In order to understand citizenship from a LEGAL perspective, one MUST understand the following legal definitions, and suspend whatever one ‘thinks’ a word means. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined three, and ONLY three, legal definitions for the term, ‘United States’. In 1945, Hooven and Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, the Supreme Court defined ‘United States’ this way,
The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.
To enumerate those three legal definitions, the term ‘United States’ may be used in any one of the following senses:
(1) It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations.
(2) It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends OR
(3) It may be the collective names of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.
United States (1), would be used in treaties with other nations.
United States (2), would be used when referring to the District of Columbia and its jurisdiction over federal lands, territories, military bases, etc.
United States (3), would be used when referring to the collection of 50 states, specifically excluding the District of Columbia (2).
For an extensive explanation of these three definitions, State of Our New Territories-1899.
We can ignore definition (1) since it only comes into play in agreements with other nations, and We the Peeps aren’t directly involved in those. We the People are only concerned with definitions (2) and (3). Using set theory from my 8th grade algebra class… An important thing to remember is that definitions (2) and (3) are separate sets that do NOT overlap!
District of Columbia OR the 50 states of the union?
The distinction between the legal definition of United States(2) and United States(3) is illustrated in this quote by SCOTUS, in Hooven and Allison Co. v. Evatt, when defining the two types of legislative powers of Congress:
“The United States [District of Columbia] may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution ... In exercising this power, Congress is NOT subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States [States of the Union].”
I cannot emphasize the IMPORTANCE of the above quote in clarifying the difference between LEGAL definitions. I added the [ ] in the above quote to help clarify the point but remember that a non-woke reader would see ‘United States’ twice, thinking they mean the same thing – THEY DON’T! This is a clear example where a legal term, ‘United States’, is used in the same sentence, but the term has two different LEGAL meanings.
Translation of the above quote to laymen’s terms by substituting definition (3), ‘the 50 states of the union’, or def (2), the ‘District of Columbia’:
Congress is limited by the U.S. Constitution when legislating for the 50 states of the Union(3) but is NOT limited within the area over which it has exclusive legislative jurisdiction(2), aka, the District of Columbia. The importance of this statement cannot be overemphasized. When passing laws for the 50 states, or State citizens, Congress is LIMITED by the constitution; when passing laws for the District of Columbia, it is NOT limited! To say it a different way…
When passing laws for State citizens of the 50 states, Congress is LIMITED by the constitution,
When passing laws for the United States citizens, aka District of Columbia citizens, Congress is NOT limited by the constitution.
This is how they have subordinated unalienable rights and obtain jurisdiction over you as one of their DofC citizens.
Capital ‘T’ or lower-case ‘t’… IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE!
“Under Federal law U.S. insular areas are divided into two categories: incorporated insular areas which use "Territory" with a capital "T" and unincorporated insular areas which use "territory" with a lower-case "t."
That quote can be found here.
From August 12, 1898, until April 30, 1900, Hawaii (including Palmyra Atoll) was an unincorporated U.S. territory. On the latter date the Congress made the U.S. Constitution and all U.S. laws applicable to Hawaii (including Palmyra Atoll) as elsewhere in the several States and the District of Columbia. On April 30, 1900, Hawaii (including Palmyra Atoll) became an incorporated U.S. territory. So, when Hawaii (excluding Palmyra Atoll) was admitted as one of the several States, Palmyra remained and continues to remain an incorporated U.S. territory. It is, in fact, of the fourteen U.S. insular areas, the only incorporated U.S. territory, that is, a Territory. (Under Federal law U.S. insular areas are divided into two categories: incorporated insular areas which use "Territory" with a capital "T" and unincorporated insular areas which use "territory" with a lower-case "t.")
There is another such example of the importance of capitalization involving the legal definition of a ‘state’ versus a ‘State’, but I need to go through a pile of books and papers to find it… which isn’t going to happen any time soon!
The lesson…
Whenever you are reading ANY government document, form, statute, etc., you MUST know the legal definitions in order to not be fooled.