fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
Health Care – I love Maxine on this one
Let me get this straight. We're going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't,
written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it,
passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it,
to be signed by a president who also smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,
to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese,
and financed by a country that's broke.
What the hell could possibly go wrong?
=============== -
Neo,
Let's face it. Some people are NEVER happy and can never be made happy. In spite of all the effort both of us expended to try to educate and persuade jb, he still holds on to his paranoid conspiracy theories, and to suspicions that he has no evidence to prove really are conspiracites. I give up on him.
Thanks for your help trying to persuade the unpersuadable.
Admin 🙂
___________
JB,
1. Your cite from Slaugherhouse was in 1872. That WAS NOT before the Fourteenth Amendment, but AFTER. You are WRONG. The Fourteenth and Thirteenth Amendments happened in 1868. The Slaughterhouse case recognizes the impact of the Fourteenth Amendment on citizenship. D.C. AFTER the Fourteenth Amendment continued NOT to have constitutional citizens. Why? Because it was a federal territory to which the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship had not been legislatively extended “ex proprio vigore”, as neo puts it.
2. The current version of the Fourteenth Amendment is consistent in the capitalization of “person”. See for yourself:
http://caselaw.lp.fi…on/amendment14/
As neo and I have both pointed out, whether it is lower or upper case, a “citizen of the United States” or a “Citizen of the United States” as used in the federal constitution are both statutory “nationals” and not statutory “citizens”.
As I keep saying, show me ONE significant case where ANY court, state or federal, has ever made an issue out of the capitalization of “citizen” in the federal constitution. It's a non-issue and several cases were cited proving that the Fourteenth Amendment refers to citizens of ALL RACES, not just whites.
Get over it and admit you lost because you haven't proven it wrong.
Don't argue your current position in court. You will be labelled a crackpot, sanctioned, and discredited, REGARDLESS of whether or not you are right or wrong. And the point you are focusing on isn't relevant to rights anyway. DOMICILE is the real issue you should be studying and arguing, not nationality, if you main concern is rights.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/DomicileBasisForTaxation.htm
-
Neo,
Good job. I agree 100% with everything you said. It is completely consistent with:
1. Everything about citizenship on this website and our sisten website, sedm.org
2. The cases discussed so far.
3. The entire Title 8 of the U.S. Code.
I think your diagram is pretty and useful, but probably busier than it needs to be. It would not be something I would present to a bank when opening an account, but it would be a useful addition to the Why You are a “national” pamphlet, just as the venn diagram you submitted currently is. That diagram was also very helpful. Thank you for your continuing and valuable contributions to organizing and explaining and improving the extensive citizenship research found on this site.
We were aware that nationality had been extended to the territories and possessions through Congressional enactment, but hadn't carefully analyzed the mechanism nor gave it a name as you have. Nevertheless, you have done a good job explaining the origins of congressionally granted nationality in the context of the territories and possessions, and given our readers a way to verify it to bring their understanding and advocacy into complete harmony with our research.
Your explanation would have been more powerful if you had quoted at least one case out of the list you provided that used the phrase “ex proprio vigore” and which “commuted” nationality to a specific territory or possession by express congressional enactment. That is the big missing piece that I think would bring this lengthy but enlightening thread to a powerful and eloquent close. If you have time, you might want to post that information here.
Thanks again.
jb
Please don't post any more info on franchises here. That's a subject for another forum.
-
When someone puts an SSN on a W-4, every time they go to work, they are the equivalent of a Temp working for Uncle through the Social Security business trust.
1. The trust is the office
2. They are the Kelly Girl or Temp occupying the office, whose effective domicile is the District of Criminals, per 26 USC 7408(d) and 7701(a)(39).
3. They are also the “resident agent” for the office.
4. The 1040 is the profit and loss statement for the earnings of the trust, which are statutorily called “gross income” in 26 USC 61.
5. The W-4 is a federal election form, and they elected themselves into a public office using the form. Their consent created the trust res and accumulates property within it.
If no property is ever donated to the office because the number never gets used, the corpus of the trust is empty, and there is no property to account for or list on a trustee profit and loss statement, the 1040.
Congress cannot outlaw private property. The number is a de facto license to represent a public office and is the vehicle used to convert/donate private property to public property. If it is never voluntarily associated with any private property or rights, all property and rights remain PRIVATE and the number at that point is irrelevant.
The fact that you obtained a de facto license doesn't obligate you to USE it. For instance, if you get a contractor license, you only use it as a contractor, but you aren't required to use it to open a bank account, or to buy a home, etc. It's absolutely ludicrous to think that you can apply for a job as a public officer in which you are unable to determine when you are on duty and when you are off duty. YOU decide, based on how and when you use the license number, when you are on duty and when you are off duty, and what property is connected or donated to the franchise.
To apply this to the traffic stop concept, I see no reason why one cannot remove their plates and leave their license home or only use both when they are engaging in commercial business. In point of fact:
1. There is no provision in the vehcile code that can or does require the plate, registration, and license to be used AT ALL TIMES, but only while conducting official government business as a public officer franchisee.
2. If you are not on duty as a public officer, you aren't required to possess or use the state's property, which is the license plate, driver license, and registration.
If the officer stops you and asks you for both, you say you had to leave them home because you are not on official government business as a public officer at the time, and are not engaged in commercial activity, and therefore would be impersonating a public officer in criminal violation of 18 USC 912 to use either as a PRIVATE human being. I see no reason why the application for either cannot indicate that the issuance is conditioned on your right NOT to use them AT ALL TIMES and to be able to decide WHEN you want to use them. To suggest that one CANNOT do that is to intefere with your right to contract. If the state can place conditions on the use of THEIR PUBLIC property, which the license plate and the driver license is, then you ought to be EQUALLY able to place conditions on when you want to connect private property to public property and subject it to their control.
But we digress. If this is a subject you wish to discuss, submit it in the franchises forum, not here. Please do not bring up this subject here and polute this topic with further irrelevant issues. We are here to discuss ONLY citizenship and the lead topic of this thread.
-
SOURCE: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20100907/pl_usnw/DC60870
___________________________
1,270 Architects/Engineers Reveal Hard Evidence of Explosive Demolition at World Trade Center on 9/11
WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 – Former US Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK) and Richard Gage, AIA, Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Discuss Scientific Findings
National Press Club, Washington DC, 2:00 pm, Thursday, September 9, 2010
WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — On Thursday September 9, 2010, Gravel and Gage will host a central press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, presenting hard evidence that all three WTC skyscrapers on September 11, 2001, in NYC were destroyed by explosive controlled demolition.
Senator Gravel notes, “Critically important evidence has come forward after the original government building reports were completed.”
This press conference will be webcast at AE911Truth.org and hosted concurrently in cities throughout the world.* Following the conference, there will be a mock debate during which public statements made by government investigators and other defenders of the official account will be presented and responded to in multimedia format. “They refuse to debate us in person,” says Gage, “so we will let their public statements represent them.”
Gage will release a media-friendly summary of his organization's findings, which are based on forensic evidence as well as video and eyewitness testimony that were omitted from official reports. He will show evidence that the WTC Twin Towers were not destroyed by jet plane impacts or fires, but by pre-set explosives and incendiaries. The non-profit organization, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, will also call for a grand jury investigation of government report lead engineers Shyam Sunder and John Gross of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. “They were in a position to know the evidence we have been presenting,” says Gage.
Also speaking will be Florida State Professor Lance deHaven-Smith, who coined the academic term State Crimes Against Democracy (SCAD). Prof. deHaven-Smith has appeared on Good Morning America, the Today Show, NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, CBS Nightly News with Dan Rather, and other national TV/radio shows.
The DC press conference will be accessible via webcast AE911Truth.org, 2:00 pm September 9, 2010.
* For information on satellite press conferences in your area, contact [url url=””]CongressionalOutreachTeam [at] ae911truth.org[/url].
To arrange print/broadcast interviews, with Richard Gage, AIA, contact Tania at 510-292-4710, or via email at [url url=””]1000 [at] ae911truth.org[/url].
CONTACT: David Slesinger 410-499-5403
SOURCE Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
-
EDITORIAL: Another post sent to us by a reader relating to the above case.
_________
Never mind….it is all legal. Man these spawn of satan have all their crimes covered. There is nothing we can do about the human garbage that has taken over our country except for praying that the entire administration is completely destroyed.
I think you were kidnapped by federal thugs with guns:
___________________________
9-15.610
Deportations, Expulsions, or other Extraordinary Renditions
If the fugitive is not a national or lawful resident of the country in which he or she is located, the Office of International Affairs (OIA), through the Department of State or other channels, may ask that country to deport or expel the fugitive.
In United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that a court has jurisdiction to try a criminal defendant even if the defendant was abducted from a foreign country against his or her will by United States agents. Though this decision reaffirmed the long-standing proposition that personal jurisdiction is not affected by claims of abuse in the process by which the defendant is brought before the court, it sparked concerns about potential abuse of foreign sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Due to the sensitivity of abducting defendants from a foreign country, prosecutors may not take steps to secure custody over persons outside the United States (by government agents or the use of private persons, like bounty hunters or private investigators) by means of Alvarez-Machain type renditions without advance approval by the Department of Justice. Prosecutors must notify the Office of International Affairs before they undertake any such operation. If a prosecutor anticipates the return of a defendant, with the cooperation of the sending State and by a means other than an Alvarez-Machain type rendition, and that the defendant may claim that his return was illegal, the prosecutor should consult with OIA before such return. See Criminal Resource Manual at 610, for further discussion of the law on this issue.
________________________
http://www.justice.g…rm.htm#9-15.210
If there was no verified private obligation placed into the evidence record of the court, then I guarantee you that you were kidnapped.
Combine the kidnapping with the fact that the entire public policy was not incorporated into the affidavit attached to the indictment as per the below:
http://www.justice.g…e9/crm00600.htm and select section 607,
then perhaps the prosecution was invalid and without authority by verified private obligation placed into the evidence record. Federal thugs coming onto the land of Texas is an invasion unless you have some private obligation like a license to manufacture alcohol, drugs, rubber, or for whatever the sovereign de facto administration claims to have the licensing authority. But as far as exchanging your labor for equal value on the land of Texas, and for no profits in a regulated industry, federal thugs with machine guns coming onto the land of Texas and kidnapping you is without authorization. All civil law moves only by contract or private obligation.
-
Prollins,
Thanks for sharing your story! Fantastic news.
-
2. That's interesting.
3. As I said, almost no one uses the capital “C” citizen, even in court rulings. I asked you for examples and you couldn't find any. It's more a matter of convention.
4. Even those who ask for government TINs or SSNs do not become federal officers for EVERYTHING, but only that which they consensually use the number in connection with. It functions as a de facto license number, and the practical effect NOT of its POSSESSION, but of its USE, is to donate formerly private property to a public use, public purpose, and public office. See Section 2:
[url url=”http://famguardian.o…usinessScam.htm”]http://famguardian.o…usinessScam.htm[/url]
Furthermore, it is the OFFICE they occupy while participating in franchises, that becomes the statutory “citizen”, “resident” , or “person”, not the human being filling it. The OFFICE is property of the government and is a legal person to which statutory rights or “congressionally created rights” and franchises attach. The character of the human being filling the office doesn't change at all and he or she continues to maintain the same citizenship status. For a person domiciled in a state, that means they continue to be a transient foreigner, statutory alien, constitutional but not statutory Citizen, etc. What happens in practice is that they don't understand this relationship so they file as resident aliens using a 1040 and like IDIOTS, do not bother to distinguish between the OFFICE, and the OFFICER when they go into court. Hence, they get hanged because of their ignorance about citizenship, agency, and franchises.
-
Sounds like a good plan.
The place to start in determining whether a state code applies is the definition section. There are usually lots of tells in the definitions you can use to establish that the code only applies on federal territory or to public officers on official business engaging in government franchises. For instance, if they require an SSN or TIN, and 26 CFR 301.6109-1 says the number is only mandatory for those engaged in a “trade or business”, then they are only talking about public officer activity on federal territory.
The de facto bastards LOVE putting the definitions at the end of a title or body of law to avoid giving you legally required “Reasonable Notice” UP FRONT of WHO the proper audience for the “code” is. And that is what it is: They call it a “code” because it is, in fact, usually a compact and franchise that activates and acquires the FORCE OF LAW only by your consent. Otherwise, it behaves like an unsigned commercial contract. Hence, it isn't really “law” as legally defined, and they would be committing FRAUD to call it “law”. Franchises and compacts, strictly speaking, are NOT “law”:
Quote:Municipal law, thus understood, is properly defined to be “a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong.” [. . .] It is also called a rule to distinguish it from a compact or agreement; for a compact is a promise proceeding from us, law is a command directed to us. The language of a compact is, “I will, or will not, do this”; that of a law is, “thou shalt, or shalt not, do it.” It is true there is an obligation which a compact carries with it, equal in point of conscience to that of a law; but then the original of the obligation is different. In compacts we ourselves determine and promise what shall be done, before we are obliged to do it; in laws. we are obliged to act without ourselves determining or promising anything at all. Upon these accounts law is defined to be “a rule.” [Readings on the History and System of the Common Law, Second Edition, Roscoe Pound, 1925, p. 4]A very good place to research state codes is:
1. State Legal Research Sources
http://famguardian.o…alResources.htm
2. SEDM Jurisdictions Database
http://sedm.org/Liti…onsDatabase.pdf
-
1. The State department link you provided refers to birth within the COUNTRY, or the TERRITORY OF THE COUNTRY, not on federal territory. So it doesn't conflict with what I have been saying.
2. The constitution is a political document. It is not a STATUTORY document. The only parties to it are the States and We the People. It is a delgation of authority order that binds and can bind NO ONE BUT those to whom authority is expressly delegated AND who took an oath of office to become party to the delegation of authority order. See:
http://famguardian.o…r/NoTreason.htm
THE PEOPLE wrote that document, and as the sovereigns, they are exempt from it. “person” does not include the sovereign, as you well know.
3. 7701(a)(39) can only lawfully move entities that are representing the mother corporation as public officers under Federal Rule 17(b). That is the ONLY reason their identity can be transported: Because they are acting in a representative capacity as artificial beings and public offices representing a federal corporation whose domicile is D.C. It is otherwise ILLEGAL to kidnap HUMAN BEINGS and move either them physically or their legal identity to a foreign jurisdiction without their consent. It's called identity theft. Its illegal to do for human beings, but congress can do whatever they want with their own instrumentalities. That's how all franchises work: They define the choice of law and the forum under which disputes are litigated, and all parties to the franchise have to consent and therefore cannot complain of kidnapping. They consent to an office, and the office is moved under F.R.Civ.P. 17(b).
Read the domicile article. All civil jurisdiction comes from your voluntary choice of legal domicile. Being a “citizen”, “inhabitant”, or “resident” all share a domicile in the forum, and if that forum is the federal zone, they become federal statutory citizens.
http://famguardian.o…ForTaxation.htm
Have you or have you not read this article. Its pointless to reargue the domicile and civil jurisdiction issue if you have never read the above article.
-
jb,
1. American Samoa and Swain's Island are POSSESSIONS, not TERRITORIES. They are therefore also NOT “incorporated territories”. District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico are the only remaining territories that we are aware of. Of these three, only D.C. is “incorporated”, because it was part of a constitutional state BEFORE it became a territory, and never lost the protections of the Constitution after becoming a territory, as Downes v. Bidwell pointed out.
2. No, I don't agree that when the slaves were freed, they became statutory citizens. Statutory citizenship requires domicile on federal territory, and the slaves didn't move their domicile but remained in the southern states after the civil war. They became constitutional citizens but STATUTORY nationals but not citizens upon passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. After the southern states rewrote their constitutions following the civil war, the blacks became state citizens as well, but they had to wait for that gradual transformation. While they were waiting, they were constitutional citizens, statutory nationals, but were not allowed to have a domicile and therefore be a state citizen until the southern state cooperated.
3. As I have repeatedly said, the confusion between constitutional and statutory contexts is how the DE FACTOS are illegally recruiting federal “taxpayers” and statutory “U.S. persons”. JB refers to this as using the Fourteenth Amendment as a stepping stone, but it isn't, because the fourteenth amendment does not and never has related to statutory citizen status, but ONLY to “nationality”. JB has demonstrated literally in SPADES that he doesn't understand context, and that is EXACTLY why judges exploit this very confusion to make people believe that the statutory and constitutional contexts are equivalent.
4. I don't see a reason to believe that “thereof” has any significance at all in settling this debate.
5. As I have previously said, Wong Kim Ark established that “subject to THE jurisdiction” means the POLITICAL jurisdiction, not the legislative jurisdiction. There is no disability in being subject to the POLITICAL jurisdiction. Therefore, Fourteenth Amendment “conspiracy theorists” are making a moutain out of a mole hill. As neo and I have both reiterated, the constitution is a POLITICAL document, not a statute or legal document. It doesn't conver LEGAL jurisdiction, but political jurisdiction. It confers NATIONALITY, not “congressionally created rights” established by statute such as “statutory citizen” within 8 USC 1401.
Quote:“This section [Fourteenth Amendment Section 1] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their [plural, not singular, meaning states of the Union] political jurisdiction, and owing them [the state of the Union] direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do [169 U.S. 649, 725] to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.” [U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898)][United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898) ]
6. Throughout all the cases cited so far, allegiance is always tied to “subject to THE jurisdiction” and political jurisdiction. The only statutory status that attaches exclusively and ONLY to allegiance is that of being a “national”.
Quote:“The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state. “[8 USC 1101(a)(21)]
“No passport shall be granted or issued to or verified for any other persons than those owing allegiance, whether citizens or not, to the United States.”
Hence, “subject to THE jurisdiction” means ALLEGIANCE, and equates ONLY with that of being a:
1. “national” in a statutory sense.
2., “citizen” in a constitutional sense.
“citizen” in a STATUTORY and NOT CONSTITUTIONAL sense, on the other hand, connects ONLY with DOMICILE and NOT nationality. See:
http://famguardian.o…ForTaxation.htm
As we already showed with the Blacks' Dictionary definitions, if you say you are a “citizen” in a federal court, they ALWAYS presume you mean a statutory sense and connect you with a domicile on federal territoy within the statutory but not constitutional “United States”. That presumption, in fact, is the HEART of the institutionalized FRAUD being perpetrated on a large scale against the sovereignty and rights of most americans.
The Fourteenth Amendment is one of only THREE ways to become a “national”. The OTHER two ways are found in 8 U.S.C. 1401 and 8 U.S.C. 1408. As 22 U.S.C. 212 says, you can be a “national” without being a STATUTORY “citizen”, and this is EXACTLY the status of those born within and domiciled within a:
1. Constitutional state of the Union under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21).
2. Federal possession under 8 U.S.C. 1408.
-
JB
1. For those interested in reading the Rabang case cited by JB, here is a link, since he didn't provide one. This is an EXCELLENT find that ties everything together that we have been talking about. For the benefit of posterity, I have attached a PDF of the case to capture the complete context in case the link goes bad:
http://ftp.resource….9.91-16125.html
2. The Rabang case agrees with nearly everything I have been saying so far. It's a great case, and repeats all the arguments I have used so far in deducing the meaning of “United States” in the Constitution.
2.1 It agrees that “United States” as used in the Constitution does not mean “United States*” in an international sense.
2.2 It says that “united States” does not include ALL territories. I said it does not include ANY territories and apparently, I was mistaken.
2.3 It says that “United States” includes only states of the Union.
Quote:The Downes Court further stated: “n dealing with foreign sovereignties, the term 'United States' has a broader meaning than when used in the Constitution, and includes all territories[opposed to only incorporated territories] subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal government, wherever located.” Downes, 182 U.S. at 263, 21 S.Ct. at 777. In other words, as used in the Constitution, the term “United States” does not include all territories subject to the jurisdiction of the United States government. See also Examining Board of Engineers, Architects and Surveyors v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 588 n. 19, 96 S.Ct. 2264, 2274 n. 19, 49 L.Ed.2d 65 (1976), citing H.R.Rep. No. 249, 56th Cong., 1st Sess., 16 (1900) (“upon reason and authority the term 'United States' as used in the Constitution, has reference only to the States that constitute the Federal Union and does not include the Territories [unincorporated].”)[Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 35 F.3d 1449, 1452 (9th Cir.1994)] See A-E Below2.4 The only thing different between what I have been saying and that case is that they add “incorporated” territories to the Fourteenth Amendment. Otherwise, “united States” as used in the Constitution, when used in a geographical sense, means “United States***”, just as I have been insisting all along.
3. The Rabang case also says the following, which jb conveniently omitted:
Quote:It is thus incorrect to extend citizenship to persons living in United States territories simply because the territories are “subject to the jurisdiction” or “within the dominion” of the United States, because those persons are not born “in the United States” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.8[Rabang v. INS, 35 F.3d 1449 (1994)]
4. It looks like Puerto Rico ALSO is not within the “United States” within the meaning of the Constitution, just as I have been saying, meaning that it is not “incorporated”, just as I have been saying:
Quote:In the Insular Cases6 the Supreme Court decided that the territorial scope of the phrase “the United States” as used in the Constitution is limited to the states of the Union. Those cases addressed challenges to the imposition of duties on goods shipped from Puerto Rico to the continental United States. The Court held that Puerto Rico was “not a part of the United States within the revenue clauses of the Constitution.” Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 287, 21 S.Ct. 770, 787, 45 L.Ed. 1088 (1901). See U.S. Const. art I, Sec. 8 (“all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”) (emphasis added).7[Rabang v. INS, 35 F.3d 1449 (1994)]
5. The Reynolds case seems like an anochronism. It says the First Amendment applies EVERYWHERE. According to Downes v. Bidwell, it doesn't apply in territories unless Congress allows it, and apparently, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is what applies it to territories BY LEGISLATION. See 42 USC Chapter 21B:
http://www.law.corne…_42_10_21B.html
6. I think you are outvoted, jb. Both neo and myself are in complete agreement. The fourteenth amendment talks about NATIONALITY, not statutory citizen status or the status found in 8 USC 1401. It CANNOT and DOES NOT affect civil rights or civil status AT all because it has nothing to do with domicile. Only statutory citizen status implicates domicile.
7. The case provided by Neo describes the difference between incorporated and unicorporated territories:
http://famguardian.o…h&attach_id=202
It says that incorporated territories are those to which ALL constitutional provisions are in force. It also says that Puerto Rico was not incorporated as late as 1922, because in Balzac v. Puerto Rico in 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that they were not incorporated. The district court judge then concludes that Puerto Rico is incorporated. Hence, its citizens are fourteenth amendment citizens and it is “within the United States” within the meaning of the Foruteenth Amendment BECAUSE it is protected by the Constitution, even though it has not been admitted to statehood. However, the judge said he was not overruling Balzac, and hence his ruling means nothing, because it conflicts with Balzac on whether Puerto Rico has been “incorporated”.
IN CONCLUSION: The only remaining question now is, which territories are “incorporated”? That means a list of enactments of congress extending the entire constitution to specific territories must be produced, because that is what the Neo case said the criteria was. I'm not aware of any that are currently incorporated in that fashion, and even the case provided above by Neo did not produce an act of congress that extended the ENTIRE constitution to Puerto Rico. Hence, my original argument that “United States” as used in the Constitution IN A GEOGRAPHIC SENSE is limited to states of the Union and excludes federal territory STILL stands and JB is simply WRONG. He even provided the evidence to prove that he was wrong. I won without even lifting a finger!
🙂
________________
Neo,
I disagree with the following statement of yours:
Quote:It would appear that the provisions of the 14th Amendment are among those fundamental provisions of the Constitution extended to Territories whereas the operation of those political rights are extended only as franchises. But I can only conclude that the 14th Amendment applies to United States** Territories as well as those within the Union.This is not entirely true. It applies to INCORPORATED territories, but not ALL territories. It DOESN'T APPLY, for instance, to either Puerto Rico OR the Phillipines when it was a territory. The burden of proof is on jb to produce a list of congressional enactments extending the ENTIRE constitution to specific territories before the presumption that they are “incorporated” can be verified.
-
Franklin,
Thanks for that feedback. The contradiction has been corrected. The article on how to apply for a passport as a national that you reference has been updated to agree with the SEDM Form #06.007.
Please keep your errata coming.
-
Neo,
That’s interesting. Thanks for sharing that.
For people in federal territories, voting and jury duty are “constitutional franchises”, meaning they are privileges associated with the coincidence of nationality and domicile on federal territory. Note based on the above quote that they ARE NOT referring to people in the states as franchisees, but instead to people in the territories.
Quote:. The personal and civil rights of the inhabitants of the territories are secured to them, as to other citizens, by the principles of constitutional liberty, which restrain all the agencies of government, state and national; their [inhabitants of the territories] political rights are franchises which they hold as privileges in the legislative discretion of the Congress of the United States. -
jb,
1. The cites you provide from Downes to the effect that “and this Court naturally held, in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, that the United States included the District and the territories.” does not appear to contradict our position that the “United States” as used in the Constitution, when used in a geographic sense, means states of the Union and excludes federal territory. The “United States” they are talking about is not mentioned in a Constitutional context, but implies “United States*”. Yes, territories and D.C. are within the “United States*”, but they aren't within the “United States***”.
Downes points back to Slaughterhouse, which states “Those, therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the Territories, though within the United States, were not citizens.” The subject of that quote, which I provided, by the way, is WHO are citizens under the constitution, but it is mixing two contexts for the terms “United States”: Constitutional and international. The “United States” they are referring to is the “United States*”, and the term “citizen” is in the context of the Constitution, which means “United States***”. Here is how they mixed them:
Quote:” Those, therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the Territories, though within the United States*, were not citizens***.”Notice they didn't say “though within the United States as used within the Constitution”, but rather in a more general sense of “though within the United States*” THE COUNTRY.
2. There is no doubt that the U.S. Congress has always had jurisdiction over interstate commerce between BOTH constitutional “States” and “statutory states”. It's jurisdiction over commerce with statutory states is extraconstitutional, because as I have said “United States***” as used in the Constitution in a geogrphical sense means constitutional states and excludes federal territory. So we agree with your cite from STOUTENBURGH on that subject.
3. You are completely missing the point about rights in the context of Fourteenth Amendment citizenship. The constitution talks ONLY about nationality, not MUNICIAL rights of “citizens”. Rights attach to land and domicile, not nationality, as the latter post confirms. That is why the Fourteenth Amendment associates equal protection and due process with a “person” rather than a “citizen”, and THAT person is a human being domiciled within a constitutional but not statutory state of the Union:
http://famguardian.o…?showtopic=4262
The following case from the above interchange clearly establishes that RIGHTS do not attach to nationality or to membership in a NATION as a constitutional citizen:
Quote:In Udny v. Udny (1869) L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicile of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: 'The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicile.' Page 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage rei ed on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying: 'The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions,—one by virtue of which he becomes the subject [NATIONAL] of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.' And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicile (domicilium), the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, and the basis on which 'the personal rights of the party—that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy, or intestacy— must depend,' he yet distinctly recognized that a man's political status, his country (patria), and his 'nationality,—that is, natural allegiance,'—'may depend on different laws in different countries.' Pages 457, 460. He evidently used the word 'citizen,' not as equivalent to 'subject,' but rather to 'inhabitant'; and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898)]
Please review the above post carefully. You are mixing apples and oranges. Rights attach to domicile, and the constitution deals only with nationality. The protections of the Bill of Rights attach to one's choice of domicile, not their nationality. Please also carefully study the subject of domicile:
Why Domicile and Becoming a Taxpayer Require Your Consent
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/DomicileBasisForTaxation.htm
Let me repeat myself again:
RIGHTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONALITY, and the Fourteenth Amendment refers ONLY to the nationality of HUMAN BEINGS within a Constitutional and not Statutory state, PERIOD.
Yes, title 8 of the U.S. Code determines both the nationality AND the rights of people domiciled on federal territory, but it cannot and does not determine the rights of those domiciled in a constitutional state of the Union.
You are being far too literal and completely disregarding context. This is a common mistake of newbie freedom fighters not formally schooled in the law.
You just don't understand what the rights identified in the Constitution attach to. They DO NOT attach to your status meaning whether you are a “citizen” under the Constitution, but to your CONDITION, meaning WHERE you are physically present and domiciled. President Taft, the main advocate of the Sixteenth Amendment and ALSO a U.S. Surpeme Court justice, understood this well when he said:
Quote:“It is locality that is determinative of the application of the Constitution, in such matters as judicial procedure, and not the status [e.g. whether a FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CITIZEN] of the people who live in it.”[Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)]
As a general rule RIGHTS attach to physical TERRITORY [e.g. CONSTITUTIONAL states of the Union land], PRIVILEGES attach to civil statutory STATUS [e.g. “taxpayer”, statutory “U.S. citizen”, etc.]. Since the Constitution speaks of rights and not privileges of “persons”, it attaches to territory, and that territory is constitutional States of the Union. Don't confuse these two contexts. If you don't understand them, see:
Government Franchises Course, Form #12.012
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Libe…vFranchises.pdf
What the Feds have done is used word games with “United States” to:
1. Confuse political status with civil statutory status
2. Confuse rights with privileges.
3. Confuse nationality with domicile on federal territory by using a fuzzy term called “citizenship” that can mean EITHER, depending on the circumstances.
4. Fool people protected by the Constitution but not subject to federal law into filling out government forms in such a way that invites FALSE presumptions about their status and puts money in judges pocket.