Philadelphia – Old City: Independence Hall – The Signing of the Constitution in A.D. 1787. But did the “Singning” constitute Ratification? (Photo credit: wallyg)
A couple of friends sent an email to me concerning the meanings of “United States,” “United States of America” and “The United States of America”. I replied as follows:
It seems to me that the Founders were incredibly casual with their use of the terms “United States” and “The United States of America”. They routinely used the term “the United States of America” (in the Preamble, for example) to almost certainly mean “The United States of America”. That allowed later generations of villains to define “United States of America” in a way that’s other than “The United States of America”. They left us an almost astonishing burden of ambiguity and confusion. In retrospect, their failure to precisely define what “United States” and “the United States of America” meant is equivalent to an Achilles Heel that opened the door to great treason in this country. They assumed the meanings of those terms were obvious and would remain obvious to their descendants. They were mistaken.There is a SEVERAL “United States” in the body of the Constitution and the 13th Amendment. There is a SINGULAR (probably “national”) United States in the 14th Amendment.The SEVERAL “United States” seems to most likely signify the several States of the Union and may (or may not) be a “shorthand” expression that’s virtually synonymous with the CONFEDERATION and UNION styled “The United States of America”.Just as there are (at least) two “United States” (several and singular), there are (at least) two USAs: ”The United States of America” (created by the Articles of Confederation) and “United States of America” (which appears to be a statutory USA that is now deemed (at least by Black’s) to be synonymous with the singular “United States”.The SINGULAR “United States” (first seen clearly in the 14th Amendment) appears to be a NATIONAL entity that has become the bane of our current existence.So far as I can tell, the differences between “The United States of America” and and the constitutional “United States” are these:1. The “constitution of The United States of America” is the document that created/constituted “The United States of America”. The proper name of that “constitution” is the “Articles of Confederation” of A.D. 1781.2. ”The Constitution of the United States” is the document that created/constituted the “United States”. That Constitution was not given an “official” name within that Constitution but has come to be called the “Constitution of the United States” (or “The Constitution of the United States”) and was first ratified by the People in A.D. 1789.But there may be a second ”constitution” also referred to as “The (the?) Constitution of the United States” that was first signed by the Congress in A.D. 1787.More confusion and ambiguity, hmm?But if there is a “constitution of A.D. 1787 and also of A.D. 1789, it may make a big difference whether you refer to the “Constitution of A.D.1787″ or the “Constitution of A.D. 1789″. The words of both documents are identical, but the authority of each document derives from a completely different source: one from Congress (A.D. 1787) the other from the People (A.D. 1789). Under the “Constitution of A.D. 1787,” the Congress might be the sovereign. Under the “Constitution of A.D. 1789,” the People of the several States of the Union are the sovereigns.The reason I believe there may be two “constitutions” is that I several years ago, I was researching on Manta.com (which lists millions of corporations) and turned up “Government of the United States” and/or “United States” which Manta.com (based on data from Dunn & Bradstreet) had declared to be a corporation which had been “in business” since A.D. 1787.But A.D. 1787 is the year that the Constitution was proposed by Congress. However, under Article VII of that Constitution, the Constitution and resulting “United States” and resulting government would not be ratified and thereby established until the “Conventions of nine States” had ratified the proposed Constitution. So far as I know, the 9th State’s convention didn’t ratify until A.D. 1789. That tells me that the Constitution was merely a proposal and without any lawful authority until A.D.1789. Thus, the de jure “government of the United States” could not have existed prior to A.D. 1789.Therefore, either Manta.com and D&B were mistaken when they alleged that the “Government of the United States” is a corporation that’s been “in business” since A.D. 1787–or, it is currently presumed that we have two constitutions: one authorized by Congress in A.D. 1787 and another ratified by the People of the several States of the Union in A.D. 1789.If it were true that there are two “constitutions,” whenever you unwittingly acted under the authority of the Constitution of A.D. 1787, you might acting under the authority of Congress. Congress would be the sovereign and you would be a subject. On the other hand, if you expressly acted under the authority of the Constitution of A.D. 1789, you’d be acting under the authority of the People and–as one of the People–you would be an individual sovereign and the government would be your fiduciary.This hypothesis is based on fairly flimsy evidence. I’m not betting my life that the foregoing is true, but I think it is.3. “The United States of America” created/constituted by the Articles of Confederation include only the States of the Union. So far as I know, there is no proviso for territories or for a federal district (that became Washington DC) in the Articles of Confederation. I therefore presume that that to this day, there are no territories or Washington DC within “The United States of America”. I presume that means there is no Zip Code within “The United States of America”.4. The “United States” created/constituted by the “The Constitution of the United States” of A.D. 1789 (and/or A.D. 1787) includes territories and what became Washington DC. Within the States of the Union the resulting “federal”(?) government has only limited powers. Within the territories and Washington DC, that government has unlimited powers. So far as I can see, the Zip Code applies within the territories and Washington DC. It’s not necessarily true, but it’s conceivable that use of the Zip Code is deemed evidence that you are acting as a subject within the “United States” rather than as an individual sovereign within “The United States of America”.5. I can’t prove it, but I strongly suspect that the relationship between the “The United States of America” (created by the Articles) and the “United States” (created by the “Constitution(s)”) is revealed in the Preamble to the Constitution first ratified in A.D. 1789. That Preamble declares in part, “We the People of the United States” (which I presume to mean the People of the several “United States” which comprised the Union styled “The United States of America”) . . . “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The trouble starts right there.If the fools had written “for The United States of America” (the proper name of the perpetual Union created by the Articles), a whole lot of subsequent confusion might’ve been avoided. By writing “the United States of America” the Founders left open the possibility that the proper name for the “Constitution” might be “The Constitution for the United States of America”. Some people believe that’s true. I do not.I read the Preamble’s text to mean “We the People of the [several] United States [acting as grantors] . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution ["of the United States" as a trust indenture] for [the benefit of the preexisting Union styled] The United States of America.”I always stand to be corrected, but if my interpretation is roughly correct, then the “United States” and general government created by “The Constitution of the United States” of A.D. 1789 were intended to act as a fiduciary for the benefit of “The United States of America”–the Confederation and States of the Union and intended beneficiary.Thus, I see the “Constitution” is a trust indenture wherein We the People are the grantors, “The United States of America” is the beneficiary and the “United States” is the fiduciary. A principle duty of the fiduciary/”United States” is to administer the territories and Washington DC which had been acquired and/or created prior to adoption of the Constitution, but for which there was no proviso in the Articles of Confederation.If all of this isn’t sufficiently confusing, take a look at 28 USC 81-131 which offers definitions of the “states”. I believe these code sections (adopted in A.D. 1948) define the territorial “states” of the singular ”United States” rather than the States of the Union of “The United States of America”.In all of this confusion, one fact stands out as reliable: the proper name for the confederation and perpetual Union created by the Articles of Confederation and made “more perfect” by the Constitution is “The United States of America“. It can’t be denied or refuted. Because that Union was expressly declared to be “perpetual,” it cannot have been lawfully disposed of or otherwise terminated or abandoned over the past two centuries. So long as you can successfully assert that you are within the “plane” or “venue” of “The United States of America,” you might enjoy a substantial defense against the purported authority of the singular/national “United States”.
