juliusbragg
Forum Replies Created
1. You must clarify your previous position then, you wrote:
Quote:4. We can and already have determined why “subject to THE jurisdiction” was used in the Fourteenth Amendment rather than subject to THEIR jurisdiction. It is because it covers BOTH the states of the Union and federal territories, which share together “nationality” and therefore “political jurisdiction”, as shown in 8 USC 1101(a)(21), 8 USC 1401, AND 8 USC 1408.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]
The Thirteenth Amendment refers to states of the Union as “THEIR jurisdiction”, which means it doesn't apply on federal territory, as we said before.
2. It appears that Alvarez Gonzalez disagrees with your statement:
1. “United States” in a geographic sense as used in the constitution ALWAYS refers to constitutional states of the Union and excludes federal territory.:
Quote:While addressing the citizenship implications of the incorporation doctrine, several scholars have suggested that the term “United States” [geographically] need not have a single constitutional definition. 55…In Alvarez Gonzalez's opinion, the Supreme Court could reasonably recognize that “[t]he term 'United States' could have different meanings depending on the context in which it is used.“57 The Court could hold that “the term 'United States' in the uniformity clause refers exclusively to the fifty states and the District of Columbia, while the same term in the citizenship clause means any parcel of land over which the federal government exercises sovereignty.“58[Alvarez Gonzalez, supra note 10, at 334-35.]
3. “Incorporated territories” such as Florida in 1819, were considered “in the United States” with regard to the 14th Amendment and the Constitution, it was ONLY “unincorporated Territories” that were specifically excluded; such as Puerto Rico:
Quote:Thus, strictly in accord with the thought embodied in the amendments contemplated by Mr. Jefferson, citizenship was conferred, and the Territory of Orleans was incorporated into the United States to fulfill the requirements of the treaty by placing it exactly in the position which it would have occupied had it been within the boundaries of the United States as a territory at the time the Constitution was framed…In delivering the opinion, however, the Chief Justice made certain observations which have occasioned some embarrassment in other cases. “The power,” said he,
“to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be exercised, and must be exercised, throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit but of one answer. It is the name given to our great Republic which is composed of states and territories. The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania, and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Constitution, that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties, and excises should be observed in the one than in the other. Since, then, the power to lay and collect taxes, which includes direct taxes, is obviously coextensive with the power to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises, and since the latter extends throughout the United States, it follows that the power to impose direct taxes also extends throughout
the United States…”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
Quote:“The Thirteenth 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.”[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]Obviously then, “United States” as used in the 13th Amendment meant more than the states of the union…otherwise what is “Their” mean?, It cant mean the states jurisdiction, it must mean federal jurisdiction, which would then make “United States” mean all of the Federal Governments property!
Quote:When a cession of territory to the United States is completed by the ratification of a treaty, it was stated in Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. 198, that the land ceded becomes a part of the United States, and that, as soon as it becomes so, the territory is subject to the acts which were in force to regulate foreign commerce with the United States, after those had ceased which had been instituted for its regulation as a belligerent right, and the latter ceased after the ratification of the treaty.[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
I think you should re-read Downes to see that Territories, SO LONG AS THEY ARE INCORPORATED in the Boundries of the Country, ARE included in the term “United States”, as used in the Constitution.
You said:
“The Moore v. People case was NOT obviously talking in a constitutional context, but rather a GENERAL context that also considers statutory law. They never even mentioned the constitution.”
Quote:“Moore v. People, 55 U.S. 14 How. 13 13 (1852)Moore v. People
55 U.S. (14 How.) 13
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Syllabus
1. That under and in virtue of the Constitution of the United States, the owner of a slave is clothed with entire authority in every state in the Union, to seize and recapture his slave, wherever he can do it without illegal violence or a breach of the peace.”
…This Court has not decided that state legislation in aid of the claimant, and which does not directly nor indirectly delay, impede, or frustrate the master in the exercise of his right under the Constitution, or in pursuit of his remedy given by the act of Congress, is void…
The record was removed by writ of error to the supreme court of that state, and it was there contended on behalf of the plaintiff in error that the judgment and conviction should be reversed because the statute of Illinois upon which the indictment was founded is void by reason of its being in conflict with that article of the Constitution of the United States which declares…
In view of this section of the Criminal Code of Illinois and this indictment founded on it, we are unable to discover anything which conflicts with the provisions of the Constitution of the United States or the legislation of Congress on the subject of fugitives from labor…
The power to make municipal regulations for the restraint and punishment of crime, for the preservation of the health and morals of her citizens, and of the public peace, has never been surrendered by the states or restrained by the Constitution of the United States…
Experience has shown also that the results of such conduct as that prohibited by the statute in question are not only to demoralize their citizens who live in daily and open disregard of the duties imposed upon them by the Constitution and laws, but to destroy the harmony and kind feelings which should exist between citizens of this Union,…
The following questions were presented by the case and decided by the court:
1. That, under and in virtue of the Constitution of the United States, the owner of a slave is clothed with entire authority, in every state in the Union, to seize and recapture his slave, wherever he can do it without illegal violence or a breach of the peace…
But such regulations can never be permitted to interfere with or to obstruct the just rights of the owner to reclaim his slave, derived from the Constitution of the United States, or with the remedies prescribed by Congress to aid and enforce the same.”…
Upon these grounds, we are of opinion that the act of Illinois upon which this indictment is founded is constitutional, and therefore
Affirm the judgment…
The exercise of such a power by the states would, in effect, be a violation of the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the respective states…
“The real winner: our readers, who have exhaustive proof that everything we say on this website is absolutely truthful and accurate, and can be independently verified with overwhelming evidence by simply reading the law.”
Here I agree 100%…the Famguardian Documents are the BEST, and this exchange will only make them better, by perhaps eliminating weak points or clarifying positions.
Thank You!
OK, I have done my research, and I now have proof that “United States” (in a geographical sense) as used in the Constitution is not restrictive to the states of the Union:
http://www.law.virgi…ion07/first.pdf (all cites therein)
Quote:While addressing the citizenship implications of the incorporation doctrine, several scholars have suggested that the term “United States” [geographically] need not have a single constitutional definition. 55…In Alvarez Gonzalez's opinion, the Supreme Court could reasonably recognize that “[t]he term 'United States' could have different meanings depending on the context in which it is used.”57 The Court could hold that “the term 'United States' in the uniformity clause refers exclusively to the fifty states and the District of Columbia, while the same term in the citizenship clause means any parcel of land over which the federal government exercises sovereignty.“58 [Alvarez Gonzalez, supra note 10, at 334-35.]Quote:In settling the question of Puerto Rico's “status” the Downes Court chose to adopt the novel test of “incorporation,” a requirement previously unknown to American law, in order to ensure that the constitutional definition of “United States” would not be correlative to the nation's international boundaries. The act of “incorporation,” in White's view, bestowed upon a foreign population the right “to share the privileges and immunities of the people of the United States.”42 And therefore the requirement that an acquired territory had to be incorporated by the people of the United States, acting through Congress, would allow the federal government to “guard against the immediate bestowal of citizenship on those absolutely unfit to receive it” as it pursued a policy of colonial expansion.43 The Downes majority thus established a constitutional definition of the term “United States” that generally excludes the unincorporated territories from any entitlement to the privileges and immunities of citizenship, which only incorporated territories are permitted to receive.44Quote:Additionally, in Dorr v. United States, the Court emphasized that “the United States may have territory which is not incorporated into the United States as a body politic.” 49 Even after Puerto Ricans had been granted citizenship under the Jones Act, the Court held in Balzac v. United States that Puerto Rico did not form part of the American polity, and that incorporation of such a “distant ocean communit[y] of a different origin and language from those of our continental people” would require a clear declaration from Congress.50Quote:In Downes, for example, Justice Brown stated that persons born in the territories are not Fourteenth Amendment citizens because the citizenship clause applies only to persons born or naturalized “in the United States,” unlike the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of slavery, which applies “in any place subject to their jurisdiction.”51 He further emphasized that, while the inhabitants of Puerto Rico were entitled to those rights that are “indispensable to a free government,” he considered citizenship to be among those “artificial or remedial rights” which were “peculiar to Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence,” and to which persons born in the unincorporated territories are not entitled.52 In his concurrence, Justice White disagreed with Justice Brown's contention that birth in the territories can never constitute birth “in the United States.” He maintained that, because some territories had been incorporated into the American polity, and thus formed part of the constitutional United States, persons born there were citizens by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice White nevertheless agreed that unincorporated territories like Puerto Rico were not part of the “United States,” and that the Thirteenth Amendment is the only Constitutional provision apart from the territory clause whose terms include these areas.53Is it odd that these Justices are saying that the 13th Amendments use of “their jurisdiction” means Federal Governments Jurisdiction???
See Dorr v. United States
Quote:“On the 2d of February, 1819, Spain ceded Florida to the United States. The sixth article of the treaty of cession contains the following provision:”“The inhabitants of the territories which His Catholic Majesty cedes the United States by this treaty shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the federal Constitution, and admitted to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States. “
Page 195 U. S. 142
“This treaty is the law of the land, and admits the inhabitants of Florida to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States.
[Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138 (1904)]
Florida didn't become a state until 1845
Have you ever seen this case??
Quote:“Every citizen of the United States is also a citizen of a state or territory. He may be said to owe allegiance to two sovereigns, and may be liable to punishment for an infraction of the laws of either.”[U.S. Supreme Court Moore v. People, 55 U.S. 14 How. 13 13 (1852)]
A Citizen of the United States, even before the 14th Amendment, was someone born and domiciled in the Territories or the states.
Quote:Under our complex system of government there may be a citizen of a state who is not a citizen of the United States in the full sense of the term. This result would seem to follow unavoidably from the nature of the two systems of government.[In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443 (1863)]
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)]
Hopefully this attempt doesnt get you as angry, as I posed these as fact and not questions…because you are not my nanny!
thanks
Let me suck your tit one more time then, because I don't comprehend this phraseology:
“from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
Subject to the jurisdiction of what? United States seems to be a geographical sense, yet the jurisdiction line seems to make it a federal government sense.
Is it, “from the several States of the Union and all territory that is subject to the several States jurisdiction” as you claim it means in the 14th?
Or is it, “from the several States of the Union and all territory subject to the Federal jurisdiction?”
Does this include Puerto Rico? Guam? America Samoa?
Isnt “subject to the Jurisdiction thereof” equal to “subject to their jurisdiction”, or is this an exception? Because whos jurisdiction are the territories they are referring to in?
What are you going to give back in return?
Im sorry, Im really trying to troubleshoot this to death!! Is “United States” below the states of the Union, the Government, or the states and federal zones?
Quote:Amendment XVIII (1919)Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Sorry!
Really??
“In all Territory of the United States lying north of 36* 30', and not included within the limits of any existing states”
or
“No more territory should ever be acquired to be owned by the United States or to be governed by Congress;”
YOU think “United States” in these two examples means “states of the Union”?
We agree that there aren't unconstitutional laws…for different reasons apparently, I think it is because the 14th Amendment created a Federal citizen subject to Congress with limited rights, initially for freed slaves, and eventually whites declared to be that class of citizen.
Quote:“It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia”[U.S. Supreme Court, COHENS v. COM. OF VIRGINIA, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) 19 U.S. 264 (Wheat.)]
I have another question…
You say “United States” in the Constitution limits itself to states of the Union and EXCLUDES federal territory”…
What do you think about these proposed Amendments from 1860…what does “United States” appear to mean here:
http://memory.loc.go…0061&linkText=1
Im curious!
If it means the Federal Government, does it lend credence to the idea that the SAME people would have used United States in the Federal Government sense in subsequent Amendments? (barring Court interpretation of course)
Thanks
Thank you for the response:
Is the Senate document incorrectly defining “United States” in the citizenship and residency portions, by footnote#1?
“Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution specifies that, to be President or Vice
President, a person must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35
years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.1″
footnote #1:
“1 Defined as including the 50 states and the District of Columbia.”
I'm on my BlackBerry, so short post;)
1. Do you agree or disagree that the government is deriving their authority over 14th amendment citizens of the U.S., by interpreting it the way I am?
2. Don't you think the senate.gov link proves this?? That a “citizen of the United States” EVEN ONE BORN in D.C. Or puerto rico is eligible to be president of the US under the constitutional requirement?
3. Doesn't this mean that “united states” means all states and territories belonging to the US?
4. Al Gore was born in DC, thus should have been ineligible, UNLESS the govt. And courts are including federal territory within the meaning of “United States” in the constitution…something is contradictory!
5. Don't you think that claiming to be a “citizen of the united states” is a dangerous move, when there is really no reason to?
I'm sorry to be so frustrating!
I think I need to explain, that TECHNICALLY, I am not arguing with you…but rather showing, and proving, that the Govt. (and their courts) are using MY INTERPRETATION to make 14th Amendment citizens, Federal citizens. see: http://www.senate.go…pdf/RL30527.pdf
Quote:Qualifications for the Office of President Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution specifies that, to be President or Vice President, a person must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.1 Most constitutional scholars interpret this language as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement.21 Defined as including the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
2 Citizens born in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as “natural born” citizens, and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President, provided they meet qualifications of age and 14 years residence within the United States. Residence in Puerto Rico and U.S. territories and possessions does not qualify as residence within the United States for these purposes. [U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, U.S. Insular Areas and Their Political Development, by Andorra Bruno and Garrine P. Laney, CRS Report 96-578GOV (Washington: Jun. 17, 1996), pp. 9, 21, 33].
Things like this, are why I revisit the D.C. issue, NOT because I havent read your position. The above completely contradicts your position, so I find it of interest, that the Federal Govt. is using the broadest sense of the terms for its benefit.
With regard to US V. Anthony, that you found interesting. You said “and obviously proves the existence of statutory “citizens of the United States**””, I see it as specifically referring to 14th Amendment citizens:
Quote:The rights of citizens of the states and of citizens of the United States are each guarded by these different provisions. That these rights are separate and distinct, was held in the Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, recently decided by the Supreme Court. The rights of citizens of the state, as such, are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions. United States v. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. Page 829, (1873)Now, you may say Im revisiting dead issues, but this case is referring to 14th Amendment citizens, not statutory citizens as you implied. I again find this interesting, and contradictory to your position. This is why I dont want you to think Im simply being a pain in the ass, but rather understand that the govt. is AT LEAST SOMETIMES interpreting things differently than you, and that is what is important.
TO DATE, I have NOT seen a single case claiming that a State Citizen has less rights than a citizen of the United States, only the opposite.
You said “I don't see a problem with any of the case cites you provide. They don't contradict anything on this website that I am aware of or anything we have stated so far, so there is not controversy to settle or explain. If there is a controversy, then you as the moving party need to expressly point it out so it can be dealt with. We're not going to guess what the problem is.”
As the moving party, I will show you that the Courts have SPECIFICALLY associated the language of the 14th Amendment to mean; “Federal citizens”, subject to the Congressional legislation, and to be different than State Citizens:
First, several cases clearly state that “citizens of the United States”, as opposed to State Citizens, ONLY have rights given to them specifically by Congress or the Constitution:
Quote:In each case the Slaughter-House Cases were cited by the court, and in the latter case the rights described by Mr. Justice Washington were again treated as rights of state citizenship, under state protection. If, then, it be assumed, without deciding the point, that an exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is what is described as a fundamental right belonging to all who live under a free government, and incapable of impairment by legislation or judicial decision, it is, so far as the states are concerned, a fundamental right inherent in state citizenship, and is a privilege or immunity of that citizenship only. Privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, on the other hand, are only such as arise out of the nature and essential character of the national government, or are specifically granted or secured to all citizens or persons by the Constitution of the United States. Slaughter- House Cases, supra, p. 79; Re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 448 , 34 S. L. ed. 519, 524, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 930; Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382 , 38 S. L. ed. 485, 487, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 570.[Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)]The bill of exceptions taken upon the trial set out all the evidence, from which it appeared that Presser was 31 years old, a citizen of the United States and of the state of Illinois, and a voter; … If the plaintiff in error has any such privilege, he must be able to point to the provision of the constitution or statutes of the United States by which it is conferred. For, as was said by this court in U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 551 , 560 S., the government of the United States, although it is 'within the scope of its powers supreme and above the states,' 'can neither grant nor secure to its citizens any right or privilege not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction.'
[Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-66 (1886)]
Now, Federal citizen:
Quote:“The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. (See Slaughter House cases, 83 US (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873)). 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, 839 F. Supp. 1226]
And now, subject to Congressional jurisdiction…you have made your case very well by showing that “subject to its jurisdiction” was not used, you have also refused to admit or deny that “thereof” means it or that, or that “a jurisdiction therein” or “the jurisdictions therein” would be plural…or that the courts have associated “thereof” with “its” meaning singular. In re-Slaughterhouse it is obvious what the courts are determining “jurisdiction thereof” to mean.
Quote:'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.' The first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.[ IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)]and:
Quote:citizenship clause is “'declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law,' so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned”;[Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 829-30 (1971)]
If you can address each concern here in with proof that these cases do not contradict your position, I will post nothing further!! OR, if you admit that some of the information posted here, contradicts your position, I will post almost nothing more.
FYI, I read EVERY WORD of your posts, I research what you write, AND I appreciate EVERY WORD. I disagree that this is a waste of time, especially as this MAY BE the most important issue ever…Imagine if I am right, what that means!! IT would mean that Congress has NEVER made an unconstitutional law or action after the 14th, because all citizens of the United States are their subjects with limited rights. It explains away MANY seemingly unconstitutional acts, drafts, taxes, imminent domain, etc.
I see you have ignored what appear to be important cases referring to Federal citizens.
Quote:In each case the Slaughter-House Cases were cited by the court, and in the latter case the rights described by Mr. Justice Washington were again treated as rights of state citizenship, under state protection. If, then, it be assumed, without deciding the point, that an exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is what is described as a fundamental right belonging to all who live under a free government, and incapable of impairment by legislation or judicial decision, it is, so far as the states are concerned, a fundamental right inherent in state citizenship, and is a privilege or immunity of that citizenship only. Privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, on the other hand, are only such as arise out of the nature and essential character of the national government, or are specifically granted or secured to all citizens or persons by the Constitution of the United States. Slaughter- House Cases, supra, p. 79; Re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 448 , 34 S. L. ed. 519, 524, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 930; Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382 , 38 S. L. ed. 485, 487, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 570.[Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)]I cant Imagine that the case above doesnt at least make you wonder what a 14th Amendment citizen really is!
This has always been the case since the 14th Amendment:
Quote:The bill of exceptions taken upon the trial set out all the evidence, from which it appeared that Presser was 31 years old, a citizen of the United States and of the state of Illinois, and a voter; … If the plaintiff in error has any such privilege, he must be able to point to the provision of the constitution or statutes of the United States by which it is conferred. For, as was said by this court in U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 551 , 560 S., the government of the United States, although it is 'within the scope of its powers supreme and above the states,' 'can neither grant nor secure to its citizens any right or privilege not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction.'[Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-66 (1886)]
By the way, if you are correct that “United States” in the 1st section of the 14th Amendment means the states united, then a person born in the District of Columbia would not be a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States, correct?
you wrote:
3. The Why a National pamphlet DOES NOT state that corporations are not “persons”, it states that they ARE NOT constitutional “citizens”, which is and continues to be completely accurate and unrebutted and therefore truthful in your view.
Regardless of the wording, it was misleading, as if to imply that the 14th Amendment only applies to humans, and that a State Citizen is always a corporation, that was my concern with it. With regard to that I am only trying to be proactive. I really regret that you think that my position is so obscure, even though I would bet that the IRS uses the 14th Amendment citizenship as the basis for their “citizen”, I mean half of the courts have said “subject to its jurisdiction” with regard to the first section of the 14th Amendment. I think I have AT LEAST shown cases that make you wonder “why did the court say that?” If this is true, then my position ISNT that obscure.
You may be surprised to learn that a 14th Amendment citizen has the RIGHT to collect wellfare…
Dissenting:
Quote:But the Court today holds that it would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to stop paying those people weekly or monthly allowances unless the government first affords them a full “evidentiary hearing” even [397 U.S. 254, 275] though welfare officials are persuaded that the recipients are not rightfully entitled to receive a penny under the law. In other words, although some recipients might be on the lists for payment wholly because of deliberate fraud on their part, the Court holds that the government is helpless and must continue, until after an evidentiary hearing, to pay money that it does not owe, never has owed, and never could owe. I do not believe there is any provision in our Constitution that should thus paralyze the government's efforts to protect itself against making payments to people who are not entitled to them. Privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, on the other hand, are only such as arise out of the nature and essential character of the national government, or are specifically granted or secured to all citizens or persons by the Constitution of the United States. GOLDBERG v. KELLY, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)Here are some more that you cannot and will not explain:
Quote:Citizenship is a political status, and may be defined and privilege limited by Congress.[Ex Parte (NG) Fung Sing, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 6, Page 670 (1925) ]
“The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. (See Slaughter House cases, 83 US (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873)). 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, 839 F. Supp. 1226]
“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other“.
[Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935) ]
“…rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship“.
[Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940) ]
“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such“.
[Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900) ]
“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it's own…”
[United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]
Until cases like these can be settled, there is no way, with good conscience, that I can blindly accept your position, nor your statements:
1. Presumptuous fools.
2. Uneducated about the law.
3. Deserving of all the ridicule the courts hurl at them.
4. Interpreting caselaw out of context.
5. FALSELY PRESUMING that statutory and constitutional contexts of the following terms are equivalent when in fact they are NOT:
5.1 State
5.2 United States
5.3 “citizen of the United States”
6. DO NOT understand the most basic aspects of federal jurisdiction.
Whereas you have refused to accept court cases that contradict your position, and instead resort to name-calling, and whereas you, perhaps like me, are too stubborn to look at this issue outside of your conviction, and whereas you refuse to at least acknowledge that the Courts, especially today, and the Federal Agencies rely on YOUR position to support their statutory definitions. The statutory “citizen of the United States” is based on the EXACT WORDING of the 14th Amendment, with the exception of “its” and “the, thereof” (which the courts have also “mis-interpreted” as you have noted). If the courts are saying “the jurisdiction thereof” means “its jurisdiction; and if some courts have specifically said “the 14th Amendments use of 'its jurisdiction', then why wouldn't you equate that the courts are agreeing with me, if for nothing else their benefit?? see:
Quote:'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.' The first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.[ IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)]
Quote:If the plaintiff in error has any such privilege, he must be able to point to the provision of the constitution or statutes of the United States by which it is conferred. For, as was said by this court in U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 551 , 560 S., the government of the United States, although it is 'within the scope of its powers supreme and above the states,' 'can neither grant nor secure to its citizens any right or privilege not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction.'[Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-66 (1886)]
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:citizenship clause is “'declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law,' so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned”;[Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 829-30 (1971)]
Please try not to belittle my argument, as I assure you it is not without merit or conviction; rather I am trying to understand what the Courts are determining compared to what one of my all time favorite sources is saying, that being Famguardian. At least let me know that the cases above show that SOME courts are not convinced with your position!
thanks
So you wont even acknowledge that a 14th Amendment “citizen” or “person” can be a corporation contrary to the Why a National statement?
If the term “person” with regard to the 14th Amendment may mean “14th Amendment corporation” or “14th Amendment citizen”, then doesn't it make your strongest piece of evidence more clear in my favor?? just asking.
Quote:“It is impossible to construe the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words 'within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons 'within the jurisdiction' of one of the states of the Union are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States[***].'”[U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898), emphasis added]
For the Record, I would suspect that you encourage and appreciate people not relying on blind faith of everything Famguardian writes, and instead work to research to prove for themselves everything they read, which is what Im doing. I think if nothing else, SOME courts have, and do, agree with my understanding of the 14th Amendment, that is that it created a Congressional bound Federal citizen; in fact, I KNOW this is what the IRS and other agencies use as their footing to their lower case statutory citizen.
I will say it again, the courts have recognized “citizens of the United States” as persons who derive their rights from Congress and those specifically mentioned in the Constitution; this was not always the case. State Citizens have always been protected by the Constitution, as it is the “law of the land”, and no State of the union could prevent their Citizens from free religion, or bearing arms, nor could the Federal government. BUT the “citizens of the United States” ONLY have the rights specifically handed to them:
Quote:Privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, on the other hand, are only such as arise out of the nature and essential character of the national government, or are specifically granted or secured to all citizens or persons by the Constitution of the United States. Slaughter- House Cases, supra, p. 79; Re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 448 , 34 S. L. ed. 519, 524, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 930; Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382 , 38 S. L. ed. 485, 487, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 570.and:
Quote:If the plaintiff in error has any such privilege, he must be able to point to the provision of the constitution or statutes of the United States by which it is conferred. For, as was said by this court in U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 551 , 560 S., the government of the United States, although it is 'within the scope of its powers supreme and above the states,' 'can neither grant nor secure to its citizens any right or privilege not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction.'[Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-66 (1886)]
PLEASE explain these. I know you are as stubborn as I am;) The reason (in my opinion) that some courts have said “subject to its jurisdiction” is because “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means subject to one jurisdiction. What do you think of “subject to a jurisdiction therein” or “subject to the jurisdictions therein”??
“Thereof” is singular, and so is “jurisdiction”.
I certainly do have a clue what a right is! It is something one is born with and has simply because of their existence; it's NOT a grant from another, nor a government. You better than ANYONE should know the difference between Human Rights and Civil Rights, and you should never equate the two! I also understand the distinctions that you are trying to make.
Lastly, can you find some cases that show that self incrimination (by the states) did not apply to Citizens before the Fourteenth Amendment? Or that the Federal Constitution did NOT apply to Citizens with regard to protection from the States, before the Fourteenth Amendment?
Thank you for working so hard to set this record straight!!
14th Amendment citizens are corporations!! This is why the Why A National statement is incorrect!!
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)]
Quote: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]
Quote:…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]
Note that these cases are AFTER the cite you use!
The following cases are why Admin is wrong:
Quote:'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.' The first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.[ IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)]
Quote:The language is, 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.' It is a little remarkable, if this clause was intended as a protection to the citizen of a State against the legislative power of his own State, that the word citizen of the State should be left out when it is so carefully used, and used in contradistinction to citizens of the United States, in the very sentence which precedes it. It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and with a purpose.[ IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)]
Quote:If, then, it be assumed, without deciding the point, that an exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is what is described as a fundamental right belonging to all who live under a free government, and incapable of impairment by legislation or judicial decision, it is, so far as the states are concerned, a fundamental right inherent in state citizenship, and is a privilege or immunity of that citizenship only. Privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, on the other hand, are only such as arise out of the nature and essential character of the national government, or are specifically granted or secured to all citizens or persons by the Constitution of the United States. Slaughter- House Cases, supra, p. 79; Re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 448 , 34 S. L. ed. 519, 524, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 930; Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382 , 38 S. L. ed. 485, 487, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 570. Thus, among the rights and privileges of national citizenship recognized by this court are the right to pass freely from state to state (Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 18 L. ed. 745); the right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances (United States v. Cruikshank, supra); the right to vote for national officers (Ex parte Yarbrought, 110 U.S. 651 , 28 L. ed. 274, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 152; Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U.S. 58 , 45 L. ed. 84, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 17); the right to enter the public lands (United States v. Waddell, 112 U.S. 76 , 28 L. ed. 673, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 35); the right to be protected against violence while in the lawful custody of a United States marshal (Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263 , 36 L. ed. 429, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 617); and the right to inform the United States authorities of violation of its laws (Re Quarles, 158 U.S. 532 , 39 L. ed. 1080, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 959).[TWINING v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)]
Here is a list of Rights that 14th Amendment citizens are blessed with (by Congress)
Do you ever wonder why 14th Amendment “citizens of the United States” must fill out forms and permits to have firearms??
Quote:the question is no longer open in this court. The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90 , 23 L. ed. 678), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2d Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 , 29 L. ed. 615, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgment by the states,[TWINING v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)]
14th Amendment citizens of the United States, unlike State Citizens, have not yet been given the right by Congress to bear arms according to the 2nd Amendment!
Quote:The bill of exceptions taken upon the trial set out all the evidence, from which it appeared that Presser was 31 years old, a citizen of the United States and of the state of Illinois, and a voter;The first [claim is based on] the second amendment, which declares: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms “is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government . . . .” . . .
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-66 (1886)
Quote:In Maxwell v. Dow, supra, where the plaintiff in error had been convicted in a state court of a felony upon an information, and by a jury of eight persons, it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and the trial by jury, guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment….We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of national citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment against abridgment by the states.[TWINING v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)]
It gets NO CLEARER THAN THIS!!!! A 14th Amendment citizen is not the Citizen that the Constitution originally protected, rather it is a Federal creation, and is wholly subject to Congress…occasionally Congress has given 14th Amendment citizens a few civil rights here and there.
Quote:If the plaintiff in error has any such privilege, he must be able to point to the provision of the constitution or statutes of the United States by which it is conferred. For, as was said by this court in U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 551 , 560 S., the government of the United States, although it is 'within the scope of its powers supreme and above the states,' 'can neither grant nor secure to its citizens any right or privilege not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction.'[Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-66 (1886)]
- 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:“Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.”
[Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections][221 A.2d 431 (1966)]
If one doesnt need to be a federal “citizen of the United States” aka a “creation of Congress”, then why would you?? I UNDERSTAND THE position that Blacks and Women face, BUT explain that, and spread the word that the 14th Amendment is NOT what it seems instead of pretending that the 14th Amendment made everyone equal!
I am a Constitutional Citizen of the several states, but specifically not a statutory or 14th Amendment citizen! This is because I could vote before the 15th Amendment, so I dont rely on the generosity of Congress to grant me “civil rights”.
Quote:“A 'civil right' is considered a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it.”82 CA 369, 373, 255, P 760.
Quite frankly, Im shocked that you claim to have “civil rights”!!
Quote:civil rightsplural noun ( often initial capital letters )
1. rights to personal liberty established by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and certain Congressional acts, esp. as applied to an individual or a minority group.
2. the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality extended to blacks.
vs.
human right
noun (law) any basic right or freedom to which all human beings are entitled and in whose exercise a government may not interfere (including rights to life and liberty
as well as freedom of thought and expression and equality before the law)
Look what the court said in 1971:
Quote:citizenship clause is “'declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law,' so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned”;[Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 829-30 (1971)]
I think you're on the wrong side of this one!!
With that said, I TRULY respect your opinion, and I will continue to research this. I hope to find a case dealing specifically with an uppercase vs. lowercase “c”, but I think that may have been dismissed with prejudice, had it occurred. I will be spending time at the San Fran library looks like!
🙂 good day! Page 28 line 31 of Why A national is in error!! This paragraph is completely false! Even if we accept your position of the 14th Amendment as fact, a Supreme Court ruling that states “a 14th Amendment citizen is a human and not a Corporation” cannot add or take away from other types of Citizens not mentioned in the ruling. To allow this would be to allow that that same ruling means that a French Citizen is positively and always a Corporation…this should be corrected immediately as it is misleading.
A court ruling that states that a Camaro is a fast car, does NOT automatically mean that a Mustang is slow!
Furthermore, you leave out the fact that a 14th Amendment, even if a “human being” specifically, MAY be a “Federal citizen” subject to Congress per:
Quote:“It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia”[U.S. Supreme Court, COHENS v. COM. OF VIRGINIA, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) 19 U.S. 264 (Wheat.)]
These types of statements are the ONLY things that ever turn me off from these pages! Why a National is FANTASTIC, but this statement is soooo false it should be immediately removed!!
I HATE the thought of Famguardian thinking for a second that I dont appreciate the site and all of the work, because I do, I love everything here, but I don't want to mislead myself, or those, trying to understand what the courts are doing with the term “citizen” both in statutes and in the 14th…My goal with this, and every debate, is indeed what you referred to as helping the cause by troubleshooting theories, and spreading information.
We have still not determined this ruling:
Quote:citizenship clause is “'declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law,' so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned”;[Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 829-30 (1971)]
Since you mentioned how my 'defense' would have worked in an actual court; merely stating “I don't know why they said that” does not make this inadmissible evidence, or render it worthless; the contrary is true, that the courts at least sometimes, agree with my position, adding credibility to the idea that a 14th Amendment citizen is a Federal citizen…even the cases you cite dont deny my theory. Even in Wong Kim Ark (the case you most often use for your position) there are statements that can be explained away…look at what the Department of State says:
http://www.state.gov…ation/86755.pdf
Quote:U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 – Consular Affairs(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 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.
Now, this is not “my opinion” above, this is the Department of State…so your insinuation that the courts and the government won't, or doesn't associate the 14th Amendment citizen to a statutory citizen, is dead wrong!!
Not to mention that Wong Kim Ark states:
Quote:“If a stranger or traveler passing through, or temporarily residing in, this country, who has not himself been naturalized and who claims to owe no allegiance to our Government*,[this means “United States” means government in the other Wong Kim Ark cite below] has a child born here which goes out of the country with its father, such child is not a citizen of the United States, because it was not subject to its jurisdiction.“[U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)]
*
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.”[U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)]
This proves that in the phrase “owing them”, the “them” is the government…why else would they later refer to someone who doesn't owe the GOVERNMENT allegiance?? This family, as immigrants, was ALREADY subject to the GOVERNMENT “UNITED STATES” simply by entering the country.
Please clarify these two sections. You say they contradict themselves, I say they are right in line with the meaning of the 14th Amendment Federal citizen. Is this a checkmate?? Im sure you will say no, but either this case is a reliable source or it isnt.
“Direct and immediate allegiance”…Unless we can have two immediate AND direct allegiances, this must be referring to those who owe their freedom and existence to the Federal government, later translated into a statutory “citizen” vs a statutory “national”; as you know, one owes allegiance to a state, the other owes it to the United States Govt.
It's easy to say “the court must have misquoted the Amendment”…but if I am right that subject to the jurisdiction thereof is tantamount to “its jurisdiction”, then ALL of the cases fit together nicely. Dont forget what Thereof means:
Quote:there·of
   /ˌðɛərˈʌv, -ˈɒv/ Show Spelled[thair-uhv, -ov] Show IPA
–adverb
1.of that or it.
NOTE: they could have used “therein” to describe in the several states.
In fact many courts equate “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to “subject to its jurisdiction”
Quote:That principle, while administratively applied, cannot properly be regarded as a departmental creation independently of the law. It was deemed to be a necessary consequence of the constitutional provisions by which persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction become citizens of the United States. To cause a loss of that citizenship in the absence of treaty or statute having that effect, there must be voluntary action, and such action cannot be attributed to an infant whose removal to another country is beyond his control and who, during minority, is incapable of a binding choice….It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents' origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties.
[U.S. Supreme Court, Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)]
And I'll add, that the whole reason a second due process clause had to be added to the 14th was to ensure that the States would not violate the rights of Federal citizens, there is NO OTHER explanation for a second Constitutional due process clause.
This I agree with!! But, this is and has been my entire point; that is the 14th Amendment was to make Black's appear to be equal, when in actuality it was carefully crafted to specifically omit Black's from being equal. The use of a Capital “C” for the 'new' citizen would have been catastrophic to the racist 'leaders' of the time and “subject to their jurisdiction” would not have included Black's at all because Black's were not 'persons' under state jurisdiction, they were property.
The only legal way to make the 14th Amendment apply to Black's, was to:
1) make an Amendment forbidding owning slaves in the states of the Union, thus making the freed slaves no longer protected by property rights laws, and still stateless non-persons, and of no foreign jurisdiction;
2) then making a law, the Civil Rights Act, that made Black's “subject to the Federal United States jurisdiction”,
3) then to have a follow up Amendment [14th] that made all those persons born in the states of the union, and subject to the Federal jurisdiction of the United States (the freed slaves)be this new class of Federal citizen distinctly different from Citizens, and noticeably different by their “characteristics”.
Quote:“It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual. “[Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36][(1873) emphasis added]
As I said early on, whites and blacks are equal today, but not because blacks are FREE Citizens and regained their god given rights, but because whites gave theirs up!!
The only way (in America) for a Black man or woman to be truly free is to have an Amendment to the Constitution that:
A. repeals certain portions of the Constitution relating to race, sex or status of land owner and
B. makes “all persons born in any of the several states of the union, and subject to the jurisdiction therein, are Citizens of the United States of America as that term is used in the organic Constitution.”
Short of this, ALL people who claim that their citizenship is due to Congress' creation of the 14th Amendment lack unalienable rights, and instead rely on Congress and civil rights for their alleged 'freedom'.
With regard to the Form, Ill scrutinize the best I can:) Although I see this form is also for Federal persons, Section 1 submitter info.
1. “zip code” I would eliminate the zip section, ONLY because it allows for a presumption. The zip code is mandatory on federal zones, and not on private addresses, using it allows for another presumption. Technically, the Post office is NOT required to deliver mail to your house, it is a privilege of the Federal Government Corporation…I recommend General Delivery for ALL government forms! Or recommend leaving it blank for non federal Citizens.
2. Section 14.2 minor (“terminated” is covered by highlighted area (I know this is not what you meant, but I noticed it)
QUICK DIRECTION CHANGE:
The cite [U.S. v Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649] on #12 on page 13 says the Congress has the power to “confer” citizenship…this (in my opinion) is how they were Constitutionally able to make a “federal citizen”. “Confer” means “to bestow upon as a gift, favor,” and that Congress has not the power to take “citizenship” away. One who is born in a state of the union must become a Political Federal citizen on their own, by way of declaration or documentation with the Federal govt or one of its political subdivisions.
I of course would change #13 on page 13
Table 3 is great, It does say “in this State” (in State statutes means Federal Enclave), I think “in this state” [lower case s] means the Federal enclave, at least in Cal codes…it cites Revenue taxation code 6017 compared to 17018……You should see Cal Rev & Tax code 6017 vs. 60017 for a clear look at their trickery, even the use of such similar numbers:
http://law.onecle.co…tion/60017.html
60017 “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.
then
http://law.onecle.co…ation/6017.html
6017 “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.
Thoughts on this??
🙂 good day!