juliusbragg
Forum Replies Created
I just noticed you said:
“What better way to disspel the myth that you operate in that capacity than to adopt the status of CONSTITUTIONAL but not STATUTORY citizen and to quote the above case showing that it means a HUMAN BEING and EMPHATICALLY NOT a corporation and therefore government instrumentality of any kind? You're trying to bite the hand that feeds you, DUDE!”
I ABSOLUTELY AGREE!! MY ONLY addition to this, as a secondary safety net, is to add:
“A Constitutional, but not statutory or 14th Amendment 'citizen of the United States'” and dont forget, a “federal” human being is just as bad as a corporation!!
As I suspected, the UNITED STATES is using the 14th Amendment “lower case c” citizen to be the basis for their statutes:
http://www.state.gov…ation/86755.pdf
Quote:d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth.[Illegal aliens are subject to the LEGISLATIVE Jurisdiction of the U.S.]
(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.
See also:
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 [such as states of the union] born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, or ambassadors of other public ministers of foreign nations.[U.S. Supreme Court
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)]
see:
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 when we revisit “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” with the definition of “thereof”:
there·of
/ˌðɛərˈʌv, -ˈɒv/ Show Spelled[thair-uhv, -ov] Show IPA
–adverb
1.
of that or it.
And even when we revisit United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the question of citizenship was of a child who was born in the “United States” to foreigners, who were “subject to the jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES”, and not that of the state alone; therefore making the child eligible to be a Federal citizen.
This is because congress is in charge of dealing with immigration, Congress has the power to determine the 'civil rights' of those entering the country.
“United States” was not defined in the 14th Amendment, but was later defined. In the Nationality act of 1940 it means: “when used in a geographical sense means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.”
In Section 1 of the Immigration act of 1917, United States was defined as:
“The term United States as used in this title, as well as in the various sections of this act shall be construed to mean the United States, and any waters, territories, or other place subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
Remember, the 14th Amendment was to make Black's free; but Black's were not “persons” in 1866, and therefore were not “subject to any foreign jurisdiction”, such as that of the states; Slaves were protected under property laws, and were subject only to their owners.
This sad truth makes the wording of the 14th Amendment and the civil rights laws crystal clear:
The civil rights initially made the slaves (as being born in the geographical United States, and NOT subject to the states) Federal citizens, under COMPLETE control of Congress; having only “Civil Rights” granted by the Congress, and owing direct and immediate allegiance to the UNITED STATES, they were products of Congress. This is proven by the fact that the 14th Amendment did NOT allow Blacks to vote. This is because Congress did not give them that permission yet. If the 14th Amendment made EVERYONE “Citizens” (with a capital “C”) then Blacks would have been able to vote; but it didn't, and no other part of the Constitution was repealed by the 14th Amendment. This is because the 14th Amendment created, for the First time, a “Federal citizen” to be differentiated from the Constitutional “Citizen” by utilizing a lower case “c” in citizen.
Quote:“all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” 1866 Act, § 1, 14 Stat. at 27This new Federal citizen was a type of “servitude” in itself. It is now recognized as “voluntary servitude”, made possible by the thirteenth Amendment. Although initially it was intended for Blacks, the practice of white men and women entering into the elective franchise of “Federal citizenship” by way of birth certificates, declarations, entering into U.S. service, and so on, was rampant. The obligations of this new citizenship resulted in Congress creating many new Taxes (often seeming to be direct taxes, but direct taxes can constitutionally and legally be placed on Federal subjects, especially by stating that all federal subjects will be treated as residing on federal property)
Even today, the statutory definitions of “citizen of the United States” got their footing with the 14th Amendment. The lower case “c” citizen created by the 14th Amendment, as a creation of Congress, cannot ever be, even with additional Amendments giving the appearance of equality, free of Congressional control, nor have absolute liberty. Only those people who reject “14th Amendment citizenship”, can expect to be free of the obligations of the Federal Government, BUT IT MUST be noted that no acceptance of Federal Benefits can ever be sought, expected, or obtained.
Thoughts?
- Quote:An attempt to allow a court to be affected by political speech of another branch, in fact, violates the separation of powers by involving courts in “political questions”.
The Plaintiffs in Slaughterhouse did it:
“The Slaughter-House plaintiffs submitted portions of Bingham's congressional speeches, along with [Page 99] those of other members of Congress, in their brief to the Court. [266] “
[266]. See 6 LANDMARK BRIEFS AND ARGUMENTS, 695, 696, 708-09, 712, 713-14 (Philip B. Kurland & Gerhald Casper eds., 1975).
MY CONCERN of being a “14th Amendment citizen” is where the basis for a statutory “citizen of the United States” stems from:
Quote:The Law: The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines the basis for United States citizenship, stating, “[a]ll 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 Fourteenth Amendment therefore establishes simultaneous state and federal citizenship. Claims that individuals are not citizens of the United States but are solely citizens of a sovereign state and not subject to federal taxation have been uniformly rejected by the courts.Relevant Case Law:
O'Driscoll v. I.R.S., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9829, at *5-6 (E.D. Pa. 1991) – The court stated, “despite [taxpayer's] linguistic gymnastics, he is a citizen of both the United States and Pennsylvania, and liable for federal taxes.”
http://www.irs.gov/b…small/article/0,,id=106504,00.html
I know the IRM says these are not reliable sources for a position, but it shows what the IRS and other “agencies” are using to establish citizenship.
Our DOCUMENTS from birth that established our Political citizenship, were used to establish our “statutory” citizenship, and each is used to support the other.
If I am asked “what the courts will say” versus “what do you think the intent was” regarding the 14th Amendment, I might agree with you…I, however, was treating this debate as a fundamental discussion about the intent and role of the 14th Amendment, and the exact, specific meaning and importance of a “citizen of the United States” opposed to a Citizen of the organic Constitution.
The Federal Bill of Rights MUST apply to the Citizens of the states, as the Founders could not have meant for the limit on the Federal Government, which is the law of the land, to not apply to those governments of the states; to allow that would allow that a state can limit the freedom of religion or the right to bear arms. Therefore, when the courts rule that the Bill of Rights do not apply to citizens of the United States, this further bolsters the theory that a “citizen of the United States” is a Federal Citizen without full Constitutional Protection. for example, see:
Quote:Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947)1. The guaranty of the Fifth Amendment that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” is not made effective against state action by the Fourteenth Amendment. Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, and Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, reaffirmed. Pp. 332 U. S. 50-53.
2. The privilege against self-incrimination is not inherent in the right to a fair trial, and is therefore not, on that basis, protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 332 U. S. 53-54.
If one looks to the founders, and their use of a capital “C” in Citizen; and if one looks at the concern of Federal encroachment on the rights of State Citizens (which do NOT rely on the Constitution for their Human Rights) by the addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, then a conclusion can be easily made that a “citizen of the United States”, as a creation of Congress, is similar in many regards, but inferior in others, to that of a State Citizen.
http://www.constitut…/aynes_14th.htm
Quote:“A year later, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court opinion in the Slaughter-House Cases by a five to four vote. [265] The Slaughter-House plaintiffs submitted portions of Bingham's congressional speeches, along with [Page 99] those of other members of Congress, in their brief to the Court. [266] The Court, however, did not refer to the debates on the Amendment or the ratification process. Instead, it relied on its own view of the purpose of the Amendment. [267] The Court held that the right to pursue a lawful occupation without restraint by a state-granted monopoly was not a privilege or immunity of national citizenship. Still, the precise question of whether the Privileges or Immunities Clause incorporated the Bill of Rights was not before the Court and remained unclear. [268] At least two senators, though, who voted for the Fourteenth Amendment rejected Justice Miller's interpretation. [269]”[265]. 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1872). Justice Miller's distinction between the rights of state citizens and federal citizens is based upon the Citizenship Clause. However, the Citizenship Clause was not part of the original Amendment as proposed by Bingham, the Joint Committee, or the House. It was added by the Senate. FAIRMAN, RECONSTRUCTION I, supra note 5, at 1296. Eric Foner suggests that anyone who read the congressional debates would have “seriously doubted” the citizenship distinction articulated by Miller. FONER, supra note 138, at 530. In determining that there was a difference between the rights of a person as a citizen of a state and of that same person as a citizen of the United States, Justice Miller also alluded to Article IV, Section 2: “[T]he Fourteenth Amendment] speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several states.” 83 U.S. at 74.
Quote:Shortly after the Fourteenth Amendment had been proposed, John Norton Pomeroy authored a treatise entitled An Introduction to the Constitutional Law of the United States. At the time, Pomeroy was Dean of the Law School and Griswold Professor of Political Science at the University of New York. [203]In this treatise, Pomeroy described the provisions of the first eight amendments as “the immunities and privileges guarded by the Bill of Rights.” [204] He suggested that the generality of the language used in the first eight amendments could be read to indicate the amendments applied to the states as well as to the national government. [205] Pomeroy recognized that Barron v. Baltimore [206] and state cases following it held the first eight amendments applied only to the federal government. [207] He declared this result “an unfortunate one” [208] which called for a remedy. [209] According to Pomeroy “
uch a remedy is easy, and the question of its adoption is now pending before the people.” [210] Citing the portion of the Fourteenth Amendment drafted by Bingham–all of Section One but the Citizenship Clause–Pomeroy considered this provision “by far more important” than any other amendment except the Thirteenth Amendment. [211] Echoing Bingham's views that the Amendment infringed on no right of the states, Pomeroy wrote: [Page 90][The Fourteenth Amendment] would give the nation complete power to protect its citizens against local injustice and oppression; a power which it does not now adequately possess, but which, beyond all doubt, should be conferred upon it. Nor would this amendment interfere with any of the rights, privileges, and functions which properly belong to the individual states. [212]
Quote:the second component of Bingham's constitutional theory, argues that the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens include, at a minimum, the provisions of the Bill of Rights. [71] While Bingham often referred to certain of these provisions individually, [72] he believed that [Page 71] the privileges and immunities of national citizenship encompassed all the provisions of the first eight amendments. As he stated in 1871, “[T]he privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States.” [73]http://pdfhost.focus…xt/69000087.pdf
Quote:…In response to Mississippi's and South Carolina's Black Codes, Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, introduced a Civil Rights Bill into Congress in 1866. Trumbull, in discussing his bill, referred to these two states' codes and vowed “to destroy all these discriminations.” His purpose was to use the power of the United States government to secure the fundamental rights of black Americans, an action which the Black Codes had proven was necessary. Henry J. Raymond, editor of the New York Times and a New York Congressman, described the legislation as “one of the most important bills ever presented to this House for its action” [Foner, pp. 243-244].Both Moderates and Radicals within the Republican Party soundly rejected the concept of laws differentiating between blacks' and whites' access to the courts and penalties for crimes. Trumbull's Civil Rights Bill defined all persons born in the United States (except Indians) as national citizens and listed the rights they possessed, regardless of race, such as making contracts, bringing lawsuits, and equal protection of person and property. Historian Eric Foner describes this Civil Rights Bill as “the first statutory definition of the rights of American citizenship
Lastly, “citizens of the United States”, as that term was used in the 14th Amendment, have civil rights that are granted by documents and Congress so far as they allow, such as some of the Bill of Rights; whereas state Citizens do not rely on the Constitution for their rights:
Quote:Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-66 (1886)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.
See the TWO constitutions, one for Citizens, the other for citizens OF the united States:
http://www.gpoaccess…html/amdt2.html
NOTICE only one comma after State as the Statutes at large show.
Then the UNITED STATES version with three commas:
http://www.gpoaccess…pdf2002/007.pdf
Im still having a hard time with a few issues:
notably, you say “United States” always means the states of the union in the Constitution and the Amendments…
Quote:Amendment 15Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Surely you agree that “United States” as used in the 15th Amendment is referring to the Federal United States??
NOW, please read this discussion that took place in 1866 regarding the 14th Amendment…read the words from the people who were there.
http://memory.loc.go…73.db&recNum=17
Quote:Pg 2896 1st column 1st Par. (midway)“My friend from Michigan will not contend that an Indian can be taxed if he is not subject to the State or to the United States; and yet, if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States they are declared the very language of his amendment to be citizens.
The courts of the United States have had occasion to speak on the subject, and from time to time they have declared that Indians are subjects of the United States, not citizens; and that is the very word in your amendment where they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Why, sir, what does it mean when you say that a people are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Subject, first, to its military power; second, subject to its political power; third, subject to its legislative power; and who doubts our legislative power over the reservations upon which these Indians are settled?
Speaking upon that subject, I have to say that one of the most distinguished men…the late Senator from Vermont, Judge Collamer, time and again urged upon me, as a member of the committee on Indian affairs, to bring forward a scheme of legislation by which we should pass laws and subject all the Indians in all the Territories of the United States to the legislation of Congress direct. The Senator from Ohio not now in his seat [Mr. Sherman] has contended for the same thing, and other members of Congress contend that the very best policy of dealing with the Indian tribes is to subject them at once to our legislative power and jurisdiction. “Subjects of the United States!” Why, sir, they are completely our subjects, completely in our power.”
“The opinion of Attorney General Cushing…states clearly that the Indians, though born upon our soil, owing us allegiance, are not citizens; they are our subjects; and that is the very word which is used in this amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States, declaring that if they be “subject” to our jurisdiction, born on the soil, they are ipso facto, citizens of the United States.”
Pg 2897 1st column 3rd Par.
“But, sir, the Senator has drawn me off from the immediate question before the Senate. The immediate question is, whether the language which he uses, “all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” includes these Indians. I maintain that it does; and, therefore, for the purpose of relieving it from any doubt, for excluding this class of persons, as they are, in my judgment, utterly unfit to be citizens of the United States…”
Pg 2897 2nd column Par. 1
“I think it is perfectly clear, when you put the first and second sections together, that Indians not taxed are excluded from the term “citizens”; because it cannot be supposed for one moment that the term “citizens,” as employed in these two sections, is intended to apply to Indians who are not even counted…and I understand that to be a description of Indian who maintain their tribal relations and who are not in all respects subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
“I understand the words here, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”, to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States…”
“I do not presume that anyone will pretend to disguise the fact that the object of the first section is simply to declare negroes shall be citizens of the United States. There can be no other object in it, I presume, than a further extension of the legislative kindness and beneficence of Congress toward that class of people.”
All of the court cases in the world cannot trump what was going on during this amendment process. This Amendment used the term “subject to the jurisdiction” to mean WHOLLY SUBJECT to the jurisdiction of the United States.
If they were willing to bring forward a “scheme” to bring Indians into the complete legislative control, why do you suppose blacks would have been treated differently??
I look forward to your spin of how the concerns of Congress at the time of the creation of the citizen has no bearing today.
Explain these cites please…
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.]
Thanks
Then:
A person born in China, who becomes naturalized in the United States has the EXACT same rights as someone born in Kalamazoo Michigan because both are citizens of the United States?
There is NO difference?
If United States ALWAYS means the states of the union, What is the “its” referred to here?
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,'”[U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898), emphasis added]
Thanks again.
- 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,'”
[U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898), emphasis added]
1. Where does “naturalzation” take place?
2. Who is responsible for naturalization, states of the union or the United States?
3. Are you claiming that “United States” in the Constitution and all of the amendments always means the states united?
If not, why are you presuming it does in the 1st part of the 14th amndt?
4. What is the definition of “person” in the following cite:
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),
5. Does “person” ever mean citizen of the United States?
6. Lastly, are you agreeing that a “citizen of the United States”, as that term is used in the 14th amendment, is not technically and constitutionally allowed to be president, or congressmen, or senators per the Constitutional requirement that they be “Citizens”?
Thanks!
- Quote:3. Proving that the “citizen of the United States” in the Fourteenth Amendment EQUALS IN ALL RESPECTS the statutory citizen at 8 USC 1401. We have proven that they are NOT the same.
You have not addressed the lower case “c” in the 14th Amendment; You have refused to connect that the Statutory Laws ALWAYS refer to “citizens of the United States” and not “Citizens”, where do you think this connection originated?
For one minute, lets “pretend” I'm right….How would we declare ourselves to be 'inferior' 14th Amendment citizens rather than Constitutional Citizens???
By filing documents! SO, if I am correct, and a child is born and has a “Birth Certificate” filled out DECLARING that he is a “citizen of the United States”, then what would keep the Government from presuming that the child is a 14th Amendment citizen??
Now, (still presuming I'm correct) if a Child is born in a state of the union and has NOT filled out a birth certificate, and in no other way “nationalized” (such as Amish) then he is not presumed to be a “citizen” as that term was used in the 14th Amendment…am I wrong?
You have also never addressed why the 14th Amendment needed to apply the due process clause (that already applied to Citizens)to the newly formed “citizen”?
http://www.digitalar…fo.aspx?TID=291
Quote:The naturalization record series includes various types of naturalization-related records, including declarations of intention, delayed birth files, naturalization affidavits, notifications of application for admission to US citizenship, orders fixing naturalization terms, petitions and records, petitions, receipts for certificates of citizenship, record of final decrees of citizenship and record of petitions dockets. Depending on the county, records range from 1854-1988.Is there a chance that you also are so fixed on your position that you refuse to accept the court rulings, capitalization, intent, time period, corruptness, cunningness of 1870's attorneys, the 13th Amendment preparation for 'voluntary servitude', and other evidence, and consider that a “citizen of the United States” is a Federal citizen, as indicated by the phrase “of the United States”:
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]
Unfortunately, there is not a gauge to determine when the Supreme Court is referring to a Constitutional determination or a statutory determination.
Naturalization can be either Constitutional or Statutory.
14th Amendment citizens have “civil rights”, which are 'rights given by Congress'…Congress can only give rights to those in their LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction, so if 14th Amendment citizens are protected by civil rights, then 14th Amendment citizens are creations of Congress!
Quote:Nickell v. Rosenfield, (1927) 82 CA 369, 375, 255 P. 760.“A `civil right' is a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by law that creates it.”
Quote:“…but still it is every where apparent that Congress had it in mind to legislate for citizens as citizens, and not as mere persons, residents, or inhabitants…”“…Here, the doubtful word is “citizen,” and it is used in connection with the rights and privileges pertaining to a man as a citizen, and not as a person only or an inhabitant, and, besides, the crime has been classified in the revision among those which relate to the elective franchise and the civil rights of citizens. For these reasons, we are satisfied that the word “citizen,” as used in this statute, must be given the same meaning it has in the Fourteenth Amendment* of the Constitution, and that, to constitute the offense which is there provided for, the wrong must be done to one who is a citizen in that sense.
[Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 30 L.ed 766, 7 S.Ct. 656, 763]
*note it says “same meaning as the 14th Amendment”, and NOT “same meaning as throughout the Constitution!”
Quote:. CONSTITUTIONAL “citizen of the United States***” [which is statutory “national” per 8 USC 1101(a)(21)] status is indeed a privilege, but ONLY for aliens seeking naturalization. It is NOT a privilege for those who already have it. Rights are irrevocable, and indeed, nationality is irrevocable unilaterally by the government. Hence, we are talking about rights rather than privileges. If being a constitutional citizen and statutory national were revocable, it would at that point be a privilege. Rights can't be taken away, but privileges can.Why do you think that state Citizens are not “Aliens” with regard to Federal citizenship?
Re-read Baldwin:
Quote:We come now to the questions certified which arise under section 5508. That this section is constitutional, was decided in Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 , 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 152, and U. S. v. Waddell, 112 U.S. 76 , 5 Sup. Ct. e p. 35. The real question to be determined, therefore, is whether what is charged to have been done by Baldwin constitutes an offense within the meaning of its provisions. The section is found in title 70, c. 7, Rev.St., embracing 'Crimes against the Elective Franchise and Civil Rights of Citizens,' and it provides for the punishment of those 'who conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same;' and of those who go in companies of two or more 'in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured.' The person on whom the wrong to be punishable must be inflicted is described as a citizen. In the constitution and laws of the United States the word 'citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense, to designate one who has the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state or of the United States. It is so used in section 1 of article 14 of the amendments of the constitution, which 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 that 'no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.' But it is also sometimes used in popular language to indicate the same thing as resident, inhabitant, or person. That it is not so used in section 5508 in the Revised Statutes is quite [120 U.S. 678, 691] clear, if we revert to the original statute from which this section was taken. That statute was the act of May 31, 1870, c. 114, (16 St. 140,) 'to enforce the rights of citizens of the United States to vote in the several states of this Union, and for other purposes.' It is the statute which was under consideration as to some of its sections in U. S. v. Reese, supra, and from its title, as well as its text, it is apparent that the great purpose of congress in its enactment was to enforce the political rights of citizens of the United States in the several states. Under these circumstances there cannot be a doubt that originally the word 'citizen' was used in its political sense, and, as the Revised Statutes are, but, a revision and consolidation of the statutes in force December, 1873., the presumption is that the word has the same meaning there that it had originally.This particular section is a substantial re-enactment of section 6 of the original act, which is found among the sections that deal exclusively with the political rights of citizens, especially their right to vote, and were evidently intended to prevent discriminations in this particular against voters on account 'of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.' Sometimes, as in sections 3 and 4, the language is broader than this, and therefore, as decided in U. S. v. Reese, those sections are inoperative; but still it is every where apparent that congress had it in mind to legislate for citizens as citizens, and not as mere persons, residents, or inhabitants.
This section is highly penal in its character, much more so than any others, for it not only provides as a punishment for the offense a fine of not more than $5,000, and an imprisonment of not more than 10 years, but it declares that any person convicted shall 'be thereafter ineligible to any office, or place of honor, profit, or trust created by the constitution or laws of the United States.' It is therefore to be construed strictly; not so strictly as to defeat the legislative will, but doubtful words are not to be extended beyond their natural meaning in the connection in which they are used. Here the doubtful word is 'citizen,' and it is used in connection with the rights and privileges pertaining to a man as a citizen, [120 U.S. 678, 692] and not as a person only or an inhabitant; and, besides, the crime has been classified in the Revision among those which relate to the elective franchise and the civil rights of citizens. For these reasons we are satisfied that the word 'citizen,' as used in this statute, must be given the same meaning it has in the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, and that, to constitute the offense which is there provided for, the wrong must be done to one who is a citizen in that sense.
It is true that the word 'citizen' only occurs in the first clause of the section, but in the second clause there is nothing to indicate that any other than a citizen was meant, and the section of the original statute from which this was taken has nothing from which any different inference can be drawn. That clearly deals with citizens alone, and the Revision differs from it only in a rearrangement of the original sentences, and the exclusion of some superfluous words. Sections 5506 and 5507, which immediately precede this in the Revision, clearly refer to political rights only, for they both relate to the privilege of voting; section 5506 being for the protection of citizens in terms, and section 5507 being for the protection of those to whom the right of suffrage is guarantied by the fifteenth amendment of the constitution. It may be that by this construction of the statute some are excluded from the protection it affords who are as much entitled to it as those who are included; but that is a defect, if it exists, which can be cured by congress, but not by the courts. We therefore answer the first subdivision of the seventh question certified, in the negative. The second subdivision need not be answered otherwise than it has been elsewhere in this opinion.
CONGRESS can only give rights and privileges to its citizens, aka “citizens OF the United States” as that term was used in the 14th Amendment; originally to make the slaves Federal Property, thus limiting the states jurisdiction over them.
If you want to continue thinking that YOU only have civil rights because of the good graces of Congress, then be my guest;
- Quote:1. CONSTITUTIONAL “citizen of the United States***” [which is statutory “national” per 8 USC 1101(a)(21)] status is indeed a privilege, but ONLY for aliens seeking naturalization. It is NOT a privilege for those who already have it. Rights are irrevocable, and indeed, nationality is irrevocable unilaterally by the government. Hence, we are talking about rights rather than privileges. If being a constitutional citizen and statutory national were revocable, it would at that point be a privilege. Rights can't be taken away, but privileges can.
This is misleading, in my opinion. One who is born in a state of the union is a Citizen at birth, they become a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States” through the naturalization process which is applying for the non-mandatory Birth Certificate.
see: http://travel.state…./first_830.html
Quote:Primary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship (One of the following):
Previously issued, undamaged U.S. Passport
Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state*
check box Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth
Naturalization Certificate
Certificate of Citizenship
NOTE: If you do not have primary evidence of U.S. citizenship or your U.S. birth certificate does not meet the requirements, please see Secondary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship.
A birth certificate is a “circumstance” rather than a “characteristic” that can be used to determine whether someone is a “Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States”
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]
NOTE:
########
char·ac·ter·is·tic (kār'ək-tə-rĭs'tĭk)
adj. Being a feature that helps to distinguish a person or thing;
########
THIS, is because originally 14th Amendment citizens were Blacks, as distinguished by their 'Characteristic' features, and later 14th Amendment citizens also included whites who chose (unknowingly) to become 14th Amendment citizens, by the circumstance of 'naturalizing' with a birth certificate, or other declaration.
You have provided NO explanation for one simple fact, the lower case “c”. If anyone knows the importance of capitalization, I would guess it would be you! I know you wont dismiss it (like others have) by saying, it was a slip, or an error. THE ONLY explanation, is that a “citizen of the United States” as found in the 14th Amendment is NOT THE SAME thing as a “Citizen of the United States” as found in the Constitution.
The courts recognize that the term “citizen of the United States” in the 14th Amendment was used in a peculiar way:
Quote:“The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and 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.”[Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99]
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10002.html
Quote:“Citizenship or immigration status:We can accept only certain documents as proof of U.S. citizenship. These include a U.S. birth certificate, U.S. consular report of birth, U.S. passport, Certificate of Naturalization or Certificate of Citizenship. If you are not a U.S. citizen, Social Security will ask to see your current U.S. immigration documents. Acceptable documents include your:
one more:
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]
Nickell v. Rosenfield, (1927) 82 CA 369, 375, 255 P. 760.
“A `civil right' is a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by law that creates it.”
Definition cites:
http://dictionary.re…wse/civil+right
http://dictionary.re…wse/human+right
Quote:The amendments we cited have made them the same AT THIS TIMESIMILAR!! not the same!!
” In the Constitution of the United States the word “citizen” is generally, if not always, used in a political 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]
see further:
“…but still it is every where apparent that Congress had it in mind to legislate for citizens as citizens, and not as mere persons, residents, or inhabitants…”
[Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 30 L.ed 766, 7 S.Ct. 656, 763]
“…Here, the doubtful word is “citizen,” and it is used in connection with the rights and privileges pertaining to a man as a citizen, and not as a person only or an inhabitant, and, besides, the crime has been classified in the revision among those which relate to the elective franchise and the civil rights of citizens. For these reasons, we are satisfied that the word “citizen,” as used in this statute, must be given the same meaning it has in the Fourteenth Amendment* of the Constitution, and that, to constitute the offense which is there provided for, the wrong must be done to one who is a citizen in that sense.
[Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 30 L.ed 766, 7 S.Ct. 656, 763]
*note it says “same meaning as the 14th Amendment”, and NOT same meaning as throughout the Constitution!
Quote:6. The Elk v. Wilkins cite proves our point by saying “owing THEM direct and immediate allegiance” rather than “owing IT direct and immediate allegiance”. This can only mean the states of the Union and not the central government. Hence, they are talking about constitutional and not statutory citizens owing allegiance to the “United States***”, meaning the collective states of the Union. Constitutional citizenship was the issue in that case because Elk was an indian in a foreign state not subject to the laws of the state.If “United States” in the 14th is referring to the Federal Govt. (because that's where naturalization occurs) 'them' would be correct, Tricky, but correct!
I like McDonalds, so I bought a hamburger from them.
Morgan Stanley employed my dad for 20 years, so he often felt he owed them allegiance.
Wal-Mart has cheap shoes, but I wont buy from them.
The United States Government can be scary, I dont like going to them for anything.
I took a loan from National Bank, I hate owing them money.
The United States is a corporation employing thousands, but I would never work for them.
“them” is not a definitive position. Neither is their, for that manner:
by the plaintiff, The United States and their attorney.
Burger King has great burgers, but their fries are the worst.
The United States is in the District of Columbia, and their laws govern the entire area.
“The United States takes their call seriously,”
The United States also include performance measures in their budget justifications.
Technically, If United States was referring to the several states united, shouldn't it read “subject to the jurisdictions thereof”?
Quote:“There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state“.[Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)]
- Quote:3. As pointed out several times before, we dont’ argue that the two things: capital c or lower case C have ALWAYS been the same, but at this time they are. The amendments I cited have made them the same AT THIS TIME, but as they were being developed or before they were introduced, they were NOT the same.
When was the original Constitution changed to allow “citizens of the United States” rather than Citizens of the United States, to be elected to office?
Quote:Art I, sec 2:“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”
Art I, sec 3:
“No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”
Art II, sec 1:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Amendment 14:
“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.”
Perhaps we havent had a President of America in a LONG time, and instead we have only had a President of the Corp US? Where does it say in the Constitution that there MUST be a President??
THEN, Congress began making the newly formed “citizen” similar to “Citizens”. You will see that “United States” means the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in the 15th.
Amendment 15 – Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870. History
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
THEN, another Amendment was needed to make these “equal?” citizens vote, once again:
Amendment 19 – Women’s Suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920. History
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
THEN Amendment, 24 and 26 were further needed to attempt to make citizens equal to Citizens….fortunately, for your argument, other conditions have not surfaced recently, but, at anytime Congress can decide that certain “citizens” cant vote. For example, they could say that Gays cant vote, or some other class.
The 15th Amendment only restricts Congress from denying the “right” to vote to race, color, or previous servitude. Where does it say that Congress can’t deny someone who is Muslim from voting?
Upper case C Citizens do not rely on Congressional approval to vote! What if Congress had not approved Amendment 24? or 26? or 15??
14th Amendment citizens have “civil rights”, state Citizens have natural rights. Since you claim to be a 14th Amendment citizen, then the ONLY reason you can vote is because of a civil right granted to you; if a citizen is murdered the govt. will say their “civil rights” have been violated; if you are robbed of your property, your “civil rights” are violated.
I cant ever imagine a reason to claim to be a 14th Amendment, Congress created citizen? Even if someone is black, or a woman, do you think the courts would rule that they only have rights because of the 14th Amendment????
ADD all of this up!
I GREATLY APPRECIATE you trouble shooting this theory!
As we have established, better safe than sorry applies….who has more to lose if they are wrong, you or me??
If you are wrong, then you risk claiming that you are a Federal citizen:
Quote:“A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government …” (Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383)If I'm wrong, I lose nothing.
We still cant establish why the 14th amendment used a lower case “c”…I think even you would agree that the use of a lower case letter for the first time MAY denote something different???
U.S. Constitution prior to the 14th Amendment, the word “Citizen” was always capitalized, see: Article 1, Section 2 (twice); Article 1, Section 3; Article 2, Section 1; Article 3, Section 2 (five times); Article 4 Section 2 (twice); and the 11th Amendment (twice).
But, it is NEVER capitalized in the five occurrences within the 14th Amendment. I dont think congress forget what they were doing.
We cant determine why “their jurisdiction” wasnt used as in the 13th:
Amendment XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Why would the 14th all of a sudden use different terminology? The Constitution is not redundant. Compare the following two quotes that acknowledge equal protection under the law: The 14th Amendment, Section 1: “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law … ” The 5th Amendment “… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …”
see:
Quote:“…while it [due process of law clause] has been a part of the Constitution, as a restraint upon the power of the States, only a very few years, the docket of this Court is crowded with cases in which we are asked to hold that state courts and state legislatures have deprived their own citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. There is here abundant evidence that there exists some strange misconception of the scope of this provision as found in the Fourteenth Amendment.”[DAVIDSON V. NEW ORLEANS, 96 U. S. 97 (1878)]
I think this is because the 14th Amendment “citizen” is a Federal citizen that the States are not allowed to deprive certain rights to. the 5th covers Federal action against state Citizens.
I think one MUST allege state citizenship or it is PRESUMED that they are citizens of the United States:
Quote:9th Circuit, KANTER v. WARNER-LAMBERT CO., Case Number: 99-16604For diversity jurisdiction, party seeking removal must allege state citizenship of each of the defendants, not merely conclude that none are citizens of plaintiff's state, and alleging residency or parties rather than citizenship is fatal to the removal.
Quote:“… a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State …”[Powe v. U.S. 109 F2d 147, 149 (1940)]
Quote:“Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.”[Jones v. Temmer (1994), 829 F. Supp. 1226, U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14 section 1]
Status of citizenship of United States is privilege, and Congress is free to attach any preconditions to its attainment that it deems fit and proper. In re Thanner, D.C.Colo.1966, 253 F.Supp. 283. See, also, Boyd v. Nebraska, Neb.1892, 12 S.Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 162, 36 L.Ed. 103; Application of Bernasconi, D.C.Cal.1953, 113 F.Supp. 71; In re Martinez, D.C.Pa.1947, 73 F.Supp. 101; U.S. v. Morelli, D.C.Cal.1943, 55 F.Supp. 181; In re De Mayo, D.C.Mo.1938, 26 F.Supp. 696; State v. Boyd, 1892, 51 N.W. 602, 31 Neb. 682.
Quote:“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.”[Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 (112 US 94)]
Also as previously stated, two similar things are specifically not the same. A lower case c citizen CANNOT be the same thing as a Citizen. All it can ever be is something similar. This is confirmed when you see that 14th Amendment citizens are afforded “civil rights”:
Code: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)
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.
lastly, the words “citizen of the United States” was used in a unique manner in the fourteenth amendment. It refers to a newly formed federal citizen, one of which the states cannot limit certain rights (due process clause):
Quote:“The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and 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.”[Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99]
I hate to disagree, but I think if you would take a minute to acknowledge that you are perhaps incorrect on this one issue, and look at the evidence from a fresh and unbiased perspective, you would have no choice but to agree that a 14th Amendment “citizen” is lesser than a “Citizen of the United States”
You still have not offered why the use of a lower case “c” was used.
It seems you are basing your opinion on one case, while I have offered several that you have not even considered:
Quote:“Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.”[Jones v. Temmer (1994), 829 F. Supp. 1226, U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14 section 1]
“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 (1966) 221 A.2d 431 p.433, citing U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875), 92 U.S. 542, 549, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875), Slaughter-House Cases (1872), 83 U.S. 36; 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1139; 21 L. Ed. 394; 16 Wall. 36]
“Status of citizenship of United States is privilege, and Congress is free to attach any preconditions to its attainment that it deems fit and proper.”
In re Thanner, D.C.Colo.1966, 253 F.Supp. 283. See, also, Boyd v. Nebraska, Neb.1892, 12 S.Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 162, 36 L.Ed. 103; Application of Bernasconi, D.C.Cal.1953, 113 F.Supp. 71; In re Martinez, D.C.Pa.1947, 73 F.Supp. 101; U.S. v. Morelli, D.C.Cal.1943, 55 F.Supp. 181; In re De Mayo, D.C.Mo.1938, 26 F.Supp. 696; State v. Boyd, 1892, 51 N.W. 602, 31 Neb. 682.
I will concede if it is ever proven that I am incorrect, but let not my silence be equated with consent, especially when so many questions are still unanswered.
Will you at least agree that it is only your opinion that a 14th amendment citizen is the same as a state Citizen, and it is NOT fact, as you pointed out in your post???
PLEASE dont take this as an insult or a fight, but I FIRMLY believe that THIS is the MOST important issue to clear the air of. Imagine the ramifications if you are incorrect on just this one issue? Imagine if Congress purposely made a new “constitution free citizen” with the 14th Amendment, knowing we would all fall for it.
- Quote:Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.”
[Jones v. Temmer (1994), 829 F. Supp. 1226, U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14 section 1]
“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 (1966) 221 A.2d 431 p.433, citing U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875), 92 U.S. 542, 549, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875), Slaughter-House Cases (1872), 83 U.S. 36; 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1139; 21 L. Ed. 394; 16 Wall. 36]
“Rights under 42 USCS sect.1983 are for citizens of United States and not of state.”
[Wadleigh v. Newhall (1905 CC Cal) 136 F 941]
A 14th Amendment citizen, is a “citizen of the United States” and NOT a “Citizen of the United States”…a 14th Amendment citizen is a federal citizen. The 14th Amendment is the basis for the statutory “citizen of the United States”. The use of “United States” in the 14th Amendment means federal zone. This is made clear by supreme decisions, and by the terminology of the 14th Amendment itself. “born or naturalized”, “subject to the jurisdiction therein”, “citizen of the United States”.
Although “citizens” have more rights than slaves, they are only civil rights.
Quote:Status of citizenship of United States is privilege, and Congress is free to attach any preconditions to its attainment that it deems fit and proper. In re Thanner, D.C.Colo.1966, 253 F.Supp. 283. See, also, Boyd v. Nebraska, Neb.1892, 12 S.Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 162, 36 L.Ed. 103; Application of Bernasconi, D.C.Cal.1953, 113 F.Supp. 71; In re Martinez, D.C.Pa.1947, 73 F.Supp. 101; U.S. v. Morelli, D.C.Cal.1943, 55 F.Supp. 181; In re De Mayo, D.C.Mo.1938, 26 F.Supp. 696; State v. Boyd, 1892, 51 N.W. 602, 31 Neb. 682.Quote:A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government.Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383
I just wanted to add some insight into how the U.S. Govt. is using “United States” with regard to passports:
7 FAM 1380 APPENDIX D CITY OF BIRTH LISTING
(CT:CON-254; 04-29-2008)
a. A U.S. citizen born abroad may choose to list the city or town of birth at the time of the applicant's birth or at the present time rather than the country if he or she objects to the country listing as set forth in this
appendix, unless this appendix specifies otherwise. The city of birth only option is not available for persons born in the United States or its territories or outlying possessions.
http://www.state.gov…ation/94675.pdf
