Constitution Lesson One, finding Freedom

Constitution Lesson One

After many years of study and watching colleges and universities lecture on the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, they are all sending the same message but with different styles and not one of them breakout of the indoctrination preset program in order for you to learn the truth. All institutions from Pre-K on up teach to this preset program, none of them are allowed to teach outside of the curriculum set down by the State, or to use books that have not been pre-approved by some government official. Simply because the TPTB do NOT want you to learn the truth, because such truth would take them out of power and put them in their rightful place, for many this place would be prison for all the treasonous acts they have committed against the laws of God or our Common Laws of Nature.

Today I will teach you the Constitution as you have never heard before, the Constitution is a contract and as such all wording within apply to law, so to understand the contract we must take the words and using a law dictionary to understand what exactly does it mean and who does it apply too. When looking at any contract you must try and use the law dictionary printed closest to the date of said such contract, with that today we will use Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary. This particular (Law Dictionary adopted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America and of the Several States of the American Union; with references to the Civil and Other systems of Foreign Law).
books.google.com... volume one
books.google.com... volume two

That is probably one of the longest titles of any book I've come across and why is that? For the average educated person they will more readily see something is not right here, for the person of higher indoctrination these things might not seem quite so obvious. Simply because they have been taught to read the words and not the definitions or cause of the wording but have been programmed to take another's word for what the writer is trying to say instead of looking it up for themselves. The same can be said about mathematics, instead of learning all the algorithms it is easier to take the calculators word to answer 2+2, this is how we begin to rely on others for information instead of using ones own mind. Today we are going to change all that and begin to restart the engine of our minds by looking things up for ourselves.

It we look at the title we can see it is a Law Dictionary broken down into 3 parts, the first being; adopted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America. The second; The Several States of the American Union; and the third it includes References to the Civil and Other systems of Foreign Law. You could take (and Other systems of Foreign Law) as a separate section, however you will shortly learn that the contract in question, the Constitution is a foreign law and for that reason I have kept it down to just 3 parts, the title tells us this much by using the words (and other) showing that the Constitution is in fact Foreign Law. The question is, Foreign to who? We will come back to that question later for now lets take a look at the wording of said contract to see just how the law interprets it.

Lesson 1:

We the People of the Unites States,(1) in Order to form a more perfect Union,(2) establish Justice,(3) insure domestic Tranquility,(4) proved for the common defence,(5) promote the general Welfare,(6) and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,(7) do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Unites States of America(8).

This is the first sentence of the contract as originally printed broken down into 8 sections, such a simple to read sentence yet very few have truly understood its meanings.

1: People. A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in its collective and political capacity.
4 T. R. 783. Sec 6 Pet. S. C. Rep. 461. 1856 Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
As you can see it is the State within its Collective and Political Capacity, it is NOT you and I.
In the Law of Nations and the Federalist Papers you will also find; People defined as (The Elected leaders, The Popular group, or Rulers of) again never referring to the individual.

2:Union, page 612 in Bouvier's. Great read it clearly shows that all States are individual Countries and they collectively formed a Union with limited powers, the United States of America.

3:Justice, page 686,687 Bouvier's volume one, Justice, the constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due. Justice being in itself a part of virtue, is confined to things simply good or evil, and consists in a man's taking such a proportion of them as he ought.

4:Tranquility, n: a state of calm or quietude.

5: defence, defence US, defense [dɪˈfɛns] n
1. resistance against danger, attack, or harm; protection.
2. a person or thing that provides such resistance.

6:General Welfare, www.lawandliberty.org...
Here you will find a full detail of the meanings according to the founders.
Remember we are dealing with contract law, so more on this later.

7:Liberty and Posterity,
Liberty. Freedom from restraint. The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.
Posterity. Descents. All the descendants of a person in a direct line.

Sounds great Liberty gives freedom from restraint, and Posterity secures it for the future.
However I have left a few words out from the sentence, who did they do this for?
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. If it was truly meant for you and I it would have read, for ALL.
If Liberty is freedom from restraint and control, why do we have tons of statue private laws that do in fact restrain and control us?

8:Ordain, page 268 Bouvier's. To ordain is to make an ordinance, to enact a law.
Webster Dictionary, to invest official authority.

8A:Establish, Webster, to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement.

So lets review, what have we learned so far?

The Constitution is a Contract.
The contract formed a Union.
The Unites States, or America in any form is NOT a Country but a Union of individual Countries.
We the People is NOT you and I.
And that Liberty and Posterity was secured ONLY for themselves, this is why each State/Country has its own Constitutional Contract.

A big one thou I have not fully explained it yet, the Federal contract/compact The Constitution applies since the amendments adding the Reconstruction Acts ie 13th 14th and so on, ONLY has jurisdiction over the residence of D.C these residence no matter where they may reside are titled citizens and nationals (of the United States) until this time D.C never housed citizens of their own for their jurisdiction is limited ONLY to the 10 mile square known as Washington D.C

D.C, District of Columbia it is foreign land, foreign to the Union and all its citizens are defacto foreigners to the founders Republic as guaranteed in the Contract, this is why the individual States laws clearly show the dual citizenship and the laws apply an are upheld by the States these laws are private and ONLY apply to their citizens and nationals defacto Democracy.

continued below.

The guaranteed Republic in the Constitution still exists and is de jure of right and fully recognized at all levels of jurisdiction this was setup by the Congress to ensure the de jure prior the reconstruction acts, this was done to give the defacto the illusion of law as it is Voluntary. Congress passed what is known as the 15 statues at large this is a process setup to remove oneself from the defacto Democracy with its private laws and statues that only apply to citizens and nationals of, this one and only lawfully recognized process passed by Congress and places one back into the de jure Republic setup by the founders with all freedoms intact. Freedom from the private laws and statues freedom from all permits ie permission from the defacto for all things.

PAC after 20 plus years of perfecting Congresses process has brought this good news to the public and since 1998 has been correcting individuals status with full consent by Congress and TPTB, no other so called patriot group can claim this and many of them will take your money and put you in harms way. Many of them have only been around a short time and all of them have issues in court, only PAC has it right using the ONLY lawful path to place you back into the Republic and its common laws.

More can be found here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

In lesson two we will further divulge the evils of the 14th that so many people have been miss representing since its enactment. The law has placed us into this political position and the police state, and it is the law that will set us free.

All you need to know about the Constitution:

1. It can, has, and will be amended
2. Amendments can be repealed


The Constitution only provides rights as long as they are currently part of the Constitution. Nothing is sacred.

reply to post by DaTroof


You are correct, however the organic portion that signed by the founders prior all the reconstruction acts can NOT be amended or changed as written. The others are considered voluntary and gives the illusion of being lawful, assumptions and color of law, legalese and so much more designed to protect TPTB and keep them in charge. Time to un-volunteer from the defacto legally and lawfully through process, with less and less of their citizens keeping them in power they will one day be no more.

Originally posted by DaTroof
All you need to know about the Constitution:

1. It can, has, and will be amended
2. Amendments can be repealed


The Constitution only provides rights as long as they are currently part of the Constitution. Nothing is sacred.

Don't make the dangerous mistake of believing that our rights are derived from the Constitution. That is saying that our rights are derived from the government, which is an entity created by the Constitution.

Our rights are derived from being born human beings. The Constitution is the law of protection put into writing to ward the government from attempting to infringe on our rights.

/TOA

reply to post by drmeola

This particular (Law Dictionary adopted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America and of the Several States of the American Union; with references to the Civil and Other systems of Foreign Law).

I am not clear on your communication here. Are you suggesting that Bouvier's Law Dictionary was adopted as in codified within the Constitution for the United States of America, the several state constitutions and other legal documents. I have never seen such a thing. I know of no clause within the federal Constitution, or any state constitution that declares that each and ever word that has not been defined by Constitution should then be defined by this law dictionary. Is that what you are communicating? If this is what you are saying, it goes against several sound legal principles, many of which I suspect can be found within Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

Indeed, The Supreme Court of the United States - who derives their power by the federal Constitution - ruled in Eisner v. Macomber:

Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

Based upon this very sound legal principle, in order for Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856 edition) to be some sort of de facto source of definitions for words not expressly defined by Constitution, the Constitution itself would have to had made such an assertion. Given that the federal, and many state Constitutions were written prior to this edition you refer to, it is unlikely that We the People are actually bound by some mystical incantation of the priest class lawyer sect that forces us to abide by Bouvier's Law Dictionary for words within the Constitution that do not have any express definition.

Again, I am not clear on what your communication actually is, but I am certainly inferring that you believe We the People are bound by some clowns assertion that his post facto definitions are now the only definitions by which We the People may use to interpret the federal or any state Constitution. Thus, when you state:

1: People. A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in its collective and political capacity. 4 T. R. 783. Sec 6 Pet. S. C. Rep. 461. 1856 Bouvier's Law Dictionary. As you can see it is the State within its Collective and Political Capacity, it is NOT you and I. In the Law of Nations and the Federalist Papers you will also find; People defined as (The Elected leaders, The Popular group, or Rulers of) again never referring to the individual.

This contradicts the Eisner ruling, and well established Constitutional principles of Law. Since the federal Constitution has not defined "People", Congress cannot by any form of legislation (this includes Amendment of which there is not one that attempts to bind the People to Bouvier's Law Dictionary) define that word to mean anything other than what it meant at the time that Constitution was written. Certainly the common definition of "People" at that time was much the same as it is today, and in that regard it could mean either "people" as in a collective, or "People" as in individuals. So, how can We the People better determine whether or not "People" as "individuals" apply?

There are many clues within the federal Constitution to support my assertion that "People" does indeed refer to individuals. Just one example - the limitations on character space demands I keep it to one example - would be the Enumeration Clause found in Article I, 1, § 2, cl. 3. In order to fulfill the Constitutional mandate of a census of enumeration, "individuals" must be counted. Certainly those "individuals" will then be collected as a "collective" but no "collective" can exist without individuals and no mystical incantation of the priest class lawyer sect can change this simple fact.

Since the federal Constitution was adopted in Philadelphia, I urge you to look at the Pennsylvania State Constitution, particularly Sections 1 & 2 of the Declaration of Rights. Most of the State Constitutions are even clearer than the Preamble of the federal Constitution in whom has the inherent political power and from whom governments derive their just power, and whether one views that as "people" "collectively" or "individually" matters not, to suggest that some "collective" has a distinction that separates it from "individuals" reveals a profound lack of discernment. A lack of discernment is generally a symptom of insanity.

If I've misinterpreted your post, forgive me.

Just a couple of things, first you can use any Law Dictionary the definitions have never changed, but they have confused the language within so that even lawyers have trouble grasping there full understanding. For this reason I used Bouvier's it has the clearest of understandable language, but again even one from today broken down says the exact same thing. This is the judges key book and one use by almost ever judge on the bench today for this reason of language used.

Second and the big problem is the reconstruction acts, that is why if you look at Supreme Court cases and decisions, you find a difference between those prior the 14th compared to those that followed.

But in all cases and in all law forms private or public the Contract must stand above all. The Constitution is a Contract and each word has specific meaning in law. The 14th usurped the final piece of the puzzle being that of citizens and nationals its a clear plank of the Communist Manifesto. This Democracy system is Voluntary and that is the key, we volunteer for this form of governance by our actions over the founders Republic form of governance. This Republic is guaranteed and still in effect with full legal power and freedom as intended, but all have been usurped from their rightful Country ie the State they were born and placed into the jurisdiction of DC. Since this is voluntary, Congress had to pass away to UN-volunteer it is this action that makes the illusion of Democracy seem legitimate.

Hope that helps with your studies.

People are not bound to a law dictionary for reference in order to understand words not defined by Constitution. If the word has not been defined expressly within a constitution then the ordinary usage of the word at the time it was written is all People need to worry about. People do not have to learn the arcane language of legalese in order to understand law, and if a constitution is not founded in law it has no purpose other than unlawful action.

While I despise the 14th Amendment and recognize its profoundly evil intent, this Amendment was never any imposition on any individual and no person ever has to take up the invitation to take up that Amendment as a legal argument. It would be nice to see that disturbing Amendment struck down as unconstitutional, or at least repealed, but no "person" as in "individual" should ever fall prey to any assertion that claims they are somehow mystically bound by the 14th Amendment.

reply to post by drmeola


What is freedom? What does freedom mean to you? What does freedom mean to the masses? What does freedom mean to the middle class who bought into the “American Dream” of the twentieth century only to see it turned into the economic nightmare of the twenty first century?

Was the freedom that our forefathers envisioned, and fought and died for, what we believe to be freedom today? Is it possible that our beliefs in separation and independence are beliefs that have been purposely instituted to slowly, subtly, and deceptively teach us that slavery is really freedom?

We have been taught to believe that we are free, but what is it we are free to be? Whatever our government wants us to be? What are we free to do? Whatever our government allows us to do? What are we free to have? Whatever our government allows us to have? Ask the “great forgotten” members of humanity (products of their environments in our society) in our overflowing prison system.

Is this what we believe our forefathers fought and gave their lives for? Is it possible that the social agreements we call morality, patriotism, capitalism, materialism, justice, national security, etc. have allowed us to pull the wool over our own eyes until we have come to see and experience slavery as freedom? You decide.

Our social agreements cannot truly be called agreements because we do not really agree upon them. They might more correctly be called social disagreements. Be that as it may we must admit that these social agreements or disagreements define us as a society.

Social agreements are based on our beliefs about what is true and what is not true, unless they are not, and that depends on whether or not what we believed to be true when these social agreements were agreed upon is the same as what we believe to be true today.

What we call our constitution is a social agreement that was officially agreed upon in 1776 and became the law of the land. This social agreement was greatly influenced by certain farsighted visionaries we call our founding fathers. These visionaries sought to create a true free society based on the principles of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all, or freedom and equality. They designed a new system of self governance with systems of checks and balances, based on the laws of said constitution, which they hoped would become a beacon of Truth for all, an example for the rest of the world to emulate.

Unfortunately, these farsighted visionaries did not foresee the results of bowing to the economic pressures of the times, and allowing themselves, the Constitution, and the government to be placed in a hypocritical state of existence by allowing the continuance of slavery.

By doing so they unwittingly created a wedge which the dark powers used to split us into divisions, and ultimately caused us to go to war with ourselves. This war between ourselves destroyed the unity under which our country was established and almost destroyed the country itself, and required an incredible amount of resources, time and material to re-assemble the fragments into a poor resemblance of the unity under which it was founded.

Our country, our society has been similarly re-organized several times as a result of war and economic collapse, and each time it is re-organized with the help of laws which we call amendments to the Constitution. And always these laws have become more restrictive and taken away more of our freedoms, and have essentially changed our once great social agreement into social disagreements which have enabled the passage of even more restrictive laws which have become what I have called the restrictive controlling mechanisms that are used to maintain and expand the gulf between the haves and have-nots
.
In fact, we must admit that even our forefathers did not truly believe in the equality of all people and, therefore must have been inspired by something within themselves that was greater than their egos and personalities, to manifest this magnificent social agreement that even they didn’t truly agree upon.

Their ownership of slaves was evidence, pure physical evidence, that they believed white to be better than black. Their horrific treatment of the indigenous people of America stands, even now, as a testament to the fact that they didn’t see red as equal to white, and neither do we.

This farsighted magnificent social agreement that we call our constitution is, in effect, a beacon of Truth in its own right, and an invitation for us to see ourselves from a new perspective of true freedom and equality, and learn to live up to the high ideals that could save our species and our planet.

reply to post by iamonesoru


Excellent post there is only one thing of disagreement with your statements and that would be on slavery for the simple reason you divided it by colors or red, black and white. The truth is slavery is ownership of another by another and has to do with wealth not color, one of the first slave owners in the Union was a Blackman. This is fact and why it disturbs me so much when black men and women pull the racial BS when it has nothing to do with color at all.

On definition of slavery all citizens are in fact slaves to the defacto system in place since the passing of the 14th and its usurpation of citizens and nationals, remember a owner can give and bestow rights and privileges as THEY seem fit.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I enjoy your responses Jean thought out and explains your stance and understanding of a particular issue. Would recommend getting a copy of The Red Amendment this is probably the best book ever written on the topic and is available here: www.pacalliance.us...

reply to post by drmeola

Star and Flag, good, informative post. I too am a student of the Articles, and Constitution of 1788. For those who are't into reading a lot, I highly recommend Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class Videos.
Mr. Badnarik is a good speaker, and knows his Constitution, backwards and forwards. If you have a few hours to listen, he will enlighten you to a new degree of Constitutional knowledge!

thank you,

please continue.

Originally posted by drmeola
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

I enjoy your responses Jean thought out and explains your stance and understanding of a particular issue. Would recommend getting a copy of The Red Amendment this is probably the best book ever written on the topic and is available here: www.pacalliance.us...

Respectfully, the link you provided was merely an advertisement inviting me to pay $35 in order to read a book that it appears I will only disagree with. Because I am not going to purchase this book, I can only go by what others are saying about it, and I am much more comfortable with reading articles on the Red Amendment that are not testimonials provided by a site attempting to sell the book.

The Red Amendment states that the 14th Amendment instituted a de facto government while under martial law. And, in order to remain in the new United States one must commit treason against the Organic Government through voting. The PAC also promotes the Expatriation Act that was passed shortly after the 14th Amendment as a way to remove one's self from this rebellious position and once again become a Citizen of the state you reside in.

www.dailypaul.com...

Note: In searching for more articles that might clue me in on what this book the Red Amendment is actually about, I have noticed Google has a link for "free downloads" of the book, but it appears it is only the first chapter that is offered up as free.

Much of the articles I am finding on the Red Amendment only discuss the first chapter which indicates I am not alone in an unwillingness to fork over $35 just for the privilege of reading this book. This assertion that the 14th Amendment established a de facto government while under martial law is just that, an assertion. I will counter this assertion with the one I have all ready made, and that is don't take up the 14th Amendment. Don't use it as any legal argument and do not allow any court or government to trick you into using the 14th Amendment as an assertion of unalienable rights. Unalienable means something that is non-transferable, which only makes the 14th Amendment a hopeless act of arrogance and ignorance.

That particular quote and link is filled with a lot of mix up information just to clarify a few things in that posting from the link.

Team law, LB Bork was one of the founders of that organization, but after deeper study's in law Mr. Bork determined the real evil is the 14th that team law and others choose to ignored.

Second the process of expatriation that Congress passed and what PAC has perfected was done so PRIOR the 14th and that is very important, if it was not done so before hand the defacto system could not exists as a Voluntary structure but would then be a Dictatorship.

Also the corporation is a complete miss understood miss direction put out by so called patriot groups when in fact the Unites States has always been a corporation since day one.

A corporation not a Country the Unites States or America in any form was NOT ever a Country and still is NOT a Country today, this is fact in law.

When the defacto wishes to flex their muscles upon you, you will be put in jail as a 14th amendment citizen for they can and have proven that very fact time and time again against those with similar thinking.

Only by correction of status lawfully removing yourself from under their jurisdiction defacto can one re join the de jure Republic guaranteed in the Constitution. This process is fully recognized by Congress and all courts in the system as the ONLY lawful means to do so. Expatriation. The difference between PAC and others is the others expatriate to a Country outside of the Union removing you from both the defacto and the de jure, PAC is the ONLY ones that expatriate to your rightful Country ie the State you were born in, true de jure Republic.

If you go here the first 7 sections are free to read and there is also a few other chapters you can get for free. www.pacinlaw.org...

My main link site on ATS: www.abovetopsecret.com...

As always thank you for your post.

reply to post by drmeola


Of course, the misdirection of the corporation is something you took up, not I. I merely posted the quote that briefly described what the book The Red Amendment was about, and then I, of course, spoke to my own understandings of law and how no individual is obligated to take up the 14th Amendment which is, frankly, just another misdirection.

Hi Jean,

Sorry if you miss understood me, yes I know you quoted a link and in return was making corrections to the information at that link, it was not personal. The corporation was mentioned in that link as to my reason for bringing it up.

You are correct that no individual is obligated to be under the jurisdiction of the 14th that is why its considered Voluntary. However if you have NOT corrected your status or expatriated to anther country by ones actions or even silence it can be proven without a show of doubt you are a U.S citizens ie a 14th Amendment slave. Sorry no way around it no matter how much you shout it at the roof tops declaring yourself a non 14th citizen for the simple fact that you under international law inherit the nationality of your father.

So was your father a citizen? If so then so are you.
Did your father ever vote? If so then you are a citizen defacto
Did your father swear allegiance of oath to the United States? Then again you are a citizen.

Your own actions.

Have you gotten a DL? If yes you are a citizen by this voluntary contract with the defacto.
Do you have a SS card? Again you are a citizen defacto.
Every apply for a marriage license? Again you are a citizen.
At 18 did you sign up for selective service? If so your a citizen.
The biggest one of all, have you ever partaken benefits of any kind? Ie food stamps, unemployment, welfare, medicade, medicare, SS disability or retirement. Then you are a citizen. And don't forget about voting. For only citizens can vote.

Getting the point the law is on their side and if you do NOT have status you are a citizen period, oh and that is all representation of citizen be it a State Citizen, capital C citizen or any thing else the patriot groups come up with that have no standings in law including sovereign citizens.

Please do not take my responses as being defensive or argumentative just bringing forth the facts as the defacto interrupt them.

The constitution is a contract, but no matter how good of a contract it is, if you did not sign it the contract has no legally binding obligation on you. A contract can not dictate terms of obligation to someone who did not sign said contract, especially if they were born 200 years after it was created.

reply to post by drmeola


The sins of the father are thrust upon their children? Only under religious law, which Constitutionally speaking cannot stand in this nation.

In the past, I have applied for a drivers license, but I no longer have any such contract with the state. No doubt, I have been confronted by police officers who have worked mightily to get me to admit to having a past drivers license, even to the point of threatening me with detention if I did not reveal my past drivers license information. I have, each time, calmly stood my ground pointing out that all I am responsible for doing is giving my name, and that I have shown a willingness to swear an oath claiming that the name I give is truly my name. Some cops want to argue a bit more, but all - at least so far - have backed off.

In terms of a Social Security Number, my mother obtained one under my name when I was born. The sins of my mother? Hardly so! I did not make any contract, and if your assertions are to have any validity at all then they do so under the law of contracts, and a contract made fraudulently is a contract that is null and void.

In terms of all these signatures you refer to, a simple revocation of all signatures made under either duress or through willful fraud by those demanding the signature is all that is lawfully and legally needed. The law of estoppel comes into play here, and one cannot selectively revoke one signature while hoping to keep valid others. If one is going to revoke signatures made on government contracts it has to be across the board.

You speak of "status" which ironically is often a defense given for the 14th is that it was necessary to "overturn the Dred Scott ruling", but a careful reading of that unfortunate Supreme Court ruling, and the 14th Amendment reveals that the 14th works in perfect harmony with the Dred Scott ruling and does not "overturn" it.

I am not taking your posts as argumentative, nor do I wish to be seen as such either. My greatest concern is that people reading this do not fall prey to a mistaken belief that there is nothing at all that can be done about these mystical incantations of the priest class lawyer sect.

reply to post by Lord Jules


Good your thinking, the signers represented the several States ie Countries and the laws applied within ONLY applied and still do apply ONLY to the district and jurisdiction of the Federal compact, this jurisdiction is the 10 miles square of DC.

That is the reason for each State ie Country in the Union for having their own Constitutions. And after the so called civil war really the war of nations or the war between the states the Southern States where forced to change their Constitution by military force. More on this topic can be found here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now remember until the 14th DC had zero citizens of its own and no one was under their jurisdiction but the State itself not its citizens and nationals. The District was setup to represent the individual States/Countries on the international front and the States gave the power of treaties to the district for this purpose, this gives the illusion of the District of being a Country when in fact it is and never was anything more then a corporation setup for this purpose.

With the 14th installed it usurped the status of citizens and nationals placing us all in that 10 mile square jurisdiction, the States must enforce the laws of DC over all citizens of the United States and Nationals there of. Remember DC is foreign to the Union and is NOT a State, Nation or Country its citizens have free reign to reside within any State of the Union and must comply with both laws of State and Federal ie dual citizenship. More on that topic can be found in this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hope I'm not confusing you so will stop here and let you continue your studies on this topic and will respond to any questions tomorrow.
As you noticed I keep several threads on different topics in law as to not confuse anyone coming in so we can focus on just one topic at a time.

Thank you for the post look forward to further discussions.