21 U.S.C. § 321(a)(1): Definition of the Word “State”

[courtesy Google Images]

21 U.S.C. § 321

21 U.S.C. § 321 is of special importance to me because it was there that I first realized that the government food and drug laws are all based on definitions that presume that you and I to be “animals” rather than “men made in God’s image and given dominion over animals” (as per Genesis 1:26-28) and “men endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (as per the “Declaration of Independence”).  As “animals” we have no significant rights that the government is bound to recognize.  Government wants us defined as “animals” in order to render us more “manageable” by the courts and police state.

The government’s presumption that we’re only animals is evidence of genocide, treason, and spiritual warfare being committed against the American people by our own government.

Government’s predilection to degrade us to the status of “animals” isn’t a recent phenomenon.  The earliest instance I’ve been able to find is Section Six (definitions) of the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act which defined both food and drugs based on the presumption that the American people are mere animals.  The government has engaged in these acts of genocide for over a century.

So far as I know, I may be the first layman to have read the “man or other animals” (MOOA) definitions in over a century and realized what they meant on a spiritual basis.

•  But, there’s more to 21 U.S.C. § 321 than insight into how our government has sought to degrade us into “animals”.  There are also subsections that can help us understand the meaning of “state” and “human,” etc..

What follows is subsection (a) of 21 U.S.C. § 321 that defines “State”.  This definition offers valuable insight into the difference between States of the Union (“The United States of America”) and the territorial/administrative “States of the United States”.

This article on subsection (a) is the first in a series of articles that attempt to dissect some of the definitions in 21 U.S.C. § 321.  I’m not arguing that my analyses are God’s truth.  I’m simply presenting my analysis du juor.

You can find a complete and pristine copy of 21 U.S.C. § 321 at Findlaw.com.

21 U.S.C. § 321 : US Code – Section 321: Definitions; generally

“For the purposes of this chapter –

“(a)

(1) The term “State“, except as used in the last sentence of section 372(a) of this title, means any State or Territory of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.”

The Articles of Confederation of A.D. 1781 created/constituted a confederation and “perpetual Union” named “The United States of America”.  That Union is “perpetual”.  It’s still here.  That Union consists only of States of the Union—it does not include any territories of the United States, or districts like Washington DC.

The Constitution of the United States (ratified and established by the people in A.D. 1788) was intended to “form a more perfect Union”.  That Union was the perpetual Union created by the Articles of Confederation.

The Constitution created a new entity called the “United States”.  The “United States” and “The United States of America” appear to be two separate and distinct “jurisdictions”.  Washington DC and the territories like Puerto Rico, TX, IL and NY are part of the “United States”—but they are not included within “The United States of America” because that entity/jurisdiction includes only States of the Union.

•  When we read the definition of “State” at21 U.S.C. § 321(a)(1), we see that whatever kind of “State” they’re defining, it’s not a “State of the Union” (“The United States of America”) because the definition includes entities like the “District of Columbia” and Puerto Rico and “Territory of the United States”.  These territories and districts are completely different from the States of the Union found in the Articles of Confederation. These “States of the United States” are territorial or administrative in nature and do not secure the rights that are guaranteed within States of the Union.

Note that I read the phrase “State or Territory of the United States” to mean “State [of the United States] or Territory of the United States”.   These “State[s] are not “States of the Union” (of “The United States of America”).

99.9% of Americans presume that if I say “Texas,” “TX,” “STATE OF TEXAS” and “The State of Texas” I’m talking about the same place/venue/jurisdiction.   I not only disagree with that presumption, I regard it as a (perhaps, the) principal lie by means of which we are deceived into accepting non-constitutional government and the police state as lawful within the current “states”.

I believe that a State of the Union (State of The United States of America) is not a “State of the United States”.  I believe these are two different and mutually exclusive jurisdictions or political “planes”.  You can be in “Texas” or you can be within “The State of Texas,” but you can’t be in both at the same time.  To be in “Texas” is to be in a “State or territory of the United States”.  To be within the borders of “The State of Texas” is to be within a State of the Union (State of The United States of America).

The “States of the United States” defined at 21 USC  § 321(a)(1) are the second venue, the territorial venue, the fictional venue wherein Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States (which grants the federal government only a few “limited powers” within the States of the Union) has little or no legal effect.

Why?  Because under Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution, Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the territories and other properties of the United States such as States of the United States.  Within a “territory,” Congress are the sovereigns or aristocracy.  Within a “territory of the United States” or “State of the United States,” you are, at best, a subject and frequently deemed to be an “animal”.

Under Article 1 of the Constitution, Congress has limited powers within the States of the Union (States of The United States of America).

Under Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution, Congress has virtually unlimited powers over the territories of the United States and over the “States of the United States”.

Within the States of The United States of America, you are a sovereign.

Within the “States of the United States” and “territories of the United States,” you’re a subject, animal, human resource or slave.

•  If you want to claim your God-given, unalienable Rights (as declared in the “Declaration of Independence”) in the capacity of a “man made in God’s image” (as per Genesis 1:26-28), I believe you’d better do whatever you can to rebut the presumption that you’re in a “state or territory of the United States” and do whatever you can to establish a claim that you’re living within a “State of The United States of America”—State of the Union like “The State of Texas” (not TX) or “The State of Illinois” (not IL), etc..

One very strong suspicion in this hypothesis is that Zip Codes only exist in the territories and/or states of the United States.  I don’t believe that there are any Zip Codes within the States of the Union (The United States of America).  If I’m right, your voluntary use of Zip Codes on your mail, your address, etc. is probably deemed evidence sufficient to justify the presumption that you have voluntarily left your State of the Union and/or “The United States of America” and voluntarily entered into a “State or territory of the United States.”  If you have voluntarily entered into a state or territory of the United States, you are (at best) a subject, and Congress is you sovereign.  As a subject you’ll enjoy no meaningful rights.

•  I believe that the laws and regulations that apply under Title 21 of the United State Code (and probably most of the other 50-odd Title of the USC) apply within the “United States” (created/constituted by the “Constitution of the United States” first ratified by the People in A.D. 1788) but do not apply within “The United States of America” (created/constituted by the Articles of Confederation of A.D. 1781).

If that distinction is true, and if you can grasp and argue that distinction effectively, you might be able to keep the feds off your back.

•  These fantastic allegations will make more sense to you if you read the Articles of Confederation and note that there’s no proviso for a “district” like Washington DC or a “territory” like Guam, the US Virgin Islands or even the “Territory of Ohio” (before it was admitted to the Union) or the “Territory of Alaska” (before it was admitted to the Union).

I speculate that authors of the Article of Confederation were so busy fighting the English and praying to God that they merely survive the conflict, that it never occurred to then that those 13 States might one day become 14 or even 50.  The Articles of Confederation made virtually no proviso for adding territories or States to the “perpetual Union”.

Much to their surprise, the thirteen States of The United States of America defeated the English—the world’s only super-power.   Emboldened by their extraordinary victory, I suspect that they began to think about defeating other governments, powers and Indian tribes and thereby adding more territory (and later States) to their Union.

But much to their surprise, there was virtually no proviso in the Articles of Confederation to add more territories or States of the Union.  Therefore, they began to deal with the problem of acquiring territories and then converting those territories into States of the Union in the Northwest Ordinance of A.D. 1787 and then the Constitution of the United States (first ratified by the people in A.D. 1788).

There’ve been other explanations offered to justify the Constitution as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation such as the need for a stronger, central taxing authority.  But I strongly suspect a primary reason, perhaps the primary reason, for establishing the Constitution was to provide the legal foundation for acquiring territories of the United States and then converting those territories into States of The United States of America.

•  An important point to understand is that the Constitution of the United States created a “United States” that was added to, but did not replace the confederation and perpetual Union called “The United States of America”.

Read the Preamble to the Constitution.  It declares that “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, . . . do ordain and establish his Constitution for the United States of America.”

To make a “more perfect Union” presupposes that 1) some “Union” must have existed prior to the Constitution; and, 2) the Constitution would be ratified to make that preexisting Union even “more perfect”.  That “Union,” of course was The United States of America.  Thus, the Constitution did not replace that Union—it only “amended” it (in a sense) and made it “more perfect”.

I think the Union was primarily made “more perfect” by creating a legal procedure whereby territories could be acquired and later converted into States of the Union.

•  Note that that Union styled “The United States of America” was expressly declared to be “perpetual” in the Articles of Confederation and thus must exist to this day.  There is no proviso in the Articles of Confederation or in the Constitution to terminate or destroy the “perpetual Union styled ‘The United States of America.’”  Thus, while the “United States” is not perpetual and could theoretically cease to exist, “The United States of America” is perpetual and might exist forever.

•  Also, because the Founders failed to attach a specific title to the document that we’ve come to call the “Constitution of the United States,” some have read the last phrase in the Preamble (“do ordain and establish his Constitution for the United States of America.”) to indicate that the proper title for the document is the “Constitution for the United States of America”.

I disagree.

I think the Founders told us in the Preamble that the document they called the “Constitution” was written and ordained “for” the benefit of the preexisting, perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.   The phrase “Constitution for the United States of America” is not the title of a document—it’s a statement of the purpose of that document and the government it “constituted”:  to serve the best interests of preexisting Union called “The United States of America”.

A document that could be described as “the constitution of the The United States of America” would be the document that created or “constituted” the entity called “The United States of America”.   It’s undeniable that the document that first expressly created or constituted the entity called “The United States of America” was the “Articles of Confederation”.   Thus, the document we call the “Articles of Confederation” could be described as the constitution of The United States of America.

It follows that the document we call the “Constitution of the United States” created or constituted an entity other than “The United States of America”.   Thus, the allegation that the proper name for the “Constitution” ratified in A.D. 1788 is the “Constitution for the United States of America” must fail since “The United States of America” had already been created/constituted by the Articles of Confederation of A.D. 1781.

•  If this analysis is correct, it’s important.

Why?

Because if the “Constitution” (A.D. 1788) was ordained “for [the benefit of] the United States of America,” then there appears to be a trust relationship between the “United States” and “The United States of America”.  Within that trust relationship, the States of “The United States of America” are the apparent beneficiaries and the “United States” is the apparent fiduciary.  If so, the States of the Union (and perhaps the people therein) should be beneficiaries of the “Constitution of the United States”.   On the other hand, those who work for the federal government of the United States should be fiduciaries for the people of The United States of America.

If you were a citizen of one of the States of the Union, you would be a beneficiary of the “Declaration of Independence,” Articles of Confederation, and probably the Constitution of the United States.  But if you were a “citizen of the United States” (especially if you were presumed to inhabit a state or territory of the United States rather than a State of the Union), you might be presumed to be property of the United States in the same sense that animals, objects and slaves are property of the United States.  As a property of the United States, you would be subject to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress.  Congress would be our sovereign.  You would be only a subject, animal or slave.

•  Next time, I’ll dig into the definition of “Territory” seen at 21 U.S.C. § 321(a)(2).  Then, as time and energy allow, I’ll proceed to the other definitions in 21 U.S.C. § 321.