Duncan,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Sorry for the delay in responding.

Quote Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
I am sorry that it has become confusing but legal talk often seems to engineered to do just that.
That's the truth. I'm tempted to post a recent negative article about lawyers in politics.

As to the exclusion of states in the union in the intent, I'm inclined to agree with you not because of the wording, but more on the basis of my original observation; no one with knowledge and vested interest has brought the issue up.

Of your reasoning, the following has the most impact.
Quote Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
It seems unlikely that the founders of a nation would be placing in law a factual standing that every subset of this new nation is equivalent to all nations without the borders of this newly formed nation.
[...and...]
The close proximity of the word "State" with other words that refer to appointed representatives of foeign nations gives weight to the fact that use of the word "State" in this context is meant to mean foreign country not a subset of the US.
I appreciate your attention to detail, your logic, your knowledge, and especially your effort. On a different topic, sometime I would like your opinion on the effect of punctuation in the fifth amendment (http://www.ccel.us/Fifth.html)