Comments on Colgate v. Harvey
Volume 1, No. 10
by
Richard McDonald
Everyone should take time to read the published court case
Colgate v. Harvey. This case is often utilized by U.S. Attorneys
in their briefs. The following is a quote from page 309 of the
Lawyers Edition:
Thus, the dual character of our citizenship is made plainly
apparent. That is to say, a citizen of the United States is
ipso facto and at the same time a citizen of the state in
which he resides. And while the Fourteenth Amendment does
not create a national citizenship, it has the effect of
making that citizenship "paramount and dominant" instead of
"derivative and dependant" upon state citizenship.
[Colgage v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, 427 (1935)]
[80 L.Ed. 299, emphasis in original]
Now, if the Fourteenth Amendment DID NOT create a national
citizenship, then WHAT did it create? It created a citizenship
in the District of Columbia, commonly called the "United States"
in legal terminology. So, by law, a "United States" citizen is a
citizen of the District of Columbia, which is not a State of the
Union of several States; it is not a star on the American flag.
Therefore, the District of Columbia is alien and foreign with
respect to the 50 common-law States of the Union. In law, the
term "resident" means "alien". I shall now establish that this
is correct:
When America sends an Ambassador to France, he is then a
"resident" in France and alien to France. He is just like a
U.S. citizen who is "resident" in California and therefore
alien to the common-law and to California.
Now, as a citizen of the District of Columbia, you are
subject to ALL the municipal laws that Congress passes for the
District of Columbia. This means that ALL of Titles 7,
(Agriculture), 8 (Immigration), 12 (Banks & Banking), 15
(Commerce & Trade), 16 (Conservation), 19 (Customs), 20
(Education), 21, (FDA), 22 (Foreign Relations) 24, (Hospitals),
25 (Indians), Title 26 (Internal Revenue), 27 (Liquor), 29
(Labor), 30 (Mining), 33 (Navigation), 36 (Patriotic Societies),
40 (Public Buildings), 41 (Public Contracts), 42 (Public Health),
43 (Public Lands), 45 (Railroads), 47 (Telegraphs & Telephones),
48 (Territories and Insular Possessions), 50 (War and National
Defense); all the above attach to you personally regardless of
where you "reside" in the world. (See Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S 47
(1924).) There are some individual paragraphs that attach to the
common-law Citizens of the several States, but they are very few
and far between.
If you recall, the President can send his troops (citizens
of the District of Columbia) any place in the world and make war
without the approval of Congress. This is a fact of law, since
he is NOT sending any Citizen of one of the several States who is
a member of the Sovereignty; he is only sending his subjects,
just as the Queen of England can do to her subjects. No approval
is needed.
You must remember that the Fourteenth Amendment is not law.
It was never properly adopted or ratified. It is a martial law
amendment adopted under martial law. When martial law ceases, so
do all the laws that are promulgated under military authority.
Madden v. Kentucky
This case was decided in 1940. I would like you to read
what the court said:
This position is that the privileges and immunities clause
protects all citizens against abridgment by states of rights
of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or
natural rights inherent in state citizenship.
[Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83 (1940)]
[84 L.Ed. 590, at 594; emphasis added]
Again, I must refer you to Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404
(1935), 80 L.Ed. 299, 56 S.Ct. 252, 102 ALR 54. The Supreme
Court of the United States of America always states the truth in
their opinions. In the Madden case, it is telling you that, as a
State Citizen, you have natural sovereign rights which are
fundamental. But, as a "citizen of the United States" a/k/a a
citizen of the District of Columbia, you have a different type of
rights; these are called "privileges and immunities" and they
are different from those "natural rights inherent in state
citizenship."
Previously, the California Supreme Court also arrived at
these same conclusions in K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P. 545
(1927). It is a fundamental Right to be a state Citizen. The
Supreme Court of Maryland in Crosse v. Board of Elections, 221
A.2d. 431, at 433 (1966), stated:
Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the
federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person
to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a
citizen of his state.
Now, if it is not necessary to be a U.S. citizen (citizen of
the District of Columbia) which is a "privilege" (see Ex parte
(Ng) Fung Sing, D.C.Wash., 6 F.2d 670), then WHY should you give
up a 1st class Citizenship to accept a 2nd class citizenship as a
subject of the District of Columbia? This "privilege" is
regulated and controlled, as are all privileges.
Is is possible that you have not been told the truth of the
matter?
# # #
Return to Table of Contents