If you’ve followed this blog for a year or more, you should be aware that I subscribe to the hypothesis that the government has chosen to treat the “states of the United States” (like “Texas,” “Illinois” and “Florida”) as territories rather than

It all depends on the PLACE. It all depends on WHERE. [courtesy Google Images]
It all depends on the PLACE. It all depends on WHERE.
[courtesy Google Images]
States of the Union (“states of The United States of America”) like “The State of Texas,” “The State of Illinois,” and “The State of Florida”.  (You can see a list of articles dealing with this theory at: http://adask.wordpress.com/category/the-state-vs-this-state/)

If this hypothesis is true, it’s important because under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of The Constitution of the United States, the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the territories.  Within a “territory of the United States,” the Congress is the sovereign and can do anything they like.  They have unlimited powers in the territories.  The people of the territories have virtually no rights that they might be absolutely able to enforce other than those currently allowed by Congress.

Within the States of the Union, the people are sovereign and Congress has only those limited powers described in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

So, it makes a big difference whether you are presumed to act and “appear” within the jurisdiction of a territory like “Texas,” “STATE OF TEXAS,” or TX” or if you’re presumed to act and live within the jurisdiction of a State of the Union like “The State of Texas”.  In the first instance, you are a subject without any rights that you can count on.  In the second instance, you are a sovereign with a multitude of unalienable Rights granted you by the God of the Bible and beyond denial by the government of that State of the Union.

That hypothesis is hard to grasp, hard to believe.  It was first advanced by Paul Andrew Mitchell in the late 1990s in his book “The Federal Zone”.  I couldn’t understand it at the time.  But over time, I’ve come to understand and believe that hypothesis is valid.

I can’t prove it, but I remain convinced that today’s modern “states” are presumed by the government to be “states of the United States” (territories) rather than “States of the Union”–States of The United States of America.

•  Here’s another evidence in support of that hypothesis.

Article 4, Section 4, Clause 4 of The Constitution of the United States declares,

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”

•  First, Article 4.4.4 guarantees to each State of the Union “a Republican Form of Government”.

If there are 50 member-States of the perpetual Union styled “The United States” of America,” there should be 50, separate, State government of the “Republican Form”.

Do we have a “Republican Form of Government” in any modern “state”–or do we have one or more democracies?

The word “democracy” does not appear in our federal Constitution, and yet we’re told that we live in  a “democracy”.  Why aren’t we told that we live under a “Republican Form of Government”?

We even prosecute wars on foreign nations to impose the purported blessing of “democracy” upon them.  If the terms “Republican Form of Government” and “democracy” are synonymous, why don’t we wage wars for the express purpose of imposing a “Republican Form of Government” (as declared in our Constitution)?  Why do we wage wars to extend “democracy” when that word is unknown to our Constitution?

I believe the answer is found in the hypothesis that the modern states of “Texas,” “Illinois,” et al are deemed to be “territories” rather than States of the Union.

The obligation imposed by Article 4.4.4 on the federal government to guarantee to each State a “Republican Form of Government” is only extended to the States of the Union.  At no point does the Constitution guarantee a “Republican Form of Government” to any territory or to Washington DC.  Within the territories of the United States, the federal government can impose any form of law or election it likes.  Thus, the democracy that would be unconstitutional within “The State of Texas” is completely constitutional within a territory of the United States.

•  Second, Article 4.4.4 obligates the “United States” (federal government) to “protect each of them [States of the Union] against Invasion.”  We know that the word “them” refers to the several States of the Union because, when the Constitution was first ratified by the people in A,.D 1788, that’s the only kind of “States” that existed.   Again, note that the obligation to protect against invasion is only mandated in relation to the States of the Union–there is no such obligation to protect the territories of the United States or Washington DC against invasions.

In case you haven’t noticed, our nation has already been invaded by somewhere between 11 and 35 million wetbacks (a/k/a “illegal immigrants”).  That invasion is ongoing.  But our government has not only done almost nothing to prevent that invasion and has, in many instances, openly encouraged it.

How can this be happening?

I suspect that part of legal foundation for failing to protect our “states” from this invasion is the presumption at the highest levels of government that our “states” are now merely territories rather than States of the Union.  If “Texas” is deemed to be a territory, the federal government has no constitutional obligation to protect Texas from an invasion by illegal aliens.  In fact, within the territory of “Texas,” the Congress might be within its constitutional powers to encourage Mexicans to invade and populate that “territory”.

•  Article 4.4.4 also deals with the federal government’s duty to provide military force to protect the States of the Union against “domestic Violence”–internal riots, revolutions, etc.–but only if the legislature of such State of the Union (and/or the Executive Branch, if the legislature is not in session) applies for federal assistance.

For example, as I write this article, we expect that a grand jury will soon declare if the white police officer who shot a black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri was justified in doing so–or if the police officer should be charged and prosecuted for murder or manslaughter. More importantly, we are not only waiting to hear what the grand jury decides, we’re also waiting to see if blacks in the area will riot if the white police officer is exonerated.

If Missouri were a State of the Union, the federal government might have no authority to send federal troops into Missouri to quell the rioting unless the legislature or executive branch of The State of Missouri appealed for that assistance.   As long as the government of The State of Missouri said “We got this,” the feds could mind their own business and keep their troops back on the East Coast.  Thus, the States of the Union are protected from intrusion by federal troops–unless the legislature or governor of the State ask for assistance.

If the federal government can send troops to Ferguson without the Missouri legislature or governor (if the legislature is not in session) asking for assistance, Missouri is no longer protected from intrusion by federal troops.  If that’s true, is “Missouri” still a State of the Union–or is “Missouri” now deemed to be a territory and/or administrative district of the United States?

Written by: ALFRED ADASK – continue to ADASK’S LAW



One thought on “Protecting the “States” against Invasion”

Leave a Reply