A Constitutional Look at the “United States”

In this review, we look at the “United States” as it was set up with the 1787 issue of the Constitution for the United States of America, the first version of the Constitution which established the “United States” . What I encourage you to embrace are two fundamental concepts: [1] the “United States” and “United States of America” are not the same organization or legal entity. And [2], that such established entity and organization is still encoded in federal “law” as United States Code today.

To cut to the chase and review the statutes, see: 
28 USC §3002 (15)(A), UCC 9-307 (h), and 28 USC §88
and 22 USC §6023 (15) United States national
…because it’s fun to blow people’s minds
on concepts they’re convinced they “know”.

I hope that such “law” presently on the books, and the persistence of the idea which endures to stand with presently published statutes gives you enough substance to grasp to hold your continued attention through the rest of this review. I do hope you find the discussion interesting, if not pivotal.

It is recommend you review this article in reference to the review of the 1787 Constitution here on the We the People site, linked to each specific clause throughout.

The United States of America

As mentioned in the 1787 Constitution, the document, “… this Constitution for the United States of America” as stated with the Preamble, is established for a purpose.

In the text of the 1787 Constitution “the United States of America” is specifically referred three times (3x).

  1. The first mention is in the Preamble or preface, where it specifies the purpose of the document as “for the United States of America”. This might be read “for the benefit of…” or “on behalf of…”
  2. Article 2, §1, ¶1: The second mention describes the establishment of an executive office as “executive power” for the “United States” as a function of “a President of the United States of America”. The executive power of the “United States” rests with the “office” of President. It is a function of the Presidency “office”. Likewise, the responsibilities as “commander in chief” are also an important function of the President’s “office” [Article 2, §1, ¶1].
  3. Finally, the authorization which precedes the signatures of those indorsing the Constitution, specifies “by the Unanimous Consent of the States…” and specifies “the Independence of the United States of America”. Why would the indorsers specify the independence of the “United States of America” and not simply use “United States” as a short version, abbreviation for the republic? …because these are not the same entity, nor organization.

In the context of the established functions, procedures, granted scopes of authority, and limits of power established and specified in this constitution, the “United States of America” is not mentioned with the original 1787 Constitution for the United States of America again. Isn’t that interesting?

The “United States”

This constitution document establishes a purpose and specification for that which it creates: what “constitutes”1 the “United States”. What is “its” granted scope of authority, and what are “its” limits?

While it can be read herein that this constitution “gives lawful form to” the “United States”, the Declaration of Independence can be said to give form and standing to the “United States of America”, such as “together, we stand apart” from Brittan and other nations who claim interest among “new world” territories. What is “formed” with the constitution of 1787, eleven years later, if the nation of confederate (cooperating) states is established at July 4, 1776?

As you read the following please review the comments in the persistent light that the text of the 1787 Constitution specifies and refers to an entity “United States” and kindly remember that our approach and assumption here is that this is not the “United States of America”… and I’ll hope not to annoy the reader by constant reminder with each point.

  1. The first mention of “United States” is again with the Preamble, as “We the People of the United States…” I can read this with either slant to its meaning:
    • that “United States” is a truncation of “United States of America”, a “nickname”. This use at the outset might contribute to the mischaracterization of such moniker as an abbreviation, a common concept, or…
    • that those serving in “office” at this time fully realize their function and that such office is as a confederacy of States, an organization entrusted to establish a “federal government”, and therefore “we the people of a federal association” which represent the combined will and authority of the member states. These are a “people”, more accurately “persons“, elected officers, bearing a task to form a “federation”; an entity unique and separate from a republic of the people.
    • I need not tell you which version I particularly favor at present. This is a lawful document… there is no place for vagueness and “nicknames” herein; in fact “void for vagueness” is a legal concept in reference to statutes, ordinance, and code…
  2. Article 1, §1: Specifies that the Legislative Powers, or ability to create guiding statutes, is “vested”2 in a “Congress (assembly) of the United States“; with both a Senate and a House of Reps.
  3. Article 1, §2, ¶2: Representatives are required to be a “Citizen of the United States” for seven years. Again, this use can create confusion:
    • If the “United States” is an entity, to be a Citizen of the entity or “federal citizen” as requirement for office as Rep or Senator certainly disagrees with our common perception of such office; though the concept might explain the persistent disconnect between the people’s will and much federal policy.
    • More on this topic: State Citizenship vs. Federal Citizenship; [Rumble.com-Audio] [text-to-speech.mp3]
      [original article]
  4. Article 1, §2, ¶3: Mentions in context a “Congress of the United States“
  5. Article 1, §3, ¶1: Mentions a “Senate of the United States“
  6. Article 1, §3, ¶3: As with Article 1, §2, ¶2, requirements for Senator include status as “Citizen of the United States” for a period of nine years.
    • Again I question if this is literally indicative of the “United States” entity as a separate association from the people inhabiting the states as “federal citizen” from the beginning. Today, assuming the 14th Amendment is properly ratified (such can be questioned), a unique association with “United States” for the status (A) United States citizen (or national) is certainly considered so, codified at 22 USC §6023 (15).
    • See: United States National definition with related citing of United States Code in present positive law.
    • More on this topic: State Citizenship vs. Federal Citizenship; [Rumble.com-Audio] [text-to-speech.mp3]
      [original article]
  7. Article 1, §3, ¶4: This clause specifies that the Vice President’s office will also attend the Senate as President of the Senate, but describes the office as “Vice President of the United States“.
    • Again this mention raises questions as the office of President is specified as an executive function associated with the office “President of the United States of America“; Article 2, §1, ¶1.
    • I’m just reading what’s written and asking the obvious questions stemming of inconsistency… don’t shoot the messenger.
  8. Article 1, §3, ¶5: This clause provides for covering the Vice President’s Senate duties if unavailable when covering the office and functions of “President of the United States“.
    • Admittedly, this clause can certainly confuse the issue. With executive power established at Article 2, §1, ¶1 which specifically refers to the “President of the United States of America“, and here seems at home with the truncation “United States”… or is it referring to the executive function of the office?
    • Unless the functions are indeed separate, as if the President were not able to perform as “Commander in Chief” of the armed forces, another would cover that “function” of the office. Here, as with such contingency, the Vice President serves to attend the “United States” executive function if the executive provided, the President, is not able.
    • If so, can an impeached “President of the United States” as corporation executive still be “President of the United States of America”, as intended parallel functions of the office; with the Vice President stepping in to manage the affairs of the “United States” corporation? Yes, it’s rather convoluted, but we can read it that way; so: an obvious question.
    • In support of the above rather reaching concept, this clause does specify “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States“. The states and President of the United States of America are not under or beneath their contracted service provider; if that’s actually the case.
  9. Article 1, §3, ¶6: speaks of trying the “President of the United States” under procedure for impeachment.
  10. Article 1, §3, ¶7: As with ¶6 above, impeachment procedure is mentioned as associated with the office “President of the United States” with possible removal from that office or function; criminal charges being a separate matter.
    • Is it possible to be removed from the executive function with the “United States”, the Vice President stepping into the executive function, yet remain “President of the United States of America”? …again, asking the obvious questions.
  11. Article 1, §6, ¶1: specifies that Senators and Representatives receive compensation for services routed from the “Treasury of the United States“.
  12. Article 1, §6, ¶2: specifies that there exists an “Authority of the United States” and that there are civil “Office(s) under the United States” which are not permitted to coexist with membership in the House or Senate.
    • This clause is one of the clearer expressions that there is established a “separate authority” for the “United States” and that such authority has subservient agencies and offices.
  13. Article 1, §7, ¶2: mentions the function of the “President of the United States” in contributing to the legislative process by approval of bills into law (statute).
    • The process is a legislative process of the “United States”, an executive function for the federal entity established for the purpose of managing the people’s national business.
  14. Article 1, §7, ¶3: Another reference to the “President of the United States” in relation to approving bills proposed with the function and process of legislation for the “United States”.
  15. Article 1, §8, ¶1: mentions the “common Defence and general Welfare of the United States“… and that “Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”
    • The common defence and welfare is to protect the country as the collection of states, and to bear concern for the federal government’s function; a clause that in the opinion of many, has been twisted beyond recognition.
    • Duties, imposts, and excises are assessed and collected from one territorial state or nation to another; in other words, among states… not within the States. The “United States” for this discussion is regarded as the entity which sees to the relationships among the States, the association for the federation of several States.
  16. Article 1, §8, ¶2: The “United States” bears it’s own credit status which the “Congress of the United States” established at Article 1, §1 can enact, affect, and manage.
    • At this writing, over 37-trillion USD value of debt; for those that don’t relate to large numbers, that’s “thirty-seven million, MILLIONS”.
    • From the “federal citizen” fellow-employee perspective, those running the government service corporation “United States” would like Americans to believe “we share in that responsibility“. Do review the “employee” definition in Title 26, the “tax code”.
    • From what I’ve seen and, in portion, shared here, I don’t accept that premise.
    • If the “United States” and the “United States of America” are indeed separate entities, then most Americans who were not born “United States Citizens” or “federal citizens” [22 USC §6023 (15)] have no responsibility for such debt. Isn’t that an interesting concept?
    • To adjust one’s status back to the status at nativity, a change of political status declaration(s) might be in order. Review that idea HERE.
  17. Article 1, §8, ¶4: pertains to uniform rules for Naturalization and Bankruptcies throughout the “United States“.
    • “Throughout the United States”, or, irrespective of the State of the Union one may inhabit, by what process and checks are immigrants status converted to be that of “Ohioan”, “Virginian”, “Texan”; ultimately: “American”?
    • These are concerns among the States and which concern the “nation”, and not necessarily the business of each state.
  18. Article 1, §8, ¶6: pertains to the counterfeiting of securities and coin of the “United States“.
    • The federal government is responsible to oversee a “standard of weights and measures” including “coin” as money in use as “tender in payment of debts”. [¶5 above, and Article 1, 10, 1]
  19. Article 1, §8, ¶16: reviews federal government responsibility to organize, arm, and discipline the militia as may be “employed in the Service of the United States“.
    • With directive to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, not an “army”, the “United States” can call such defense to “federal service” of all the states; a function of “federation” or cooperation of several (separate) states. What need exists to specify this if the “United States” is synonymous with the “United States of America”?
    • Also “reserving to the States respectively” the militia can be called to serve in the defense and interest of the militia’s home State.
    • Of interest here, is the Article 1, §8, ¶12 clause which permits no “standing army”; limiting funding for any such to two years.
  20. Article 1, §8, ¶17: specifies that which as may “become the Seat of the government of the United States” also specifying “not exceeding ten Miles square“; a limit of physical as well as legal jurisdiction to “exercise like authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be“.
    • The government of the “United States of America” is the people, as we the people are self-governing; a free people who are not ruled.
    • I contend this clause limits jurisdiction to the “District of Columbia”, federal areas established within the states by purchase (rather than by claim), and to those territories and possessions of “United States” without the continent, eventually remainder of the states including Alaska and Hawaii.
  21. Article 1, §8, ¶18: specifies “the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States…”
    • The laws which are “necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers“… not anything deemed necessary and proper, but to execute the “job specified” by the “authority granted”
    • … and no further.
    • As I read it, the “United States” is a federal (cooperative) function of the States which is granted limited authority and specific powers. Those powers presumed or taken without regard for specified limits exceed the granted scope of authority and doubtless trespass the people’s rights and likely violate statutory guidelines in the process; criminal actions.
  22. Article 1, §9, ¶8: specifies no titles of nobility are to be granted by the “United States” nor are any subordinate to that jurisdiction to accept any such from foreign states.
    • A specification unheeded as “esquire”, “mister”, “your honor”, and others are all carry-over “titles”, however common, from the British Aristocracy custom of elevating one class of people over another.
  23. Article 1, §10, ¶2: specifies that any excise or duty on imports or exports are limited to “what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws”, otherwise only by Congressional approval, and that the “net Produce… shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States”
    • Yet another example of the focus and action of “United States” intended to be upon that which lays without the country rather than within.
  24. Article 2, §1, ¶1: specifies that “the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America”
    • This does not say, “the executive is the President”, rather specifically states the “executive power” is inherent or “vested” in “a president” or in the office; a function or additional task assigned to the desk with a title: “President of the United States of America“.
    • Unique and rare in this Constitution is use of the specific “United States of America”; important i think to use it as here with this concept and clause.
  25. Article 2, §1, ¶2: specifies the number and qualification of “Electors” in the election process of “United States” officers, specifying that “no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit” qualify to be an Elector.
    • The electors which ultimately decide the Presidency in clause 3 (¶3) outlined with this clause then are no officers or persons of the “United States” jurisdiction, but of another class and status;
    • Perhaps electors are intended to be original jurisdiction Americans as those not “subject to” the corporate “United States” and “District of Columbia” as “United States National” (US Citizen) all of which are “foreign” in respect to the States. [see definition for “United States” with citings of USC, CFR, and court opinion]
    • In essence, those selecting the executive to wield the power to manage the people’s business as a nation ought not to be “an inside job” of tightly-knit deep or dark-state bureaucrats… just as a passing thought.
  26. Article 2, §1, ¶3: outlines the Elector role in selecting “two Persons” or officers for the “President of the United States of America” [Article 2, §1, ¶1] and Vice President offices. This specifies that the votes tallied are to be delivered sealed to “the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate“, which is the current sitting Vice President [per: Article 1, §3, ¶4]
    • Apparently there is a “United States” organization with it’s own government as it is specifically addressed here and , as I have found, forty-two (42) times throughout the 1787 constitution.
    • My observation and perspective is that such organization serves the “United States of America” at the other end of a contract we refer to as “The Constitution”. Fifty states are party to a contract issued to the contractor: “United States”
  27. Article 2, §1, ¶4: specifies that the day (or date) for choosing electors ought to occur simultaneously throughout the “United States”, though the words used are “the Day… which Day shall be the same”.
    • Bear in mind that the process for choosing Electors is a function of State suffrage; a State’s right to manage it’s own governing affairs, part of which is to determine that State’s role in affecting the nation’s business among the other several states.
    • Therefore, “throughout the United States” might as well be interpreted as “among the other governing States with bodies of the House and Senate” as easily as it can be interpreted among the people of the States. Each idea has a vastly different meaning.
    • The vote of electors, however, does not involve the vast population of the people, but a select number of electors based upon the qualifying members allotted per state to the House and Senate [Article 2, §1, ¶2]; a function only associated with the “United States” government service corporation.
    • I count the current number of electors at a total of 535 electors; one for each member: 435 for the House, 100 for the Senate.
  28. Article 2, §1, ¶5: draws an obvious distinction between a “natural born Citizen” and the “Citizen of the United States“. This clause also mentions qualification for President as “Resident within the United States” for fourteen years.
    • If such citizen-ships were synonymous, why specify or mention each one independently? The Constitution isn’t a casual discussion over coffee, it is a legal declaration of intent for lawful action. It is nothing if not specific to it’s expression and intent. So, what is the intent to specify these separately?
    • Thus far we’ve questioned the use and meaning of specifying “United States”. Here also is reason to question the use and intention of the word “resident“.
    • As with item 25 above, I question whether such residency of the “United States” is inclusive of the corporate structure, an inclusive membership of the governing class specific to “United States”, residents present temporarily to do business, or operate an office. Is the Presidency of the government service corporation to be chosen from among it’s long-serving corporate officers?
    • Which makes much more sense considering such jurisdiction of the “United States” seems to be limited to “ten miles square” [Article 1, §8, ¶17] and pertaining to national interests focused without and among the member states rather than within them. These are to see to the external business of the nation on behalf of the member States, at the opposite end of a “compact” or contractual agreement we call “The Constitution”.
  29. Article 2, §1, ¶7: addresses the compensation for the office of the President, specifying no “other Emolument from the United States”, or “any of them”, appearing to mean “any of the States”.
    • This clause adds confusion to the expression “United States” as in this case it seems to clearly refer to the “member states”, while in other uses I find the moniker for a service corporation also rather obvious.
    • Granted, it’s a bit of a stretch, but “any of them” might also be applied to the “Periods” of service. You could read it that way.
    • This clause is a leading candidate for arguing “United States” is an abbreviation, however, I believe that those who wrote this could have been more clear in handling these concepts, if indeed these are unique entities. They may, having been discussing the topic of a “Government for the United States”, what that is, how it works, and what it’s functions are for months on end, having been so familiar with the concepts that they felt these needed no additional explanation or specificity.
    • They may have also been desperate to “keep the compact to one sheepskin” avoiding what appeared obvious to save space… as “this is the biggest sheep I’ve raised in years!”… who knows; I wasn’t there.
  30. Article 2, §1, ¶8:
  31. Article 2, §2, ¶1:
  32. Article 2, §2, ¶2:
  33. Article 2, §3:
  34. Article 2, §4:
  35. Article 3, §1:
  36. Article 3, §2, ¶1:
  37. Article 3, §3, ¶1:
  38. Article 4, §3, ¶2:
  39. Article 4, §4:
  40. Article 6, §1:
  41. Article 6, §2:
  42. Article 6, §3:

Footnotes:

  1. constitute: [1] make up, form, compose, [2] set up, establish, enact, found and [c] to give due or lawful form to [Merriam-Webster] ↩︎
  2. vested: law settled, fixed, or absolute; without contingency; having full ownership rights [wordnik] ↩︎

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.