.Ct. 575 (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)