The federal Government’s incorporated powers under Article I of the Constitution have been established within the 10 square mile area in Washington D.C.  All the unincorporated federal powers such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Health and Human Services, etc. are outside the 10 square mile area.  They get their powers from the people who have volunteered by contract (public policy), into the unincorporated association under Article IV Section 3 cl.2.
Although the Federal Reserve System is a private banking entity it is within the 10 square mile area because the Federal Government is in a contract with the Federal Reserve to produce the nation’s money supply because there is no prohibition in the U.S. Constitution to prohibit such a contract.
Article IV Section 3 cl.2 gives Congress authority to enact statutes such as Environmental Protection Agency, Endangered Species Act, etc., that become the penal clauses of the contract that you have used to enter interstate commerce via private international law.  When you don't perform, an agency/agent cites you, and the courts through an administrative procedure, causes you to perform to the contract through fines or whatever.  Your performance is required to support this public debt/credit system.  Despite the debt/credit system, you cannot be forced into a debt/credit relationship with an unincorporated banking association.  You can operate in the Law within the bounds of the incorporated state without all the controlling conditions of Congress and all the agencies of the state and local governments applying to you, but you must refrain from creating the liability.
Article IV Section 3 cl.1 of the Constitution is the power given to Congress to deal with incorporated states.
[clause 1]  New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Article IV Section 3 cl.2 is the power given to Congress to deal with unincorporated states. 

[clause 2] The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

The Supreme Court ruling on the property clause of Article IV Section 3 cl.2 stated:

Literally, the word “territory”, as here used, signifies property, since the language is not “territory or property”, but “territory or other property.”  There thus arises an evident difference between the words “the territory” and “a territory” of the United States.  The former merely designates a particular part or parts of the earth's surface-the imperially extensive real estate holdings of the Nation; the latter is a governmental subdivision which happened to be called a “territory”, but which quite as well could have been called a “colony” … “province”   . . . . ‘A territory, under the Constitution and laws of United States is an inchoate state,” quoting Ex parte Morgan D.C. 20 Fed 298, 305. O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 US 516, 537 (1933). [Bold emphasis added]

The.  An Article which particularizes the subject spoken of.  “Grammatical niceties should not be resorted to without necessity; but it would be extending liberality to an unwarrantable length to confound the Articles ‘a’ and ‘the’.  The most unlettered persons understand that ‘a’ is indefinite, but ‘the’ refers to a certain object.”  Black’s Law Dict. 5th Ed.

The status and rank of territorial governments, the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Snow v. United States. 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 317, stated: government territories of the United States belongs primarily to Congress, and secondarily to such agencies as Congress may establish for that purpose. They are mere dependencies of the United States. Their people do not constitute a sovereign power.  This decision is based upon the spirit and true meaning of the Constitution as determined by Congress under Article IV Sec. 3 cl.2. [bold underline emphasis added]
The Court, in Kansas v. Colorado. 206 U.S. 46 (1906) at 89 speaking of Article IV, Section 3 stated, "it is a grant of power to the United States of control over its property. That is implied by the words 'territory or other property ‘ ...it has been referred to in some decisions as granting political and legislative control over the territories as distinguished from the states of the Union."[Bold emphasis added]
The Court held in First National Bank v. Yankton County. 101 U.S. 129, that "A territorial government is an agency employed by Congress". and further; The organic act of a territory takes the place of a constitution, as the fundamental law of local government. Congress is supreme of its governmental authority has all the powers of the people of the United States, except such as have been expressly or by implication reserved by the prohibitions of the Constitution.
    A "territory" of the United States is a portion of the country not included within the limits of any state and not yet admitted as a state into the Union, but organized under the laws of Congress. People of State of New York ex reI. Kopel v. Bingham, 81 N.E. 773, 89 N.Y. 124, affirmed 211 U.S. 468, See also, 148 F. 505, 507, citing De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1, In re Lane,135 U.S. 447,  Ex Parte Morgan, 20 F. 298, 305.
In McAllister v. United States 141 U.S. 174, (1891), the Supreme Court held that territorial courts are not established under the authority of Article III of the Constitution, but rather are legislative courts established under the property clause.
And in Williams v. United States 289 U.S. 553, (1933), the Court observed that the authority granted to territorial courts to hear and decide controversies arising in the territories of the United States is judicial power, but is not that judicial power granted by § 1 and defined by § 2 of Article III of the Constitution; rather it is derived from the property clause.
What the McAllister and Williams Court is saying is, the judicial Power (small “j” capital “P”)
is the Article III courts give access to the general (commercial) federal common law whereas; the other Judicial power (capital “J” and small “p”) as mentioned in the 11th amendment you are a “person” treated as “other property “subject to”  Art. IV Sec. 3 cl.2 and the 14th amendment. 
In other words, you are the creation of the government and there is no such thing as the separation
of powers doctrine. Check the spelling in your copy of the constitution.  Are you beginning to
understand federal mandates and why the courts render the rulings they hand down.
It must also be mentioned here that Title 18 sec. 5 US Criminal Code to wit:

The term “United States”, as used in this title in a territorial sense, includes all places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except the Canal Zone. [Bold print emphasis underline added]

Congress may legislate directly with respect to the local affairs of a territory or it may transfer that function to a legislature elected by the citizens thereof, Binns v. United States, 194 US 491 (1904). See also Sere v. Pitot, 10 US (6 Cr) 332, 336 1810); Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 US 15, 44 (1885), which will then be invested with all legislative power except as limited by the Constitution of the United States and acts of Congress, Walker v. New Mexico & S.P.R. Co., 165 US 593, 604 (1897); Simms v. Simms 175 US 162, 163, (1899); Wagoner v. Evans, 170 US 588, 591 (1898).
[Congress serves a dual function, i.e., enacting local laws under Article IV Sect. 3 cl.2 or general laws pertaining to Article IV Sec. 3 cl.1 and Art. I ]. The constitutional guarantees of private rights are applicable in territories which have been made a part of the United States by congressional action. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 US 244, 271 (1901) but not in unincorporated territories.  Downes v. Bidwell 182 US 244. [Bold emphasis added]
The Constitution is a Charter whereby the people formed an incorporated association under the Common Law that is evidenced by that document that spells out what the duties of Government are.  The Constitution does not restrict the individual’s right to contract into an unincorporated association under private international law should they desire. The Constitution must provide you free access to the law of your choice, or the Constitution becomes a dictatorship.
In fact, the Constitution of U.S. does not deal with individuals, it is a limit on the powers of Governments whereas; the Bill of Rights pertains to individuals.   The first 10 Amendments deal with the incorporated side under the general (commercial) federal common law of Swift v. Tyson 16 Peters 1 (1842).   In other words, interstate commerce under the general (commercial) federal common law is still available under Swift despite Erie Railroad v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, (1938) to those who are free of diversity of citizenship under the 14th amendment with its debt/credit. In the May 1984 issue of Harvard Law Review, Vol. 97 No. 7 noted: that whether Erie RR v. Tompkins supra, or Swift v Tyson supra, is to apply is a contractual right up to the individual.
Decided the same day as Erie Railroad supra, the Court in Hinderlider v. La Plata 304 US 92 noted:  “Where there are no state statutes or case decisions that the Federal Courts may rely on, then we may say that there is a federal common law specifically created by the Federal Courts themselves and applicable to those areas where State laws cannot be relied upon.”  If the common law (Anglo-American) is nothing else, it is the history of the struggle of trial by jury against the civil law of the Roman (private international law) and Germanic Empires.  Law that is ministerial and inquisitory is not “the common law” … it is the civil law of Rome and Germany.  Every allusion in D'Oench, Duhme & Co., Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 315 U.S. 447 is to “The common law,” not to civil law.  Take note that the Roman civil law is now called under the conflict of laws “private international law”.  The reason is a story in and of itself that we will not delve into. Does George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 1770-1831 and Karl Marx 1818-1883 sound familiar???  The rest of the amendments deal with private international law of the unincorporated association.  Article IV Section 3 cl.2 gives the government the authority to regulate unincorporated associations through what is also known as local law.  As commerce began to explode, the founding fathers knew, and is the reason Ben Franklin said, “we have given you a Republic, the question is, can you keep it?”; that the people would be more interested in making money than producing money. Consequently, the “Standard” lawful money in “Payment” of Debt in the Common Law of “the State” i.e., public money for private debt that belonged to the people individually as sovereigns. To the contrary, there is now a debt/credit system in “discharge” of debt in equity (no twelve man jury) among the people of the several federal states under private international law, i.e., private money for public debt.  Under the U.S. Constitution, a strong central Government is designed to protect the grounded substance of “the states” from the unincorporated associations, i.e., private international law.  Had we remained under the Articles of Confederation, and went bankrupt in 1933, we would have fallen into the clutches of foreign investors and their country’s foreign laws to which there would have been no escape and no return to the common law. Because of Article I Section 10 the debt would have been subject to a bilateral agreement, and the debt, by the law of nations, follows the laws of the domicile of the creditor.  As it now stands, the people have control of the debt and can abolish the debt when they are ready. The people have reinsured each other by contract in a debtor/creditor relationship that is a one sided unilateral contract in the world of make believe under Title 15 Trade and Commerce. Is there a vast conspiracy?  Yes, but it is not the vast conspiracy everybody thinks it is.  It is a conspiracy of the people against the grounded substance of the states through commercial law.
The founders had to put in a protection devise to protect the substance of the grounded substance of the states as evidenced by Article I Section 10 against these unincorporated associations created under Article IV Section 3 cl.2.  In other words, the federal Government under the Constitution is bound to protect the grounded substance of “the states”, but at the same time preserves your right to enter into private international law.
“. . .  for the sake of distinction from the other branch or portion of English law, be called the "territorial" or ‘local’ law of England. This territorial law constitutes indeed so much the oldest and most important part of English law that it has been constantly taken to be, and treated as, the whole of the law of the land.  ­Blackstone's Commentaries, for example, though written with the avowed object of describing the whole of the ‘law of England’ contain no mention of any rules which do not belong to the territorial or local law.  . . . . For the term ‘law of a given country’ has, at least, two meanings.  It may mean, and this is its most proper sense, every rule enforced by the Courts of that country.  It may mean, from LEADING CASES IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW on the other hand, and this is a very usual sense, that part of the rules enforced by the Courts of a given country which makes up the ‘local' or ‘territorial’ law of a country.” Quoting, by John W. Dwyer, Chapter I, NATURE OF THE SUBJECT, pp. 4, 5, Callaghan Co. (1904).
A local law is one which operates over a particular locality instead of over the whole territory of the state. Ulrich v. Beatty, 216 N.E.2d 737, 746.  One which relates to particular persons or things or to particular persons or things of a class or which operates on or over a portion of a class instead of all of the class. In re Annexation of Reno Quartermaster Depot Military Reservation to, Independent School Dist. No.34. Canadian County, Okl., 69 P.2d 659, 662. [Bold emphasis added]  [Particular persons or things of a class meaning 14th amendment “persons” or things i.e., a debt res.]  or strawman. (more on strawman infra). One whose operation is confined within territorial limits, other than those of the whole state or any properly constituted class or locality therein. State v. Kallas,  94 P.2d 414, 420; Ravitz v. Steurele, 257 S.W.2d 360, 364. Whole state refers to “the state” as opposed to “this state”.

SOCIAL SECURITY THE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST

Being there is no prohibition under Article IV Sec. 3 or any other provisions of the Constitution to prohibit the people from forming an association of new unincorporated several federal states.  As noted in Article IV supra, there is no charter of incorporation by HJR 192 of the newly created several federal states and just what its duties are, i.e., its intents and purposes; a resulting or implied (charitable) trust is formed by operation of law.⁵  That when said “persons” try to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of other members of the association; the government commences a court action under local law (the association) whereby the court constructs a trust based upon a intangible debt res or strawman. The court creates a quasi in rem jurisdiction i.e., attaching the res while moving against the person or strawman  This term originated under the ancient rules of admiralty-maritime law.  More on admiralty-maritime infra, “or as current thought has it, there is a presumption of a gift for charitable purposes where no consideration or use is mentioned; thus, that “person” as a member of the association is liable on the principle of agency.”  See UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS Chapter V, Non-Profit Associations, pp. 199, 208 by Sidney Wrightington of the Boston Bar. Little, Brown & Co. Publisher, Boston (1916). [Bold emphasis added].
From the book THE LAW RELATING TO UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS by Dennis Lloyd, Street & Maxwell, London, (1938) it is read:  “It is an axiomatic proposition in the law of contract that the agreement of the parties cannot affect the legal position of other persons who were not parties to the contract.  As regards them the contract is res inter alios acta and of no effect.  This rule has important consequences as regards voluntarily associations, or it means that no agreement between the members of such an association can affect the rights of others not parties to the agreement.  The members of an unincorporated society, for example, agree that their personal liability for the transactions of the society shall be limited to a certain sum.  Though this will be binding on the members inter se, it can have no effect whatever on third parties who have not consented to the limitation of liability, and as regards these, the members will be liable to the full extent.   . . . .  
English law, however, has been more fortunate in possessing a further legal relationship which could be established by agreement and which enabled objects to be achieved which were beyond the reach of contract.  This relationship, which has come to be called the trust, has played a great role in enabling associations to form and maintain them in a satisfactory legal position without being incorporated, at times when the State was most hostile towards corporations” (Footnotes omitted.) (Bold italics emphasis added).
Association is “confederacy or union for particular purpose, good or ill.  This term is used throughout the United States to signify a body of persons united without a charter, but upon the methods and forms used by incorporated bodies, for the prosecution of some common enterprise.  It also enters into the names bestowed by the legislatures upon many corporations.  In this connection it is used without any very uniform discrimination as to its precise meaning, but seems to be on the whole preferred for bodies which are not vested with full and perfect corporate rights and powers.”  Allen v. Steven’s, 54 N.Y.S. 8, 23, 33 App.Div. 485.
 “An indefinite or uncertain trust res is fatal to the trust as no subject matter whatever.” Wilce v. Van Anden, 358, 94 N.E. 42, 140 Am.St.Rep. 212, 21 Ann. Cas. 153, LAW OF TRUSTS, 5th ed. by Bogart at p. 72 (1973).
“An unincorporated association at common law is not a legal person, has not the capacity to receive title to property, and hence cannot be a trustee.”  Restatement, Trusts, Second §§ 89-100.  LAW OF TRUSTS, 5th ed. by Bogart at p. 90 (1973). [underline added]  You as a “person” have only a certificate of title to your property because you never “paid” in law.  See Stanek v. White supra.
 Now you know the reason why the 14th Amendment reads: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  Despite what Congress did in regards HJR 192 and to “discharge” debt, Congress did what it had to do.  As mentioned above, people became more interested in making money than producing money. According to the Congressional Record in reference to the suspension of our national “Standard” money, there were more demands placed on the future delivery of gold than there was gold in the treasury.
Being you are insolvent or bankrupt you become primarily a U.S. citizen and resident. The term "resident” is often used in the sense of "domicile" as in case of insolvency statutes, [HJR 192, 48 Stat 113]  . . . , and questions of jurisdiction. People v. Platt, 50 Hun (N. Y.) 454; De Meli v. De Meli 120 N.Y. 485; Ayer v. Weeks, 18 Atl. 1108. [Bold italics added.] From DICTIONARY OF WORD ORIGINS by Joseph T. Shipley, 1945. 1995 Barnes and Noble books. ISBN  0-88029-751-4 case bound.  ISBN 1-56619-826-7 paperback.  The word reside, see subsidy.  Subside, subsidy.  Subsidy is a thing sitting nearby until needed: from L. sub, under + sidere, from sedere, sess-, to sit.  It was applied first to the Roman military reserves, which waited (kneeling) in the background until called into action.  Subside is from the same source.  . . .  [See also the term res, or strawman].
 In other words, you have given up being primarily a State Citizen to become primarily a U.S. citizen to become part of the vested public interest in public policy’s private debt/credit system. Said debt/credit system does not primarily deal in currency that is legal tender or lawful money of the United States under Article I but, under private international law of Article IV Section 3 cl.2 for the sake of convenience and expediency.⁶
You cannot be compelled to be a debtor/creditor against your will.  The only way you can be compelled to perform outside the incorporated states is by CONTRACT law, unilateral or otherwise, or by giving a gift in trust. In other words, if you have contracted to perform as a debtor/creditor to the unincorporated side of the banking association, the Constitution provides no protection with absolute property rights.  Those absolute property rights are under the letter and strict meaning of the law, i.e., federal (commercial) common law.  Only relative rights, i.e., rights divided among the communal members are under the spirit and true meaning as invoked by Congress using private international law.  The courts then enforce your right to contract.  When you go into the courts without the proper evidence and argument, the courts construct a trust based upon unjust enrichment.  The court presumes you have taken on a privilege in the  “discharge” of debt in exchange for being a debtor/creditor in equity as a 14th Amendment citizen residing in “a territory.”