As stated in other posts, the word ‘resident’ means to be temporarily in a location. So what is a better word? We can look at the Articles of Confederation which uses the word “inhabitant” four times, while the word “resident’ is not used.
Here are three of the instances of “inhabitant”:
The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.
Read the entire Articles of Confederation, not just for the content, but also the language / word use.
It’s also worth noting above that trade and commerce are considered different. I think trade is on land, which is the jurisdiction of each state, while commerce is on the waterways, both inland and coastal.
“shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce“
Lastly, note that United States is differentiated from the States – they are not one in the same.
“…provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.”
This is further evidence that United States is only DC, the territories, and the federal government land and not any of or “either of” the states.
Just one last point about the rich excerpt above. Note the use of the word ‘intercourse’. In contemporary times, we use the word intercourse to describe intimacy. But is that what the legal society ‘hears’ at their ‘hearings’? Do they hear trade, as the word is used in the Articles of Confederation. Are the courts trying to pretend intimacy is trade between two ‘persons’? I wouldn’t doubt it because they are trying to pretend to have jurisdiction over everything.
At the very least, the writers of the articles were not talking about intimacy when they said ‘intercourse’ so be careful how thou uses that word in court.