And he knew what he was doing.

Saying that you don't CARE what the court says reveals a lot. First that you do not understand the context in which the supreme court decisions were made, and second that you have no idea how massively stupid the power of the people at any given point in time can actually be.

Can category 1 "U.S." approach a Citizen in his state? NO. Category 1 United States only has jurisdiction abroad.

Can category 3 "U.S." approach a Citizen in his state? NO. The U.S. was delegated no such power, and further the Tenth Amendment forbids it.

That leaves category 2 "U.S.", the physical lands over which the federal government has control. The U.S. can create corporations and "persons" within these territories and enclaves because they are the sovereign.

Here is the contracthttp://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14toc_… and this is the address of some federal territories:

Tinon, GU 96913
Yauco, PR 00698
Washington, DC 20373
Beverly Hills, CA 90210

Delegation, surrender, abrogation, whatever. If the feds have your signature on a document saying that you are one of their franchisees, they can follow you anywhere in the world and tax you on that privelege (Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47).

I'm confused by your argument that most encroachments come via the 'second United States' because people can't recognize it.

The 'second United States' seems to be a reference to your list of 3 different ways of seeing our national government as explained in Evatt.

If that's correct, then you would be referring to the physical lands over which the federal government has control (D.C., Guam, A.S., certain forts, dockyards, etc. where title to the land rests with the federal entity).

How does the people's inability to recognize these territories (lands) over which the federal government holds title (or has control) cause "encroachments on the states and the People"?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying and how it relates to the article above.

I thought the point of Mr. Greenslade's article was that the states didn't intend to permanently give up power to the federal government in ratifying the US Constitution. Several of the states made this crystal clear at the time.

Instead of a permanent 'surrender' of powers, according to the author, they were merely 'delegating' (which implies a temporary grant) certain powers to the feds and, as such, those powers could be reclaimed later.

I'm guessing the author would like to reclaim some or all of them now.

Like Andrew Jackson allegedly said to the supremes "You've got your opinion, now come and try to enforce it!"

I always give cites. There ARE three entities known as the “United States”, you can find them, chapter and verse at Paragraph 42: http://openjurist.org/324/us/652/hooven-allison-co-v-evatt

Observe or not. I give the reasons Constitutionalists are not getting any traction. One major reason is that state citizens do not recognize WHICH “United States” they are dealing with. If they understood that they were being approached by the second definition “United States” they would have an entirely different strategy than if they were dealing with the third definition, wouldn’t they?

And if you have a court opinion you would like comments on, please cite it for us.

For example, there was a time when the court ruled that black people were less than human, in essence. Would you have cited them as some kind of authority back then too?