juliusbragg
Forum Replies Created
Now you are being unfair…your “admissions” were added AFTER I responded!!
Secondly, I dont care if you lock this forum. As usual, I need to go back and re-read your posts to see all of the extras you add AFTER you “Add Reply”, so I will do just that:
Quote:“It would be the vainest show of learning to attempt to prove by citations of authority, that up to the adoption of the recent Amendments [the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment], no claim or pretense was set up that those rights depended on the Federal government for their existence or protection, beyond the very few express limitations which the Federal Constitution imposed upon the states—such as the prohibition against ex post facto laws, bill of attainder, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts. But with the exception of these and a few other restrictions, the entire domain of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the states, as above defined, lay within the constitutional and legislative power of the states, and without that of the Federal government. Was it the purpose of the 14th Amendment, by the simple declaration that no state should make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, to transfer the security and protection of all the civil rights which we have mentioned, from the states to the Federal government? And where it is declared that Congress shall have the power to enforce that article, was it intended to bring within the power of Congress the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging exclusively to the states?We are convinced that no such result was intended by the Congress which proposed these amendments, nor by the legislatures of the states, which ratified them. Having shown that the privileges and immunities relied on in the argument are those which belong to citizens of the states as such, and that they are left to the state governments for security and protection, and not by this article placed under the special care of the Federal government, we may hold ourselves excused from defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States which no state can abridge, until some case involving those privileges may make it necessary to do so.”
[Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1872) , emphasis added]
I agree with this case…of course it wasnt the intention of Congress to give the authority over State Citizens to the federal government, therefore this plenary power of Congress over citizens of the United States must be over new subjects per the 14th Amendment.
Now onto your admissions ADDED AFTERWARDS!
1. Admit that both “Citizens” and “citizens of the United States” within the constitution are statutory “nationals” as indicated in 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and 8 USC 1452.
DENY, “citizen of the United States” appears NO WHERE in the Constitution. It only appears in the Amendments which are not part of “the Constitution” even the first ten are called “The Bill Of Rights”. ONLY “Citizen” appears in the Constitution. But YES an 8 USC national is a “Citizen”, not necessarily a “citizen”
2. Admit that “citizen of the United States” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment is a SUPERSET that includes “Citizen” white males AND people of all races, colors, and genders.
DENY; The 14th Amendment CAN include white male “Citizens”, but White male Citizens are not required to become [federal] citizens of the United States:
“[W]e find nothing…which requires that a citizen of a state must also be a citizen of the United States, if no question of federal rights or jurisdiction is involved.”
[Crosse v. Bd. of Supvrs of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966) ]
I will admit that a 14th Amendment citizen is the 'default' citizen in the U.S.A. currently, as the majority of people file birth certificates declaring that they are “citizens of the United STates” [statutory or 14th Am.] rather than Not filing Birth Certificates, or declaring to be “Citizens of the state”
I have pointed out before, that the following cite agrees with my position:
Quote
“By the language 'citizens of the United States' was meant all such citizens; and by 'any person' was meant all persons within[NOT SUBJECT TO, within implies territorial jurisdiction] the jurisdiction of the state [not the federal government but THE STATE!]. No distinction is intimated on account of race or color. This court has no authority to interpolate a limitation that is neither expressed nor implied. Our duty is to execute the law, not to make it. The protection provided was not intended to be confined to those of any particular race or class, but to embrace equally all races, classes, and conditions of men.' Id. 128, 129. i]except Indians, so “all classes and conditions” MUST be interpreted as limited embrace[/i
[. . .]
The fourteenth amendment, by the language, 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' was intended to bring all races, without distinction of color, within the rule which prior to that time pertained to the white race.” [Dont forget that those living in the Territories and the District of Columbia, AS I POINTED OUT, were NOT State Citizens, they must have been “citizens of the United States” PRIOR to 14th Amendment, the included whites]
[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898) ]
See also “Pursuant to this Ruling” that of Wong Kim Ark, as the Foundation for the State Deparments definition of citizenship: http://www.state.gov…ation/86755.pdf
Which you still have not addressed!!
3. Admit that anyone born in and domiciled within a constitutional state of the Union is a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States”, BECAUSE that status incorporates the original “Citizen” AND people of all races, colors, and genders.
DENY I dont believe that [Amish, Eskimos, possibly] Native Americans, are 14th Amendment citizens, so your use of “anyone” is false. Being from Michigan, there are tribal persons born in Hospitals, and that are domiciled NOT on reservations that are not citizens of the United States as far as I know. ALSO, If my position is that one admits to being a 14th Amendment citizen at birth and by his birth certificate, than those who dont secure certificates of birth can only be presumed to be a citizen.
4. Admit that allegiance implies nationality and the statutory status of being a “national”.
Admit, but “owing direct and immediate allegiance” implies something more. And, if you can only owe allegiance to one government, and that is your state, then you cant be a citizen of the United States…as a citizen of the United States must owe “direct and immediate allegiance”
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 political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do 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.”
[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898) ]
You have your way of interpreting this cite, I know. But you have not addressed the word allegiance being used in USC title 8, 1101 with regard to “national” and “national OF the United States”. Again, this provides evidence that Wong Kim Ark is being used to support my position:
(21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
(22) The term “national of the United States” means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or
(:cool: a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
5. Admit that “subject to THE jurisdiction” means the POLITICAL jurisdiction and NOT the LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction of the central government.
Deny, Have you changed your previous position that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant subject to the jurisdiction of the several states??
You have not addressed the difference between “subject to the jurisdiction” of one thing, or “the jurisdictions” of many things
Legislative Jurisdiction:
Quote:THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT(c ) as otherwise determined to be necessary and appropriate, by regulation or order and subject to paragraph (6), by the Commission, any Federal banking agency or the National Credit Union Administration (with respect to any financial institution subject to the jurisdiction of such agency or Administration under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 621(b), or the applicable State insurance authority (with respect to any person engaged in providing insurance or annuities).
or
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2384
§ 2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
or
TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 35 > § 1538
§ 1538. Prohibited acts
(a) Generally
(1) Except as provided in sections 1535 (g)(2) and 1539 of this title, with respect to any endangered species of fish or wildlife listed pursuant to section 1533 of this title it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to—
(A) import any such species into, or export any such species from the United States;
(b) take any such species within the United States or the territorial sea of the United States;
(c ) take any such species upon the high seas;
Quote
“In the Constitution of the United States the word “citizen” is generally, if not always, used in a political [rather than LEGAL or statutory] sense to designate one who has the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state or of the United States. It is also used in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. “
[Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 30 L.ed 766, 7 S.Ct. 656, 763] [This case proves my point that “in the Constitution” refers to the Original Constitution and NOT the Amendments, See #1 above for the difference between the Constitution and the Amendments]
6. Admit that “Citizenship” includes two components: NATIONALITY and DOMICILE.
Deny, Residency and Domicile are treated as the same thing. You said “Citizenship” in general, which includes statutory or Constitutional citizenship.
“In most cases, a child's residence is the same as its domicile, and both usually coincide with those of the parents. Posts should question the applicant and parents regarding residence and domicile in the same manner as for
legitimation under the original version of section 309(a) discussed in 7 FAM 1133.4-2 c. http://www.state.gov…ation/86757.pdf
also
Constitutionality of 13 C.F.R. § 124.103 Establishing
Citizenship Requirement for Participation in 8(a) Program
“The Supreme Court has made clear that, while states are strictly limited by the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in their ability to make distinctions between citizens and aliens, (2) the federal government enjoys far broader authority to classify on the basis of alienage. “For reasons long recognized as valid, the responsibility for regulating the relationship between the United States and our alien visitors has been committed to the political branches of the Federal Government.” Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 81 (1976). As an aspect of its plenary power over naturalization and immigration, Congress “enjoys rights to distinguish among aliens that are not shared by the States.” Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1, 7 n.8 (1977). http://www.justice.g…c/sba8.htm#N_1_
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)]
7. Admit that a human being born or naturalized somewhere in the COUNTRY “United States*” who is without a domicile on federal territory is a “national” under Title 8 but not a “citizen” under Title 8.
admit
8. Admit that a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” is ONLY a human being and not a corporation.
Deny. I cant make a declaration like that without knowing if a corporation can be “born or naturalized”, as it is well established that a corporation is a “person” with regard to the fourteenth Amendment:
Quote:''a corporation is a 'person' within the meaning of the equal protection and due process of law clauses''[Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244 (1936)]
The United States cannot any more than a State interfere with private rights, except for legitimate governmental purposes. They are not included within the constitutional prohibition which prevents States from passing laws impairing the obligation of contracts, but equally with the States they are prohibited [99 U.S. 700, 719] from depriving persons or corporations of property without due process of law.
[MUNN v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 94 U.S. 113 (1876) 94 U.S. 113]
…the principal question as “whether business corporations, such as [appellants], have First Amendment rights coextensive with those of natural persons or associations of natural persons.” 371 Mass. 773, 783, 359 N. E. 2d 1262, 1269. The court found its answer in the contours of a corporation's constitutional right, as a “person” under the Fourteenth Amendment, not to be deprived of property without due process of law. Distinguishing the First Amendment rights of a natural person from the more limited rights of a corporation, the court concluded that “whether its rights are designated `liberty' rights or `property' rights, a corporation's property and business interests are entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection. . . . [A]s an incident of such protection, corporations also possess certain rights of speech and expression under the First Amendment.”
[FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON v. BELLOTTI, 435 U.S. 765 (1978) 435 U.S. 765]
But it is settled that the Privileges and Immunities Clause does not protect corporations, because corporations are not deemed[meaning believed to be] citizens for purposes of the 14th Amendment. Western and Southern Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization of California, 451 U.S. 648, 656 (1981). Conversely, however, “It is well established that a corporation is a 'person' within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 470 U.S. 869, 881 (1985).
Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26 (1889)
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886)
San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1882)
and others
Also, I must point out that you left off an important part of Paul v. Virginia :
Quote:It is true that it has been held that, where contracts or rights of property are to be enforced by or against corporations, the courts ofthe United States will, for the purpose of maintaining jurisdiction, consider the corporation as representing citizens of the State under the laws of which it is created, and to this extent will treat a corporation as a citizen within the clause of the Constitution extending the judicial power of the United States to controversies between citizens of different States. Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168 (1869)
If 14th Amendment “citizens” “shall be treated as” white “Citizens of the States”, the importance of these terms becomes more Important. If 14th Amendment citizens will be treated as State Citizens; and if Corporations will be treated as 14th Amendment “citizens”, then we either have to conclude that these three items are the same, or completely different.
9. Admit that the only type of “citizen” status that includes corporations is the statutory “citizen and national of the United States” found in 8 USC 1401.
See above, I will CERTAINLY admit, that a corporation is NOT a “Citizen” as found in ArtI, sec. 2
10. Admit that “United States” when used in a geographic sense in the Constitution means the states of the Union and incorporated territories and excludes unincorporated territories.
Admit, Im glad we finally agree on this one. what is the Jurisdiction that extends to the states and the incorporated territories? state jurisdiction or federal?
11. Admit that the ONLY incorporated territory at this time is the District of Columbia.
Deny, there is also Palmyra Atoll http://www.doi.gov/o…palmyrapage.htm
“On April 30, 1900, Hawaii (including Palmyra Atoll) became an incorporated U.S. territory. ( In corporation has been consistently interpreted as a perpetual state. Once incorporated, an area cannot be de-incorporated.) So, when Hawaii (excluding Palmyra Atoll) was admitted as one of the several States, Palmyra remained and continues to remain an incorporated U.S. territory. It is, in fact, of the fourteen U.S. insular areas, the only incorporated U.S. territory, that is, a Territory. (Under Federal law U.S. insular areas are divided into two categories: incorporated insular areas which use “Territory” with a capital “T” and unincorporated insular areas which use “territory” with a lower-case “t.”)
NOTE the capitalization!!
12. Admit that Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and Swain's Island are NOT “incorporated territories”, and therefore, that the people who live there are:
12.1 Neither statutory “citizens and nationals” per 8 U.S.C. 1401 nor constitutional “citizens of the United States” per the Fourteenth Amendment.
12.2 Statutory “aliens” under both the I.R.C. and Title 8.
Deny
Quote:http://www.state.gov…ation/86755.pdf
7 FAM 1112 WHAT IS BIRTH “IN THE UNITED STATES”?
(CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)
a. INA 101(a)(38) (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(38)) provides that “the term 'United States,' when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.”
The Nationality Act of 1940 (NA), Section 101(d) (54 Statutes at Large 1172) (effective January 13, 1941 until December 23, 1952) provided that “the term 'United States' when used in a geographical sense means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.” The 1940 Act did not include Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands as coming within the definition of “United States.”
Historically, Congress, through statutes, granted U.S. non-citizen nationality to persons born or inhabiting territory acquired by the United States through conquest or treaty. At one time or other natives and certain other residents of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, the Philippines, Guam, and the Panama Canal Zone were U.S. non-citizen nationals. (See 7 FAM 1120.)
(3) Under current law, only persons born in American Samoa and Swains Island are U.S. non-citizen nationals (INA 101(a)(29) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(29) and INA 308(1) (8 U.S.C. 1408)). (See 7 FAM 1125.)
c. Naturalization
13. Admit that the statutory “citizen and national” per 8 USC 1401 is NOT the equivalent to the constitutional “Citizen” or “citizen of the United States”
Admit, BUT I believe, and have shown that the statutory “citizen of the United States” is based on the 14th Amendment citizen [not Constitutional Citizen]
http://www.state.gov…ation/86755.pdf
“Some commentators took this view as well, such as Gordon. Analysis of this issue undertaken in 1994-1995 revealed, however, that there is a substantial legal question whether persons born outside the internal waters of the United States but within the territorial sea are in fact born “within the United States” for purposes of the 14th Amendment and the INA.
The rules applicable to vessels obviously apply equally to airplanes. Thus a child born on a plane in the United States or flying over its territory would acquire United States citizenship at
birth.”
14. Admit that the term “citizen of the United States” can have at least three different meanings, depending on WHICH “United States” is intended among the THREE United States identified by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hooven and Allison v. Evatt.
Admit, AT LEAST 3.
15. Admit that a “citizen of the United States***” is a Fourteenth Amendment citizen.
Admit
16. Admit that a “citizen of the United States**” is a statutory “citizen and national of the United States” per 8 U.S.C. 1401 but NOT a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States***”.
Admit
17. Admit that “subject to ITS jurisdiction” means the “United States*” in an international sense and the “United States**” in a domestic sense. Hence, it could have TWO meanings, depending on the context.
Admit
18. Admit that being a “citizen” in a statutory context within 8 USC 1401 is based on domicile on federal territory.
Admit, I'll add “or” presumed Domicile on Federal Territory, in the case where one who actually lives in a state of the union, declares his domicile or residency to be on federal territory. Also a 14th Amendment citizen residing on federal territory may be presumed to be a statutory citizen.
If ANY of your answers contradict each other, please provide evidence justifying and explaining the conflict. DO NOT include opinions, but ONLY evidence.
Quote
“Opinions are like assholes: Everyone has one and they all stink.”
1. you said:
“Fourteenth Amendment section 5 creates a CONSTITUTIONAL right that is not a Congressionally created right, to sue state officers in a federal court for a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process.”
Rights arent created! The reason the 14th had this provision, was to explicitly declare that the states lacked authority over these newly created FEDERAL citizens.
“Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” BECAUSE Federal citizens are governed by Congress! The disability is that the IRS and others interpret the 14th Amendment as creating a citizen of the government of the United States, as proven by:
Quote:Pursuant to this ruling: [Wong Kim Ark] [url url=”http://www.state.gov…ation/86755.pdf”]http://www.state.gov…ation/86755.pdf[/url](a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that (B ) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child's parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
2. With Regard to a Passport, an Article I, section 2 “Citizen” can get a passport using the Famguardian Method and attachment…the ONLY dispute I have with that is declaring to be a 14th Amendment citizen versus an Article I, Sec. 2 Citizen.
3. United States v. Anthony, 24 F. Cas. 829 (C.C.N.D.N.Y. 1873).
http://www.fjc.gov/h…raphy_resources
United States v. Susan B. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cases 829–833.
United States v. Susan B. Anthony, 11 Blatchford 200–212.
4. I DO NOT want to start any argument all over again, I SIMPLY want you, MOSTLY the readers, to be aware that claiming 14th Amendment citizenship MAY put them in a poor position with the US Govt, especially SINCE the US Govt uses the 14th Amendment as their bases for creating the Statutory provisions relating to “citizens OF the United States”…In other words, IF one is NOT required to be a 14th Amendment citizen, than the claim of Article I, sec. 2 Capital C Citizen, or Citizen of the Republic of Nebraska, or Constitutional Citizen and specifically not a 14th Amendment citizen, MAY be the better choice.
Your position is too absolute and leaves no room for error. If the Courts and the Governments are of the opinion, as I have seen and provided, that a citizen OF the United States, is different than a Citizen of a State of the Union; or if the same Courts and Governments use the 14th Amendment as their foundation for statutory laws, and statutory “citizenship”, as I have seen and provided, then, my proclamation is a SIMPLE and extra safeguard. As I mentioned, I have NEVER seen a case that states that a State Citizen has LESS rights than a citizen of the federal government, only the other way around.
Thank you sincerely, everyone, for taking the time to hammer this out. I know you have become frustrated, as have I, but we each see it so clearly in different perspectives. The use of the lower case “c” is too much for me to accept as a typo.
Quote:The original Constitution said:'The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.'
Under this provision each State could determine for itself what the privileges and immunities of its citizens should be. A citizen emigrating from one State to another carried with him, not the privileges and immunities he enjoyed in his native State, but was entitled, in the State of his adoption, to such privileges and immunities as were enjoyed by the class of citizens to which he belonged by the laws of such adopted State.
But the fourteenth amendment executes itself in every State of the Union. Whatever are the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the State of New York, such citizen, emigrating, carries them with him into any other State of the Union. It utters the will of the United States in every State, and silences every State constitution, usage, or law which conflicts with it. If to be admitted to the bar, on attaining the age and learning required by law, be one of the [83 U.S. 130, 134] privileges of a white citizen in the State of New York, it is equally the privilege of a colored citizen in that State; and if in that State, then in any State. If no State may 'make or enforce any law' to abridge the privileges of a citizen, it must follow that the privileges of all citizens are the same.
Does admission to the bar belong to that class of privileges which a State may not abridge, or that class of political rights as to which a State may discriminate between its citizens?
It is evident that there are certain 'privileges and immunities' which belong to a citizen of the United States as such; otherwise it would be nonsense for the fourteenth amendment to prohibit a State from abridging them. I concede that the right to vote is not one of those privileges. And the question recurs whether admission to the bar, the proper qualification being possessed, is one of the privileges which a State may not deny.
[BRADWELL v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 83 U.S. 130 (1872) ]
Read THIS carefully!!
I agree with Neo here…for example:
Quote:It's a beautiful scheme. I actually enjoy it for what it is — it's friggin' brilliant. Don't fight the Government or paint yourself as a conspiracy theorist. Simply use the distinction to establish context, and always discriminate between being a NATIONAL “citizen” which may or may not be a statutory “citizen”. You are in fact a NATIONAL “citizen” and a Union state “Citizen”.THIS is why I avoid claiming to be a 14th Amendment citizen…IN THE EVENT that this is where the govt. derived their authority over ITS citizens…it is brilliant. All of these tricks are brilliant, ie:
Quote:See: Cal Rev 60017 (note the two zeros)“In this state” or “in the extthe state” means within erior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States.
Versus
See: Cal Rev 6017 (note the single zero)
“In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.
With regard to the Chevy example…If my Equinox uses all Chevy parts and is covered by the “100,000 Mile Superior Chevrolet Warranty”, and your car has the “100,000 Mile chevy Warranty” that specifically doesnt cover the engine or transmission (voting rights) until Chevy decides to extend the “chevy Warranty”, and the “chevy Warranty” also doesnt cover any interior parts, until Chevy, through a lawsuit, is forced to also include interior parts. To claim that these two warranties are identical can only be done in error, as they specifically are not identical. It would have been a ruse to get people to buy a lesser built car, and give the impression that they both shared the same warranty, but as we both know, at any time another issue can arise to which Chevy can deny coverage.
The same goes with a 14th Am citizen. A “Citizen” already existed, it was well established that a “Citizen” was a white man. The Black man (and women technically, unless the term 'man' is used as in the biblical sense to coverall humans) was merely property, and protected by property rights. After the 13th Amendment, a black man was a man without a country, or ANY PROTECTION under property rights. The Civil Rights act was step 1 in making black men an inferior class of citizen.
You are naive to think that the lower case “c” was an accident, to this day in every version of the Constitution the C is capitalized in the beginning, up to and including the 11th Amendment, and after the 14th it is lower case:
Quote:“A cardinal rule in dealing with written instruments is that they are to receive an unvarying interpretation, and that their practical construction is to be uniform.”[Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327, 335 (1874)]
It is WELL established that the 14th Amendment CREATED two classes of citizenship:
Quote:U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) “The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress.“Quote:The first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution made negroes citizens of the United States, and citizens of the state in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state[Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327, 17 Am. Rep. 738]
It is a dangerous claim to make, that is being something that you are NOT required to be. I have shown where the IRS and State Department have quoted the 14th Amendment as their reasoning and decision making. One is NOT required to be a 14th Amendment citizen unless a federal right (civil right granted by congress) is desired:
Quote:“We might say that such regulations were unjust, tyrannical, unfit for the regulation of an intelligent state; but, if rights of a citizen are thereby violated, they are of that fundamental class, derived from his position as a citizen of the state, and not those limited rights belonging to him as a citizen of the United States; and such was the decision in Corfield v. Coryell.”[The United States v. Susan B. Anthony (11 2nd. Jud. Cir.] 200, 1873)
see:”[W]e find nothing…which requires that a citizen of a state must also be a citizen of the United States, if no question of federal rights or jurisdiction is involved.”
[Crosse v. Bd. of Supvrs of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966) ]
see:”United States citizenship does not entitle citizen to rights and privileges of state citizenship.”
[K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236, 256 P. 545 (1927), 48 Supreme Court. 527.]
A person who is a citizen of the United States is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, — the right to declare who are its citizens. The sovereignty of the citizens of a republic has its highest assertion in representative government, and is constituted in its political order in the representation of persons, and not of classes or of interests.
[State ex rel. Leche v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380]
[6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]
So I ask again, if I need not be a citizen of the United States, WHICH AT LEAST MANY in the govt. have claimed and are claiming means a citizen of Congress, then WHY would I make that claim?
Also, this 'theory' makes everything add up. [c]itizens of the United States need permits for guns (permission from congress), citizens of the U.S. are not allowed to use drugs, citizens of the United States are not allowed to do many things that CONGRESS has not the authority to control; perhaps this is because 14th Amendment citizens, are the citizens the statutory laws are made for. I have yet to see a statutory law for a “state Citizen” or a “Citizen of the United States”.
Talk about being perceived as a kook; Imagine going to court and declaring that you are a citizen of the United States but not a citizen of the United States with regard to U.S. laws (I understand the statutory difference). Are there any cases that state that a 14th Amendment citizen is not a statutory citizen??
Quote:Pursuant to this ruling: [Wong Kim Ark] http://www.state.gov…ation/86755.pdf(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that (B ) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child's parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
I have already established that a “person” in the 14th Amendment can be a Corporation…so can a Corporation be “born” or “naturalized” in the United States?
Quote:''a corporation is a 'person' within the meaning of the equal protection and due process of law clauses''[Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244 (1936)]
The United States cannot any more than a State interfere with private rights, except for legitimate governmental purposes. They are not included within the constitutional prohibition which prevents States from passing laws impairing the obligation of contracts, but equally with the States they are prohibited [99 U.S. 700, 719] from depriving persons or corporations of property without due process of law.
[MUNN v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 94 U.S. 113 (1876) 94 U.S. 113]
…the principal question as “whether business corporations, such as [appellants], have First Amendment rights coextensive with those of natural persons or associations of natural persons.” 371 Mass. 773, 783, 359 N. E. 2d 1262, 1269. The court found its answer in the contours of a corporation's constitutional right, as a “person” under the Fourteenth Amendment, not to be deprived of property without due process of law. Distinguishing the First Amendment rights of a natural person from the more limited rights of a corporation, the court concluded that “whether its rights are designated `liberty' rights or `property' rights, a corporation's property and business interests are entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection. . . . [A]s an incident of such protection, corporations also possess certain rights of speech and expression under the First Amendment.”
[FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON v. BELLOTTI, 435 U.S. 765 (1978) 435 U.S. 765]
NOW, to make a corporation a 14th Amendment citizen, it simply needs to be “Born” in the United States…
http://www.dss.cahwn…lish/pub326.pdf
Quote:A corporation is a distinct legal entity under California law. A new corporation is born when its Articles of Incorporation is filed with the Secretary of State.So a Corporation is “any person” with respect to the 14th, the same corporation is “born” when its articles of incorporation is filed, therefore a Corporation that is established in any state of the union is a citizen of the United States, and can then legally be President!
First to Admin:
Your “find law” source is not as reliable as gpo.gov with regard to what the feds have established.
see:
http://www.gpoaccess…tml/amdt14.html
And see page 7 (pg. 1671) vs 370 (pg. 2034)
http://www.gpoaccess…pdf2002/032.pdf
Also check the capitalization of “Citizen” in the 11th Amendment.
Secondly, I wasnt referring to the case as “being before the 14th Amendment”, but as to the subject of the cite:
Quote:The first section of the fourteenth article to which our attention is more specially invited opens with a definition of citizenship — not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the States. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments, and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing the Union. 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.[Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 36 36 (1872)]
This case reveals that BEFORE the 14th Amendment, those within DC or the territories were not Citizens; it also reveals that DC and the Territories were “in the United States”
As to Neo, I never say that I am a Citizen of the United States as I always presume that they are referring to a statutory citizen!!
This debate is bigger than that. This is about Congress making American people Federal citizens, thus subject to Congressional law, by simply creating a lesser class of citizen; one that is “subject to the jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES”…Im not sure why Admin thinks this is above Congress, but he has made up his mind, even though he has refused to answer many questions or comment on many cases that disagree with his position. EVERY case that Admin has used to support his claim has holes everywhere, for example, Downs v Bidwell is a case involving Puerto Rico, that we both agree is not “in the United States”, Wong Kim Ark dealt with the child of Foreign subjects, which would be subject to federal jurisdiction…they dont answer to the states, and Wong Kim mentioned this:
Quote:It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher's case in 1851, and since repeated by this court: 'Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,-it is well known that by the public law an alien, or a stranger [169 U.S. 649, 694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.' Executive Documents H. R. No. 10, 1st Sess. 32d Cong. p. 4; 6 Webster's Works, 526; U. S. v. Carlisle, 16 Wall. 147, 155; Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a; Ellesmere, Postnati, 63; 1 Hale, P. C. 62; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92. U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)It seems Admin NOW admits that incorporated territories are “in the United States” with regard to the Constitution:
Admin admits “interest” in the two Constitution theory regarding “We the People of the United States” vs “We, the People of the United States”
Admin has admitted through silence that “jurisdictions of the United States” is the plural version: http://famguardian.o…027&#entry10027
Admin also agrees through silence that the Govt. and its 'agencies' agree with my position, that 14th Amendment citizens are Federal citizens: see also:
Quote:“…the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. … Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.”[Jones v. Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (1993)]
As I see it, I simply need to find a case that deals with capitalization. Call me crazy, but it seems obvious to me what the 14th Amendment did, and was intended to do. Since when is our Federal Government ABOVE pulling off a ruse like this?
Lastly, do you REALLY think that the Administration of 1867 was prepared to have a Black President? If the freed slaves were made “Citizens” rather than “citizens” they COULD run for President. Ill work on finding a capitalization case, maybe one of you can explain a reasonable explanation for using a lower case “c”…meanwhile, Citizen was always capitalized before hand. Please dont say maybe they forgot, because even today, the Original Constitution Capitalizes Citizen throughout, UNTIL the 14th.
http://frwebgate.acc…cid=f:sd011.105
How can they remember to Capitalize it always, and as soon as the printer gets to the 14th Amendment, he simply forgets?
This idea still does not address the Careful use of a lowercase “c”, nor the cases providing that the 14th Amendment “created” a “new class” of citizen. An alternative to Neo's theory is:
1. “United States” throughout the Constitution DOES include only the “States of the Union”, but congress [and the courts] considers “Incorporated territories” as “states of the Federal Union”, aka “United States” as opposed to possessions or unincorporated territories.
OR
2. “United States” throughout the ORIGINAL Constitution, and not the Bill of Rights or additional Amendments, included only the states of the union and later Amendments included incorporated territories as well.
Either way would be technically correct, which is all the Supreme Court needs.
Quote:The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,” and this Court naturally held, in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, that the United States included the District and the territories. Mr. Justice Miller observed: [DOWNES V. BIDWELL, 182 U. S. 244 (1901)]BEFORE the 14th Amendment:
Quote:The first section of the fourteenth article to which our attention is more specially invited opens with a definition of citizenship — not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the States. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments, and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing the Union. 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.[Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 36 36 (1872)]
The 14th Amendment changed this. After the 14th, those residing in the states of the Union [who were not subject to state jurisdiction per civil rights act 1866], AND THOSE in INCORPORATED territories [who also were not subject to state jurisdiction] became “citizens” OF the UNITED STATES.
It has ben my position that the use of the lower case “c” was to give the Supreme Court an 'out' in the event that a Black man tried to run for President. The courts could easily say “The fourteenth Amendment made freed slaves “citizens” not “Citizens”, only the latter of which is eligible to be President.” Of course this never came up, as far as I know, but I do know that the 14th Amendment did not allow Blacks to run for President, which all “Citizens” enjoy the right of.
2. More importantly, I have shown that the Congress, State Department, IRS, and others in the Federal Government are using the Fourteenth Amendment as establishing the lower case “c” “citizen of the United States” which they have since made and extended STATUTORY version of to include Puerto Rico and the Philippians, the latter are NOT “Constitutional citizens” nor “Constitutional Citizens”, but rather ALWAYS Statutory citizens.
I understand Admins position and explanation of a 14th Amendment citizen being different from a Statutory citizen, but in the eyes of Congress, what would be the distinction? Whereas there is a SPECIFIC distinction between a Citizen and a citizen, especially with regard to law, where Capitalization is used to distinguish between FEDERAL PROPERTY and state property,
See: Cal Rev 60017 (note the two zeros)
Quote:“In this state” or “in the state” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States.versus
See: Cal Rev 6017 (note the single zero)
Quote:“In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.In the first, the “United States” they are referring to is the Federal governments land, ie Post Offices, ports, forts, etc.
In the second they are referring to the land that was ceded in order to become an incorporated territory, and eventually the state.
This is an example [1 of thousands] of the Importance of CapItaLiZatiOn…this was NO ACCIDENT or mistake!! A citizen is specifically different than a Citizen, and it ALWAYS will be, if for no other reason, the Capitalization.
Note
In the 14th Amendment, Congress remembered to Capitalize:
President, Vice President, United States, Representatives, Congress, Executive, Judicial, State, Legislature, Person [section 3], Senator, and House; they “forgot” to Capitalize “citizen” and “person” in section 1. but remembered to Capitalize “Person” for section 3.
You are falling for their tricks, if you believe that a “person” in the 14th Amendment is equal to a “Person” in the 14th Amendment, or that a “citizen” in the 14th Amendment is equal to a “Citizen” in the original Constitution.
Apparently this was an ingenious plan by Congress, because Admin (who appears to be a Genius in his own right, and well versed in law) is ignoring these facts, which are ordinary and common practice of congress, that is obfuscation by capitalization and punctuation…
See how Gouverneur Morris inserted a semi colon in the Constitution:
http://books.google….olon%22&f=false
With regard to your #4…
If someone gets a job sweeping floors, and uses the Social Security number on his W-4, is he acting in an “official capacity” every time he is at work?
Furthermore, it seems like the mere fact that he is eligible to eventually receive benefits under Social Security, that he is “Federal Personnel” according to USC Title 5, 552
It is sort of like getting a drivers license, and trying to travel by right. Although you may NOT actually be “driving” as that term is used to indicate commerce, you have already declared that you forfeit your right to travel.
Thoughts on that?
And with regard to:
“…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.”
I specifically declare myself a “national”, or “Citizen of the Republic of California and specifically NOT a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States” [I avoid the term “state” in the event that info is ever transferred over the phone a capitalization error of “state” v “State” cant be made. The SS number is long gone, as well as my drivers license, voters reg, etc. I have had many run-ins with the police, most of which end up with them giving me a ticket with no D.L. number, or License plate number on it. All they can do, is try to affect my non existent credit!
2. Is it “We, the people of the United States” or “We the People of the United States”
http://www.gpoaccess…html/pream.html
or
http://memory.loc.go…t(bdsdccc0801))
You dont think Capitalization is important, what about punctuation? This supports the two Constitutions theory.
3. I agree with your number 3, BUT I think the 14th Amendment allows congress to associate [14th Am] “citizens of the United States” with Statutory “citizens of the United States” if for no other reason their capitalization, whereas a Citizen is automatically different.
Also, dont forget that once a Constitutional Citizen, OR a 14th Amendment citizen has a social security number, they are then “Federal Personnel” SPECIFICALLY subject to congress, and their citizenship goes out the window thanks to the 13th Amendment establishing “voluntary servitude”:
Quote:USC Title 5, 552(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).
1. I wrote:
“ONLY the Incorporated territories, which exclude America Samoa and the Swains Islands [and others], are “in the United States”
perhaps I should have been more clear.
2. Why do you think that: “Statutory citizenship requires domicile on federal territory” and not just “residency”?
The IRS at usc Title 26, 7701 (39) makes those living in the states of the union appear to be in the District of Columbia:
Quote:(39) Persons residing outside United StatesIf any [statutory]citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in (and is not found in) any [territorial]United States judicial district, such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in the District of Columbia for purposes of any provision of this title relating to—
(A) jurisdiction of courts, or
(b) enforcement of summons.
I think Federal citizens domiciled in the states of the union are still/or at least presumed to be statutory citizens. see my zip code post:
http://famguardian.o…ch=1&#entry9438
3. You should read what the U.S. Department of State says about the 14th Amendment:
http://www.state.gov…ation/86755.pdf
Quote:(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 – Consular Affairs 7 FAM 1110 Page 3 of 13 territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that (B ) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child's parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
4. if “thereof” is ALWAYS singular, than “the Jurisdiction thereof” means the jurisdiction of one thing, meaning “United States” is one thing, and not several states.
5. Wong Kim Ark is not a conclusive argument [especially regarding incorporated territories]…you are PRESUMING that the Legislative jurisdiction is positively excluded because political jurisdiction is included; but this case adds a qualifier; that is “AND owing them Direct and IMMEDIATE allegiance” This is something you have warned about repeatedly!
Quote:“This section 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 political jurisdiction, and owing them 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.”[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898) ]
Secondly why isn't “jurisdiction” pluralized? for example:
Quote:Absent, at least, an affirmatively stated grant of permission to noncontiguous jurisdictions of the United States to require egg-labeling, we are unable to conclude that appellants have met their burden of showing that Congress' intent to allow Puerto Rico to enact protectionist egglabeling regulations was “unmistakably clear.” See e.g., Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131, 139 (1986)[UNITED EGG PRODUCERS, et al., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OF the COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO] 77 F.3d 567
Quote:Marino-Garcia, 679 F.2d at 1378 n. 3. In both Marino-Garcia and in the instant case, the marijuana-laden ships were validly registered in a foreign country, while the crewmembers displayed various indicia of nationality in another country. Although in Marino-Garcia the “second country” was the United States, this factor cannot and should not logically make any difference. The most reasonable inference from the facts of this case is that the crewmembers of the BISMARK were hoping, if worse came to worst, that they could evade the jurisdictions of the United States, Venezuela and Colombia through the clever use of registration papers and various other indicia of nationality. This is precisely what 21 U.S.C.A. Sec. 955b(d) and Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Convention of the High Seas were designed to prevent. See generally Marino-Garcia, 679 F.2d at 1379-83.[UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pleno MATUTE, Hernan Estrada, Carlos Martinez, Juan Guerreoro, Jose Saavedra, Eric Prentt and Thomas Herrera, Defendants-Appellants.767 F.2d 1511]
Good stuff! all of this is Very interesting to me!
This is the ONLY thing that has supported my case along the way, is that “incorporated Territories” are “in the United States”, therefore, the phrase “born in the United States” changes from simply being born in one of the states and subject to the STATE jurisdiction: to Born anywhere in the entire country, AND subject to THE jurisdiction THEREOF. The term “Thereof” is being dismissed, while it is a VERY important word, used, like usual, for obfuscation, in my opinion.
The term “Thereof” is a SINGULAR word meaning “Of it” or “Of that”, THIS is why it was so important to show that “United States” in the 14th Amendment means the ENTIRE Country, inclusive of all of the states, and all of the Incorporated Territories destined for statehood, and the District of Columbia, but specifically excluded unincorporated territories such as Puerto Rico, and the Philippines as many of the Insular cases determined. The 14th Amendment uses the term “United States” to be inclusive of all of the territory within the boundaries of the actual country, whereas the 13th Amendment includes “the United States” [the country] AND any other place subject to their [Federal Government, I had previously thought 'their' meant the states] Jurisdiction.
With that said, it is also important to recognize the difference between being “in a jurisdiction” and “subject to a jurisdiction”. Any person who is born in the Country of the United States, which includes certain territories, and [a qualifying word] subject to THE jurisdiction of IT, is a lower case “c” citizen 'of the United States', meaning belonging to the United States, as stated in:
Quote:“…It is unnecessary to lay special stress on the title to the soil in which the channels were dug, but it may be noticed that it [Chelsea Creek in Boston] was not in the United States. The language of the acts is 'public works of the United States.' As the works are things upon which the labor is expended, the most natural meaning of 'of the United States' is 'belonging to the United States.'”[U.S. Supreme Court, ELLIS v. U S, 206 U.S. 246 (1907) 206 U.S. 246]
As I have said before, the Civil Rights act made Freed slaves who were subject to NO jurisdiction, since the 13th Amendment took them out of their owners jurisdiction, these freed slaves were not “persons” owing allegiance to the state, so, by Act of Congress, they became statutory “citizens of the United States”, I believe Admin agrees with this portion?!?
Then to secure the position of “Federal citizen”, Congress [the VERY SAME PEOPLE THAT JUST MADE FREED SLAVES FEDERAL cITIZENS] wrote and proposed the 14th Amendment, using odd ball words and trickery…whats wrong with:
“Anyone born in the several states of this union, and not being a citizen or member of any foreign nation, shall be Citizens as that term is used throughout the Constitution”
Simple!
Instead they use “United States” which has a handful of meanings, and they used thereof which is a singular word, and always so throughout the Constitution!
If nothing else the Government is using the 14th Amendment as their stepping stone into statutory citizens, otherwise they wouldn't constantly cite the 14th as its source for its decisions.
To answer Neo:
Quote:The only thing I am still having problems with is how to reconcile and logically explain how a citizen of American Samoa and Swains Island — a “national” of the United States*, is not a “citizen of the United States” when “14th Amendment Citizenship” is used to commute a Constitutional State Citizen and a “citizen” of a US** Territory into a “national” of the United States*. The Am Sams and other Citizens (Constitutional and Statutory) end up with the same political status in the end — “national” of the United States*. The only way to reconcile this is to say that 14th Amendment Citizenship is more accurately referred to as 14th Amendment Nationality, and constitutional citizenship applies to Union domiciliaries and statutory citizenship applies to US** Territory domiciliaries, but both obtain nationality through the 14th Amendment.ONLY the Incorporated territories, which exclude America Samoa and the Swains Islands [and others], are “in the United States” with regard to the 14th Amendment, therefore, all of the people of the un-incorporated territories and possessions are ALWAYS statutory citizens and nationals, and never constitutional Citizens or 14th Amendment citizens…I think Admin could answer this better than I.
There is only one incorporated territory currently, it is called Palmyra Atoll south of Hawaii.
I have NEVER argued that Puerto Rico was in the “United States” with regard to the 14th Amendment, I have always maintained that the “United States” in the 14th meant the entire nation between the oceans, and that subject to THE jurisdiction was that of the Federal Government, as in the Civil Rights act of 1866.
1)
http://caselaw.lp.fi…04/17.html#t318
Territories: Powers of Congress Thereover
In the territories, Congress has the entire dominion and sovereignty, national and local, and has full legislative power over all subjects upon which a state legislature might act. 313 It 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, 314 which will then be invested with all legislative power except as limited by the Constitution of the United States and acts of Congress. 315 In 1886, Congress prohibited the enactment by territorial legislatures of local or special laws on enumerated subjects. 316 The constitutional guarantees of private rights are applicable in territories which have been made a part of the United States by congressional action 317 but not in unincorporated territories. 318 Congress may establish, or may authorize the territorial legislature to create, legislative courts whose jurisdiction is derived from statutes enacted pursuant to this section other than from Article III. 319 Such courts may exercise admiralty jurisdiction despite the fact that such jurisdiction may be exercised in the States only by constitutional courts.
2) The word “thereof” is a singular word meaning “of it” or “of that”.
3) The “United States” as used in the Constitution can have more than one meaning, and more than one territorial meaning, that of the states united and that entire territory that makes up the entire country:
4) this quote is referencing the “Citizen of the United States” BEFORE THE 14th:
Quote:The first section of the fourteenth article to which our attention is more specially invited opens with a definition of citizenship — not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the States. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments, and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing the Union. 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.[Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 36 36 (1872)]
This is because before the 14th Amendment those born and residing in D.C. or other Territories were NOT Citizens of the united States. The 14th, on the other hand, made all persons born in the United States (including incorporated territories) AND SUBJECT to the jurisdiction of it!
5) Even if you're right (which I think you are not) what matters is what the United States government, and their courts think:
http://www.uscis.gov…-0-0-45086.html
Quote:Interpretation 301.1 United States citizenship.(a) Birth in the United States.
(:cool: Birth abroad.
(a) Birth in the United States .
(1) Statutory development . Prior to 1866, absent any statutory or constitutional provision, it was generally held, under the common-law principle of jus soli (the law of the place), that a person born in the United States acquired citizenship at birth; this principle was incorporated in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, and, two years later, found expression in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that all persons born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.
The above constitutional provision has remained in effect ever since, and is restated in this section. 1/
(2) “United States” defined . Prior to January 13, 1941, the term “United States” included the continental mainland, Hawaii after August 11, 1898[Hawaii was not a state until 1959], 2/ Alaska, upon its formal incorporation into the Union on March 30, 1867[also not a state until 1959], 3/ but not Puerto Rico. 4/ The Philippine Islands have never been deemed to be part of the United States within the purview of the 14th Amendment. 4a/
The territorial limits of the United States were extended on January 13, 1941, to include Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, 5/ and the current statute has added Guam to this definitive grouping 6/
In addition to the land areas mentioned above, ports, harbors, bays, enclosed sea areas, and a three-mile marginal belt, along the coasts thereof, form a part of the territorial limits of the United States. 7/
Notwithstanding the position taken in the second paragraph under INTERP 316.1(:cool:(2)(i) and in INTERP 329.1©(3)(ii) , Midway Islands is not and never has been considered a part of the “United States” in the sense that United States citizenship is or was acquired at birth therein under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, or any of the various statutory provisions which have conferred citizenship upon such basis.
(3) Effect of parents' status . Alienage of a child's parents does not preclude his acquisition of citizenship jus soli nor did their racial ineligibility for naturalization under former laws have such result. 8/
Additionally, acquisition of citizenship is not affected by the fact that the alien parents are only temporarily in the United States at the time of the child's birth.
6) To get an idea of what the courts think read:
Quote:Rodolfo RABANG; Jose Tion Guillo; Leonora Ver Sanidad; Alfredo Maglinao; Josephine Ycaro; Michael Ycaro; John Ycaro, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that:
12
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
13
U.S. Const. amend. XIV (emphasis added).
14
No court has addressed whether persons born in a United States territory are born “in the United States,” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.4 The courts have, however, uniformly rejected claims that people born in the Philippines [unincorporated territories] during the territorial period retained their “national” status5 after Philippine independence. See, e.g., Rabang v. Boyd, 353 U.S. 427, 430-31, 77 S.Ct. 985, 987-88, 1 L.Ed.2d 956 (1957) (rejecting claim that status as a United States “national” was so related to “citizenship” that U.S. relinquishment of the Philippine Islands could not divest petitioner of his U.S. nationality); Manguerra v. INS, 390 F.2d 358, 360 (9th Cir.1968) (rejecting argument that United States nationality could not be taken away without consent); Cabebe v. Acheson, 183 F.2d 795, 800 (9th Cir.1950) (rejecting claim that Congress did not have power to divest petitioner of nationality).
15
We now hold that birth in the Philippines[unincorporated territory] during the territorial period does not constitute birth “in the United States” under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus does not give rise to United States citizenship.
16
In the Insular Cases6 the Supreme Court decided that the territorial scope of the phrase “the United States” as used in the Constitution[revenue clause of the Original Constitution, NOT the Bill of Rights or the Amendments] 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 [unincorporated territory] 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
17
In arriving at this conclusion, the Court compared the language of the revenue clause (“all duties … shall be uniform throughout the United States”) with that of the Thirteenth Amendment (prohibiting slavery “within the United States, or in any place subject to their jurisdiction”) and the Fourteenth Amendment (extending citizenship to those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”). Id. at 251, 21 S.Ct. at 773 (emphasis added). The Court emphasized that the language of the Thirteenth Amendment demonstrates that “there may be places within the jurisdiction of the United States that are no part of the Union.” Id. In comparison, the Fourteenth Amendment has “a limitation to persons born or naturalized in the United States which is not extended to persons born in any place 'subject to their jurisdiction.' ” Id. (emphasis added). Like the revenue clauses, the Citizenship Clause has an express territorial limitation which prevents its extension to every place over which the government exercises its sovereignty[Referring to “the United States” in the 14th]. Cf. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 291 n. 11, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 1074-75, 108 L.Ed.2d 222 (1990) (Brennan, dissenting) (distinguishing Downes holding regarding the revenue clauses, because the Fourth Amendment “contains no express territorial limitations”).
18
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 Below
A) see map:
Map of the “United States,”
Showing the Territory in Possession of the Federal Union
January, 1864
http://memory.loc.go…bin/map_item.pl
😎 see also:
“Table of dates US States and Territories were admitted into the Union.”
http://www.azlibrary…/statehood.aspx
C)
Quote:Thus it was, at the adoption of the Constitution, the United States, as a geographical unit and as a governmental conception both in the international and domestic sense, consisted not only of states, but also of territories, all the native white inhabitants being endowed with citizenship, protected by pledges of a common union, and, except as to political advantages, all enjoying equal rights and freedom, and safeguarded by substantially similar guaranties, all being under the obligation to contribute their proportionate share for the liquidation of the debt and future expenses of the general government…In view of this, it cannot, it seems to me, be doubted that the United States continued to be composed of states and territories, all forming an integral part thereof and incorporated therein, as was the case prior to the adoption of the Constitution…
Thus, clearly defined by boundaries, by common citizenship, by like guaranties, stood the United States when the plan of acquiring by purchase from France the province of Louisiana was conceived by President Jefferson. Naturally, the suggestion which arose was the power on the part of the government of the United States, under the Constitution, to incorporate into the United States — a [Federal] Union then composed, as I have stated, of states and territories”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
D)
Quote:Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation. Religious freedom is guaranteed everywhere throughout the United States, so far as congressional interference is concerned. The question to be determined is, whether the law now under consideration comes within this prohibition.[Reynolds v. United States (98 U. S. 145; 25 L. ed. 244)]
E)
Quote:U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 – Consular Affairs7 FAM 1110 Page 8 of 13
b. Comments on the applicability of the 14th Amendment to vessels and planes, are found in Gordon, Immigration Law and Procedure, Part 8, Nationality and Citizenship, Chapter 92, 92.03 (New York: Matthew Bender, 2007). This volume states:
“The rules applicable to vessels obviously apply equally to airplanes. Thus a child born on a plane in the United States or flying over its territory would acquire United States citizenship at birth.”…
FAM guidance up until 1995 (7 FAM 1116.1-2 In U.S. Waters TL:CON-64; 11-30-95) advised that persons born within the 3-mile limit of the U.S. territorial sea were born “within the United States” and could be documented as U.S. citizens if they were also born subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Some commentators took this view as well, such as Gordon. Analysis of this issue undertaken in 1994-1995 revealed, however, that there is a substantial legal question whether persons born outside the internal waters of the United States but within the territorial sea are in fact born “within the United States” for purposes of the 14th Amendment and the INA.…
(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization.
(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”
7) See some more interesting capitalization, this time regarding “Territory”
http://www.doi.gov/o…tical_types.htm
8)
Quote:“…the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. … Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.”[Jones v. Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (1993)]
I would be curious to get Admins thoughts on this translation:
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
All Persons = any human
born or naturalized = born by birth, or taking the action of applying to the Federal Government for the privilege of naturalization
in the United States = in any place within the country the United States of America, inclusive of states of the union, Incorporated territories [Florida, Arizona Louisiana], and the District of Columbia, and specifically excluding unincorporated territory such as Puerto Rico, Guam, America Samoa, etc.
and subject to = AND being COMPLETELY subject to the Political jurisdiction and owing direct and immediate allegiance to, as opposed to being simply “in a [territorial] jurisdiction”:
Quote:The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
Quote:The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a, 'strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject'; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, 'If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.' It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher's case in 1851, and since repeated by this court: 'Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,-it is well known that by the public law an alien, or a stranger [169 U.S. 649, 694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.' Executive Documents H. R. No. 10, 1st Sess. 32d Cong. p. 4; 6 Webster's Works, 526; U. S. v. Carlisle, 16 Wall. 147, 155; Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a; Ellesmere, Postnati, 63; 1 Hale, P. C. 62; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92. U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)the = singular term as opposed to “a jurisdiction” or “the jurisdictions“
jurisdiction = legislative jurisdiction as well as political jurisdiction.
thereof = –adverb 1. of that or it. 2. from or out of that origin or cause. AGAIN singular. The ONLY thing that has jurisdiction [of any kind] over all of the Territory of the United States is the Federal Government.
are citizens of the United States = Federal citizens belonging to the United States who only have those fundamental rights 'granted' by the Constitution or Congress, differentiated from the Constitutional State Citizens or the Citizens of the United States, meaning Citizens of the Several States, by the use of the lower case “c” in citizen for the first time. All the way up to and including the 11th Amendment, Citizen was ALWAYS capitalized in the Constitution and the Amendments.
and of the State wherein they reside = these Federal citizens are also State citizens if they reside in a State of the Union, if the reside in the District of Columbia or a territory, they are ONLY citizens of the United States, until the set up residency in a state, THEN they also become State citizens; BUT these two citizenship's are not separable both ways! A citizen of the state is ALWAYS still a citizen of the United States, but a citizen of the United States is not always a citizen of the state.
NOW, the second part brings it all home, NO state can interfere with Federal Property, therefore the States cannot make any laws that diminish those rights specifically granted to Federal citizens, because the States DO NOT have the authority to deprive Federal citizens of anything. Note by the way that a State may not abridge “privileges or immunities” of citizens, rather than “rights”, this is because Federal citizens ONLY have “civil rights” which aren't rights at all, but rather, privileges and immunities.
Then it goes on to say “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law”…The Constitution had already established this restriction on government for Constitutional Citizens, “…nor deny to any person within its [territorial] jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Again, equal protection under the laws had been well established for Citizens. NOTE: this last part simply says “within its jurisdiction” instead of “subject to its jurisdiction”.
Huge difference between “subject to a jurisdiction” and simply “within a jurisdiction”
1.
You are correct, it is the dissenting opinion, I forgot to Include the Case he referenced:
Quote:The Fourteenth Amendment provides that“all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,”
and this Court naturally held, in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, that the United States included the District and the territories.
Mr. Justice Miller observed:
[DOWNES V. BIDWELL, 182 U. S. 244 (1901)]
Quote:The first section of the fourteenth article to which our attention is more specially invited opens with a definition of citizenship — not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the States. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments, and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing the Union. 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.[Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 36 36 (1872)]
A case stating that “united States” includes the District of Columbia in the interstate Commerce clause.
Quote:that in the matter of interstate commerce, the United States are but one country, and are and must be subject to one system of regulations, and not to a multitude of systems, and that a state statute requiring persons soliciting the sale of goods on behalf of individuals or firms doing business in another state to pay license fees for permission to do so is, in the absence of congressional action, a regulation of commerce in violation of the Constitution.[STOUTENBURGH V. HENNICK, 129 U. S. 141 (1889)]
I think we have veered off track. The famguardian pages are so intelligent, so comprising of all the information available, so cleverly crafted; that I am surprised that the intent of the 14th is overlooked.
If someone posted that the lower case “s” in state (as used by Congress) was of no significance, I'm certain you would disagree. Yet the lower case “c” has become a non issue. Let me explain why I think it is so important to focus on the lower case “c”
The Original “Citizen” as found in the Constitution prior to the 14th Amendment, all the way up to and including the 11th Amendment was a Capitalized “Citizen”. Then, everything changed. The order, as you know, goes like this:
The 13th Amendment made the Citizens of the States give up their slaves, that they had owned and protected as property. These newly freed slaves were NOT state Citizens nor subject to the Jurisdiction of the states.
The Congress created the Civil Rights act of 1866 making anyone born in the United States (states of the union, and perhaps incorporated territories destined for statehood, and the District of Columbia) and that was NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of any state of the union a “citizen of the United States” with a lower case “c”. Now, at this time there were TWO types of Citizens in the United States; there were Constitutional Citizens and Statutory citizens. The Statutory citizens owed direct and immediate allegiance to Congress for freeing them, and for letting them be citizens of the Federal Government. As Federal Property, the States lacked jurisdiction over these subjects, unless Congress allowed it. The original State Citizens are still unchanged.
With these Federal citizens located in the Several states as Statutory citizens, with a question of constitutionality looming over the status of the statutory title, Congress was quick to make these statutory citizens “Constitutional citizens”, thus, the 14th Amendment was written to make all persons born in the United States (all areas of the Country, states of the Union and incorporated territories and the District of Columbia) and subject to THE jurisdiction thereof (of it, the only Jurisdiction that covers the entire country in any manner is the Federal Government) “citizens of the United States.”
Had Congress wanted 14th Amendment citizens to be equal with that of the original Constitutional Citizen, they could have used an uppercase “C”, but they didnt….as the courts said, the 14th Amendment CREATED a new class of citizen, distinctly different than that of the original Constitutional Citizen. THERE IS NO OTHER REASON TO USE A LOWER CASE “c”, EXCEPT TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!
So, I guess technically, I would agree that a 14th Amendment citizen is a “Constitutional citizen”, but still different from a Constitutional Citizen, the former owing CONGRESS for the creation of that class. Yes, sadly, it is probably technically true that a Black person today must be a 14th amendment citizen, because of the INTENT of the organic Constitution, but I dont know of any clause that makes a person with darker skin less than that of a lighter skinned man.
We can go back and forth all day on case law (Stare Decisis as you know) but unless the reason for the different use of Capitalization is determined we will be in a perpetual stalemate.
As you KNOW this was not accidental:
Quote:.. [T]herefore, the militia law drops the language which is used when a full citizenship of the United States is intended, and provides that all able bodied “citizens” shall be liable to military duty. This change of phraseology was not accidental or unmeaning, but was entirely based upon the well understood distinction between a citizen of the state merely, and a citizen of the United States.[In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443, 478 (1863)]
Congress means what it says and says what it means, and although the citizen defined in the 14th Amendment has a lot more civil rights than the slaves had, and although it appears now that they are “equal” with state citizens, we should be careful in presuming that they are. If they are considered federal citizens (as the Federal Agencies seem to think), then they have very limited rights, subject to the whim of Congress; martial law, forced vaccines, mandatory healthcare, etc.
Im not sure how much clearer this can be:
Quote:Taking the words [“throughout the United States”] in their natural meaning — in the sense in which they are frequently and commonly used — no reason is perceived for disagreeing with the Chief Justice in the view that they were used in this clause [Clause 7 of sec. 9 of Article I] to designate the geographical unity known as “The United States,” “our great republic, which is composed of states and territories.”Other parts of the Constitution furnish illustrations of the correctness of this view. Thus the Constitution vests Congress with the power “to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy throughout the United States.”
Page 182 U. S. 357
This applies to the territories as well as the states, and has always been recognized in legislation as binding.
Aliens in the territories are made citizens of the United States, and bankrupts residing in the territories are discharged from debts owing citizens of the states, pursuant to uniform rules and laws enacted by Congress in the exercise of this power.
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that
“all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,”
and this Court naturally held, in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, that the United States included the District and the territories.
Mr. Justice Miller observed:
[DOWNES V. BIDWELL, 182 U. S. 244 (1901)]
Quote:“the exclusive power of congress to regulate commerce extends, under the Constitution, all over the United States, and includes commerce between the states and territories, because the territories are within the United States and parts of the United States …[Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, 129 US 141, 32 L. ed. 637, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 256]
1.
Quote:Thus it was, at the adoption of the Constitution, the United States, as a geographical unit and as a governmental conception both in the international and domestic sense, consisted not only of states, but also of territories, all the native white inhabitants being endowed with citizenship, protected by pledges of a common union, and, except as to political advantages, all enjoying equal rights and freedom, and safeguarded by substantially similar guaranties, all being under the obligation to contribute their proportionate share for the liquidation of the debt and future expenses of the general government.In the International sense as well as the domestic sense, the United States means both the states of the Union AND THE territory of the United States within the national border of the United States:
Quote:The cases now before the Court do not touch the authority of the United States over the territories in the strict and technical sense, being those which lie within the United States, as bounded by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Dominion of Canada and the Republic of Mexico, and the territories of Alaska and Hawaii; but they relate to territory in the broader sense, acquired by the United States by war with a foreign state.As Chief Justice Marshall said:
“The Constitution confers absolutely on the government of the Union the powers of making war and of making treaties; consequently, that government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty. The usage of the world is, if a nation be not entirely subdued, to consider the holding of conquered territory as a mere military occupation, until its fate shall be determined at the treaty of peace. If it be ceded by the treaty, the acquisition is confirmed, and the ceded territory becomes a part of the nation to which it is annexed, either on the terms stipulated in the treaty of cession, or on such as its new master shall impose.”
2.
Quote:“The 13th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude 'within the United States, or in any place subject to their jurisdiction,' is also significant as showing that there may be places within the jurisdiction of the United States that are no part of the Union. To say that the phraseology of this amendment was due to the fact that it was intended to prohibit slavery in the seceded states, under a possible interpretation that those states were no longer a part of the Union, is to confess the very point in issue, since it involves an admission that, if these states were not a part of the Union, they were still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.Upon the other hand, the 14th Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, declares only that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside.' Here there is a limitation to persons born or naturalized in the United States, which is not extended to persons born in any place 'subject to their jurisdiction.”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
In the 13th, If United States means the area within the Federal Jurisdiction, then it is crystal clear! It is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be an area within the “United States”, meaning states of the Union, that are NOT in the states of the Union; therefore the ONLY possibility is that “within the United States, or in any place subject to THEIR jurisdiction” HAS TO BE, in any place in the reach of the Federal United States AND any other place such as puerto rico and guam that although arent in the “Federal United States” are still within THEIR jurisdiction.
With regard to the 14th, the meaning is any person born in the ENTIRE country the United States, (excluding unincorporated territories such as Puerto Rico) AND who is ALSO subject to THE FEDERAL jurisdiction will be citizens “OF THE UNITED STATES”, if a person is subject to the state jurisdiction they are Citizens of the States, and will only become citizens of the United States upon their application to that status.
The precursor to this was the Civil rights act of 1866 that made any person “not subject to any foreign jurisdiction” (Statutory) “citizens of the united states (Federal Government)” Because freed slaves were not persons or citizens of the States, nor “subject to the jurisdiction of any foreign state” Congress adopted them as their federal citizens; then when the fourteenth Amendment came around, the freed slave/ Civil rights citizens were THE persons that were “born in the United States” AND subject to THE Jurisdiction (not jurisdictions) thereof (of it).
I strongly disagree that Union means ONLY THE STATES, as “UNION clearly incorporates the states of the union, the District of Columbia, and the territories that were “incorporated”, that is ceded and not taken by force.
More Strongly than ever, I disagree with your position; (I know how frustrating this is to you because you are so set, as I am, on your position)
If “United States” means “states of the union” then how are Indians, that are born in the territories of the United States “born within the United States”?
Quote:Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898) ]
YOU, more than anyone, should note the use of “foreign government” versus “foreign nation”, one meaning the states of the unions governments (foreign to the Federal Government) the other being that of foreign countries, completely foreign to the United States of America.
You point out that “By the language “citizen of the United States” was meant all such citizens, and by “any person” was meant all persons within the jurisdiction of the State”
Quote:The language employed is unqualified in its scope. There is no exception in its terms, and there can be properly none in their application. By the language “citizens of the United States” was meant all such citizens, and by “any person” was meant all persons within the jurisdiction of the State. No distinction is intimated on account of race or color. This court has no authority to interpolate a limitation that is neither expressed nor implied. Our duty is to execute the law, not to make it. The protection provided was not intended to be confined to those of any particular race or class, but to embrace equally all races, classes and conditions of men.I'm not sure what you are implying by this, but I agree “citizens of the United States” are “all such” citizens that are described in this Amendment; and the phrase “any person” is found in two places in the 14th Amendment, both times uncontroversial:
Quote:Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person [Federal citizen in a state of the union] of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person [Federal citizen in a state of the union] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.The States have NEVER been able to handle Federal Property, this is another declaration of that fact, that “citizens of the United States” [Federal citizens] are to be free of State control so far as congress states. I think this was the precursor to the CORPORATE STATE (political subdivisions of the U.S.) courts and jurisdiction of the STATES.
I dont think this was disputed…you seemed to Imply that “All persons” meant State citizens, THEN you'd have something!
Quote:As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States.When you wrote:
“3. The quote from Downes about territories being within the United States is NOT compatible with the majority opinion in Downes. It is a dissenting opinion. In Downes, as I have already pointed out, Puerto Rico was ruled as NOT being within the “United States” within the meaning of the revenue clausues of the Constitution.”
Is your reluctance to respond to my contention that “Incorporated Territories” ARE within the “United States” as used in the Constitution; such as the territory of Florida, or the Territory of Orleans? Just to Clarify?
You wrote:
“2. The POLITICAL paper you provided is NOT legal evidence. It is a statement of opinion not originating in the Superme Court about what the court COULD do, not what they actually SAID. It is not relevant. It refers to the Alvarez case but in making that statement, it is not quoting the U.S. Supreme Court. Federal Rule of Evidence 610 says that all beliefs and opinions are NOT admissible as evidence. Hence, the entire paper is not really legal evidence of ANYTHING.”
Would you AGREE that if this is the opinion of Supreme Court justices, than your certainty should be brought into question? Rule 610 refers to “Religious beliefs” and “religious opinions”
Quote:Rule 610. Religious Beliefs or OpinionsEvidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature the witness' credibility is impaired or enhanced.
you wrote:
“3. The quote from Downes about territories being within the United States is NOT compatible with the majority opinion in Downes. It is a dissenting opinion. In Downes, as I have already pointed out, Puerto Rico was ruled as NOT being within the “United States” within the meaning of the revenue clausues of the Constitution.”
Quote:Thus it was, at the adoption of the Constitution, the United States, as a geographical unit and as a governmental conception both in the international and domestic sense, consisted not only of states, but also of territories, all the native white inhabitants being endowed with citizenship, protected by pledges of a common union, and, except as to political advantages, all enjoying equal rights and freedom, and safeguarded by substantially similar guaranties, all being under the obligation to contribute their proportionate share for the liquidation of the debt and future expenses of the general government…In view of this, it cannot, it seems to me, be doubted that the United States continued to be composed of states and territories, all forming an integral part thereof and incorporated therein, as was the case prior to the adoption of the Constitution…
Thus, clearly defined by boundaries, by common citizenship, by like guaranties, stood the United States when the plan of acquiring by purchase from France the province of Louisiana was conceived by President Jefferson. Naturally, the suggestion which arose was the power on the part of the government of the United States, under the Constitution, to incorporate into the United States — a Union then composed, as I have stated, of states and territories”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
HERE I agree that Puerto Rico, as it was not incorporated into the union, was NOT “in the United States” as that term is used in the Constitution.
Lastly, if “United States” means “the states of the union”… what does “within the United States, or in any place subject to their jurisdiction,” mean? Translated it would be:
“within the states of the union, or in any place subject to their jurisdiction,” wouldnt this CLEARLY mean subject to the states of the unions jurisdiction??
OR if “United States” means “several states of the union, and all other land in the Country”, then the meaning is clear:
“within the entire Governmental reach of the United States, or in any place subject to their [meaning ownership NOT plural] jurisdiction,”..
such as “an author often puts their picture on the back of the book.”
Noted!
Quote:6. In the case of the Moore case, neither the Westlaw “Headnotes”, nor the “Syllabus” form a part of any court ruling. Only the majority holding is the actual ruling. Your cite is IRRELEVANT. The exact quote IN THE MAJORITY HOLDING you provided from the case must specifically reference the constitution, or else it is presumed to refer to the statutory context, which is the case in the vast majority of court rulings. Judges will frequently try to confuse the two contexts in order to usurp jurisdiction they do not have, so you must be VERY careful to avoid presumptions about what they mean by studying it carefully.You wrote:
7. You don't understand what “unincorporated” means. It means that the territory becomes a member of the Constitutional “Union” and therefore “incorporated” only by being ADMITTED into the Union. ONLY by that method can geographical land be annexed to the definition of “United States” within the GEOGRAPHIC meaning of the Constitution. Since Puerto Rico has never done that, it remains UNINCOPORATED.
In the case of MANY territories, they are “incorporated 20, 30 , 40 years before they become “states of the union”, therefore they remain Federal Territories, that are “within the United States” in a Constitutional sense. This is all I was trying to say…although these “territories” arent FULLY protected by the Constitution until they are “states”, in that unapportioned Direct taxes are laid.
