4 ms·

A State is also not a Territory or a District.

• dredmorbius 5y ago
  Hrm...
• dredmorbius 5y ago
  Do you have a specific reference addressing this, because I'm not finding a clear statement one way or the other. Title 18 lacks a Definitions section that I can find.
  • sgjohnson 5y ago
    Not a definitive source, but here's FATCA for example: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Documents/FATCA-Agreement-BVI-6-30-2014.pdf https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties... > The term “U.S. Territory” means American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_Stat... And there's plenty of references to legal documents clearly stating or implying that territories are in fact not sovereign entities (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico_v._Sanchez_Valle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico_v._Sanchez_Valle) And obviously there's only one Disctrict. The District of Columbia. So it's actually fairly complex to define "the United States", because the answer is generally "it depends on the context"
    • dredmorbius 5y ago
      Thanks. I'm trying to determine whether or not the language in Title 18 refers to "territory" in the sense of "any land that is part of the United States" (which would include the states), or "organised Territories exclusive of states". It's odd that the language is chosen but not clarified. I'm aware that generally states have jurisdiction within their own boundaries, but that interstate commerce is an exception. Given railroads' history ... the distinction, contenxt, and intent seem needlessly vague. Your original point remains though it's not clear to me it's the correct interpretation.