juliusbragg
Forum Replies Created
All citizens of the United States are also citizens of the State where they reside, BUT, state Citizens are NOT necessarily citizens of the United States!
Think of it like this:
All corvettes are also Chevy's, but all Chevy's aren't neccessarily corvettes.
The “citizens of the United States” have certain privileges but they also have certain obligations arrising from those privileges. Welfare, healthcare, etc., the obliigations are social security numbers, drafts, licenses, etc.
Think about this, the ONLY reason a male “citizen of the United States” can vote is because of the 15th amendment. Even if you're white your “civil right” to vote comes from that amendment…”Regardless of race”.
Look up “civil rights” and “human rights” at dictionary.com
All 14th amendment citizens rely on statutory franchise civil rights for their “freedom”, state Citizens have human rights.
Remember, one can only be naturalized in the federal “United States”…so when it says “born or naturalized in the United States”, I think there is no doubt that it is referring to the federal “United States”. Also it says and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, when they could have simply used the terminology used in the 13th amendment “subject to their jurisdiction”. These two items alone convince me that congress was using words of art in the 14th amendment.
Then, when we see “citizen” with a lower case “c” for the first time, coupled with supreme court stating that “the 14th created a 'new class' of citizen, and knowing that congress at that time was NOT ready to have newly freed slaves be equal to white men, we can put together why the new class of citizen was created.
It was to give the appearance of freedom to the slaves…because the 13th amendment used the term “in-voluntary servitude” I can't help but think that the 13th was a precursor to the 14th amendments eventual obfuscation of white men declaring (volunteering) to be this new class of citizen (federal servitude) and thereby giving up their human rights in exchange for civil rights, which is what All “citizens of the United States” have.
Since today almost all Americans have declared to be 14th amendment citizens, which are federal citizens, and subject to federal and congressional control, the courts say it is rare for a person to be a Citizen of a state and not of the United States.
Admin disagrees with this position, but with court rulings that state United States citizenship does not entitle people to the rights of state Citizenship…and that citizens of the United States have limited rights compared to state Citizens, and the fact that the statutory definitions match this line of thinking, I think admin should reconsider the ramifications of declaring to be a product of congress, that being a 14th amendment citizen.
There is NO other explanation for the lower case “c” citizen in the 14th.
I appreciate your information, however, I think I will retain my state Citizenship:)
Quote:“[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) ]
In regard to your cite:
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 [plural, not singular, meaning states of the Union] political jurisdiction, and owing them [the state of the Union] direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do [169 U.S. 649, 725] to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”I would point out that naturalization is something that ONLY can take place in the Federal United States see Article I, Sec 2, cl. 8:
Section 8 – Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power;
“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”
So when the above quote says “The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It HAS to be talking about the federal U.S., AT LEAST for the naturalization part.
Secondly I want to point out that congress could have used “subject to their jurisdiction”, but chose “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, I cant help but wonder if this was another one of their tricks. In proper English it should be written “subject to a jurisdiction” or “subject to the jurisdictions” if talking about being subject to multiple things.
The Congressmen themselves assumed that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant subject to the United States government, and owing no one else allegiance, so it's no surprise that courts have interpreted it that way:
Quote:Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, participating in the debate, stated the following: “What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”I think there is no other way to interpret the 14th Amendment, than as it being a government tool used to create a second class, and a lessor class of citizen, under complete control of Congress. The 14th Amendment was ORIGINALLY established to give some rights to the newly freed slaves, but over time, white state citizens signed up for the federal protection it offered. Below are 10 reasons for establishing my opinion.
1. The Congressmen voting on the Amendment were under the presumption that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant subject to its jurisdiction.
2. Congress could have used “subject to their” and avoided confusion
3. The courts state that “It is impossible to construe the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'…as less comprehensive than the words 'within its jurisdiction,'”
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]
4. United States naturalization Oath of Allegiance
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen“
5. 14th Amendment citizens only have “limited rights”, those that Congress provides through law, or Amendments
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)”
6. The ABSOLUTE distinction between state Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens:
Quote:“The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established. . . .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.
We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section (2nd clause of the 1st section), which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several states. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.”
[Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 73-74.]
7. That one is NOT required to be a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States provides evidence that it is merely an optional status:
Quote:“[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) ]
8. Becoming a “U.S. citizen” does not entitle you to fundamental rights of state Citizens.
Quote:“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.]
9. The 14th Amendment did not affect states rights.
Quote:“The rights of the state, as such, are not under consideration in the 14th Amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions.”[United States v. Anthony (1873), 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830.]
10. If for some reason the 15th or 19th Amendment were found to be improperly ratified, and thus void, all “citizens of the United States” (claiming such status), not just blacks or women, would lose their right to vote. This is because the 15th (and 19th) Amendment is THE ONLY THING that allows “citizens” to vote. Notice it doesnt say “black men can now vote”, it says: “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.” So without this Amendment, what keeps a State from preventing a white or black man from voting?
jb
It appears they got it from prior court cases:
Quote:“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”….“The first section of this amendment, after declaring that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside, proceeds to declare further that…”
” No distinction is intimated on account of race or color. This court has no authority to interpolate a limitation that is neither expressed nor implied. Our duty is to execute the law, not to make it. The protection provided was not intended to be confined to those of any particular race or class, but to embrace equally all races, classes, and conditions of men. It is objected that the power conferred is novel and large. The answer is that the novelty was known, and the measure deliberately adopted. The power is beneficent in its nature, and cannot be abused. It is such as should exist in every well-ordered system of polity. Where could it be more appropriately lodged than in the hands to which it is confided? It is necessary to enable the government of the nation to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction the rights and privileges enumerated, which, according to the plainest considerations of reason and justice and the fundamental principles of the social compact all are entitled to enjoy.
[U.S. Supreme Court, Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)]
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)]
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, 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)]
Noted. Thank you and sorry for the formatting error.
You've already established your position regarding this issue, and so have I, but as I find cases one way or the other, should I continue to post them, or let this issue die? Im fairly new to these forums, and Im not real familiar with protocol in that regard. Im sure you won't hesitate to let me know
This is the case in question:
Quote:The principal regulation stipulates that someone born under diplomatic immunity on American soil “may be considered a lawful permanent resident at birth.” 8 C.F.R. Sec. 101.3(a)(1). Because such a person “is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, his/her registration as a lawful permanent resident … is voluntary.” Id. Sec. 101.3©. The eligibility, however, does not extend indefinitely:…
“t 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. Id. at 329, 59 S.Ct. at 887. After stating that that principle was “a necessary consequence of the constitutional provision” bestowing citizenship on a person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, id. at 334, 59 S.Ct. at 889,
[Nikoi v. Attorney General of United States, 939 F2d 1065]
I would like to know the significance of this court ruling that a 14th amendment citizen is subject to “its jurisdiction” and has to fulfill “its duties”.
thanks
jb
- Quote:If you keep this up, we will DELETE your post.
If I keep what up?? Im not sure what I have done…. I provided what I thought was the required info:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
426 U.S. 88
Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0426_0088_ZS.html
Besides, the case: 939 F2d 1065 Nikoi v. Attorney General of United States seems to be a more important case. Here it specifically says that the 14th Amendment means “subject to its jurisdiction”
Any chance to dissect this case yet?
Quote:The principal regulation stipulates that someone born under diplomatic immunity on American soil “may be considered a lawful permanent resident at birth.” 8 C.F.R. Sec. 101.3(a)(1). Because such a person “is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, his/her registration as a lawful permanent resident … is voluntary.” Id. Sec. 101.3©. The eligibility, however, does not extend indefinitely:…
“t 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. Id. at 329, 59 S.Ct. at 887. After stating that that principle was “a necessary consequence of the constitutional provision” bestowing citizenship on a person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, id. at 334, 59 S.Ct. at 889,
[Nikoi v. Attorney General of United States, 939 F2d 1065]
http://openjurist.or…f-united-states
question regarding Nikoi v. Attorney General of United States, 939 F2d 1065, [url url=”http://openjurist.or…f-united-states”]http://openjurist.or…f-united-states[/url]:
Quote:The principal regulation stipulates that someone born under diplomatic immunity on American soil “may be considered a lawful permanent resident at birth.” 8 C.F.R. Sec. 101.3(a)(1). Because such a person “is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, his/her registration as a lawful permanent resident … is voluntary.” Id. Sec. 101.3©. The eligibility, however, does not extend indefinitely:…
“t 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. Id. at 329, 59 S.Ct. at 887. After stating that that principle was “a necessary consequence of the constitutional provision” bestowing citizenship on a person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, id. at 334, 59 S.Ct. at 889, the Court concluded:
Does this seems to be beyond political jurisdiction?
SEE also:
Quote:(a) While overriding national interests may justify a citizenship requirement in the federal service even though an identical requirement may not be enforced by a State, the federal power over aliens is not so plenary that any agent of the Federal Government may arbitrarily subject all resident aliens to different substantive rules from those applied to citizens. When the Federal Government asserts an overriding national interest to justify a discriminatory rule that would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if adopted by a State, due process requires that there be a legitimate basis for presuming that the rule was actually intended to serve that interest.[Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, Pp. 99-105. 426 US 88
Just asking.
jb
I was reading some case law, and was concerned over an issue that MAY involve 14th Amendment citizenship….
Sit back and enjoy this
1.
[Remember my contention] A state Citizen* has more rights than a 14th Amendment citizen because a 14th Amendment citizen relies on Congress to establish their rights, whereas a state Citizen* has rights far beyond the Bill of Rights and the other Amendments:
* [unfortunately as Admin points out, “Citizen” can only mean White or Black men from a strict reading of the constitution, but from a biblical reading, where 'man' means humans a different meaning could be construed.]
see:
“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.]
Stay with me,
It appears as though State Citizens have more rights than 'citizens of the United States' according to the court. ALSO, one “is not required” to become a citizen of the United States, which means it is an option, meaning avoidable!
Follow me to the second Amendment, which is found to not be a right guaranteed to 'citizens of the United States'. Check these GPO links!!!!
Perhaps the “state Citizen” is protected by the organic Constitution,
http://www.gpoaccess…html/amdt2.html
Quote:“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.”note: ONLY ONE COMMA
Whereas the “citizens of the United States” are protected by the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, not the Original Constitution:
http://www.gpoaccess…pdf2002/007.pdf
Quote:“CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
AMENDMENT [II.]
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.
note: 3 commas
The California Attorney General says
From California Attorney General for example:
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/2amend.php
Quote:“…The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in its entirety:
“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.” [note the added commas]
…”Likewise, the California Supreme Court has determined that laws passed by the state legislature which address gun control can be valid. “No mention is made in [the California Constitution] of a right to bear arms. (See In re Ramirez (1924) 193 Cal. 633, 651 [226 P. 914, 34 A.L.R. 51][`The constitution of this state contains no provision on the subject.'].) Moreover, `it is long since settled in this state that regulation of firearms is a proper police function.' (Galvan v. Superior Court, (1969) 70 Cal.2d 851, 866 [76 Cal.Rptr. 642, 452 P.2d 930].)” Kasler v. Lockyer, (2000) 23 Cal.4th 472, 481.”
…I am duty bound and constitutionally obligated to defend and enforce the law as written by our state legislature and explained by our courts. And, while I am personally convinced that the Second Amendment was indeed intended to provide some measure of entitlement for individuals to own firearms, the degree of that entitlement, and the extent to which it must be balanced with the state's right and responsibility to protect public health and safety, is still being interpreted by our nation's courts.
“
But, look what the courts say when the ACTUAL AMENDMENT IS cited.
Quote:“United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This 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, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, the “powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,” “not surrendered or restrained” by the Constitution of the United States.”and
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.” [note the correct commas] 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.”
Read this intro to the California case that the Attorney General cites:
Quote:This is a petition for writ of mandate by John Galvan, a resident, taxpayer and firearms owner in San Francisco, in which he attacks the constitutionality of ordinance No. 175-68, theso-called San Francisco gun law. The ordinance, enacted in July 1968, provides for the registration of all firearms within San Francisco, with certain exceptions.Galvan v. Superior Court, 70 Cal.2d 851 (1969)
My fear, is that these courts see that Mr. Galvan admits to being a “resident” and a “taxpayer”, which provides for the presumption that he is under Congressional regulation. It is also my fear that 14th Amendment citizens are considered under Congressional regulation, because they are reliant on their actions for their rights.
Although there is no way to know, I cant help but wonder what the outcome of this case would have been if Mr. Galvan's case intro read something like this:
Quote:It is my contention, based on the various rulings by the courts, and as a direct reading of the organic and state Constitutions, and from a strict reading of the United States Governments published materials, that a clarification of status is required before I move forward.I, being born in one of the states of the union, and being a male inhabitant thereof, and by never knowingly or willfully consenting to become a “citizen of the United States” as defined and established by the 14th Amendment. I must declare that I retain my state citizenship as such, and further that I ask for no protection of my rights from the Federal Government. 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) ]
I, being a state Citizen, and specifically NOT a “citizen of the United States”, have not, would not, nor will not ever knowingly or willfully release or forfeit any of my fundamental, or any other, Rights of that of a state Citizen. Because of this fact, I do not ask this court, or any court, to presume that I require or desire any protection or benefit from the Federal Government beyond that duty that is required to state Citizens by the Organic Constitution.
see:
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-66 (1886)
Because of these facts, I seek relief from the State of California and from the Federal Government, for deprivation of my fundamental Right to purchase, own, carry, or otherwise use or handle a firearm in a manner not inconsistent with safety, for my own safety and protection, and for that of my neighbors, and to protect this state and the United States of America against armed insurrection or rebellion. My relief from the Federal Government action is based on the 2nd Amendment of the Organic Bill of Rights, as specifically written with only one comma between 'state' and 'the' as found in the “Statutes at Large, 1st Congress, 1st Session”.
We may never know….however, I am considering a declaratory relief action, and subsequent lawsuit against the State of California for 'requiring' me to apply for, purchase, and secure a State identification before allowing me to practice my fundamental right to purchase a gun.
LASTLY,
We know the Constitution stays with the land, and not the man. Look at the results when an “Alien” challenged the Constitutionality of a Cal. gun law:
Quote:The People and our dissenting colleague rely, nevertheless, upon In re Rameriz, 193 Cal. 633 [226 P. 914, 34 A.L.R. 51], a 1924 California Supreme Court decision which upheld this same statute against an equal protection challenge. This case is not controlling for two reasons. First, as the People admit, some of the grounds upon which Rameriz' conclusion of constitutionality rested have been explicitly rejected in Raffaelli as valid grounds for distinguishing between citizens and aliens. (Compare In re Rameriz, supra, at p. 645 with Raffaelli v. Committee of Bar Examiners, supra, 7 Cal.3d at pp. 296-300.) Second, recent developments in the law of equal protection, confirmed in Takahashi v. Fish Comm'n., 334 U.S. 410 [92 L.Ed. 1478, 68 S.Ct. 1138], dictate that a stricter standard of judicial review than the permissive rational basis test used in Rameriz [28 Cal.App.3d 306] be applied to classifications based upon the suspect factor of alienage. fn. 2 (See Purdy & Fitzpatrick v. State of California, supra, 71 Cal.2d 566 [url url=”http://login.findlaw…l2d/71/566.html”]http://login.findlaw…l2d/71/566.html[/url] , 582; see also, Graham v. Richardson, supra, 403 U.S. 365; Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 [60 L.Ed. 131, 36 S.Ct. 7]; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 [30 L.Ed. 220, 6 S.Ct. 1064].)Accordingly, Penal Code section 12021, as it applies to aliens, is declared unconstitutional. The judgment is reversed.
Who knows the real reason behind this, but pieces often seem to fall iinto place when dissecting these cases.
Haa…I didnt think I would necessarily get attacked, it was simply a reflection of my last debate!
I think the flawed argument to avoid page ( http://famguardian.o…ArgsToAvoid.pdf Sec. 8.10 ) should be updated to portray that using a zip code AND A HOME ADDRESS allows for a presumption that one is in a Federal Territory and in acceptance of a Federal Privilege. Because the zip code is NOT required, and it is used to locate an address “in the United States and its territories”, and because the IRS REFUSES to send mail without it, and because the IRM calls the zip code “required input”, and many other reasons:
http://www.irs.gov/i…02-003-078.html
Quote:Description of Entries:ZIP> required input — 5 digit zip code
BOD> required input. values are:
WI —Wage and Investment
SB — Small Business/Self-Employed
LM — Large/Mid-sized Business
TE — Tax Exempt/Government Entity
TECLIENT>
(TE-CLIENT-CD) Required only if the BOD is TE. Values are:
B — Tax Exempt Bonds (TE:cool:
F — Federal, State & Local Govts (FSL)
I— Indian Tribal Governments (ITG)
1 — Combo ITG & TEB
2 — Combo FSL & TEB
3– Combo Exempt Org & TEB
A search in .gov sites and the phrase “zip code is required” results in thousands of pages. Everyone I saw refers to commerce or govt., here are the first 4:
http://www.dol.ks.go…iledReturn.html
Quote:Kansas Department of Labor:154 Transmitter ZIP Code is required.
http://www.tennessee…ugeCmplnt.shtml
Quote:TN Dept. of Commerce… All fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.*Zip
http://www.cde.ca.go…iderzipcode.asp
Quote:Cal Dept. of EducationChild Care Reporting
The Provider Zip Code is required. [801A File Transfer], [801A Web Input], [801B]
http://eservices.nys…Registration.do
Quote:New York State LibraryZip code is required.
http://www.irs.gov/i…01r-cont02.html
Quote:3.45.1.10.3.7.1 (01-01-2010)Document Preparation for Form 2848 – Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative
9. The Zip Code is required if the representative's Entity information is present.
So the Zip Code is NOT required according to the USPS, but is “required” for certain commercial or government transactions. This means, that the use of a zip code allows for the PRESUMPTION that you are engaged in commerce or governmental activity.
Quote:Ours is a dual form of government; in every State there are two Governments — the State and the United States; each State has all governmental powers save such as the people, by the Constitution, have conferred upon the United States, denied to the States, or reserved to themselves. P. 63. 297 U.S. 1United States v. Butler
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 401 Argued: December 9, 10, 1935 — Decided: January 6, 1936
If we accept this benefit, we should expect to bear the burden. As we know, the government LOVES presuming consent. Here in a quick search will show many ways that Consent is presumed:
Quote:CVC 17459The acceptance by a resident of this state of a certificate of ownership or a certificate of registration of any motor vehicle or any renewal thereof, issued under the provisions of this code, shall constitute the consent by the person that service of summons may be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he is then a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts of this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of the ownership or operation of the vehicle.
Sales Tax
“Although you are required to pay sales tax directly to the Board of Equalization, the law provides that you may be reimbursed for those taxes by your customers. It is presumed that the customer agrees to the addition of tax if:“
Cal Civil Code 1589
A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.
USC Title 18 4107
“(4) his consent to transfer, once verified by the verifying officer, is irrevocable.”
Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 8(b)(6)
(6) Effect of Failing to Deny.
An allegation — other than one relating to the amount of damages — is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied. If a responsive pleading is not required, an allegation is considered denied or avoided.
Although these laws dont necessarily apply to the zip code, it establishes the mindset of the lawmakers, and as I always say better safe than sorry!
If anyone has other 'consent' code, laws, or cases to add, please do so.
1.
Quote:1. Should I assume that you agree with our answer in 6? Remember: In the absense of a an express denial supported by EVIDENCE, YOU ADMIT. I win according to YOUR rules! F.R.C.P. 8(b)(6).I dont know if this was added in an edit, but I didnt see it while I was responding…This last post is something that I can agree with mostly.
2.
Im not sure why only White Males can be State Citizens, please explain this? It is possible but I dont know the language that would exclude free black men.
BUT, having said that, does this mean that you admit that a white male should choose state Citizen over 14th Amendment citizen??
3.
I think that you took this entire argument as an attack on FG's research, rather than what it is, which is a concern over one of the positions of FG. I find it Ironic, that with the Neo argument, we agreed that he should “error on the side of caution”, yet in this case your are so certain, even though you have still failed to explain court decisions contrary to your position, that a 14th Amendment citizen is equal to a state Citizen, nor why we shouldnt avoid the claim.
I also find it Ironic that you say: “It keeps the focus where it belongs, which is on GOVERNMENT VERBICIDE and WORD GAMES that destroy rights.” which is EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE CLAIMED THE 14th Amendment is, and by the same people that write the other laws.
🙂 THESE GUYS ARE AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CROOKS!!!http://books.google….AAJ&output=text
Quote:“…”The original Constitution was framed under very difficult and trying circumstances. The Fathers were very careful to word it so as to confer great power and yet to have it in such a form that the people might not fully realize the power that was being conferred. We are venturing little, we believe, in saying that this was apparently the problem that confronted the Radical leaders of the Thirty-ninth Congress, and that their main purpose in proposing the first section of the Amendment was to increase the power of the Federal Government very much, but to do it in such a way that the people would not understand the great changes intended to be wrought in the fundamental law of the land. Their failure to do this is due to the strained construction put upon their work by the Supreme Court.”This book also states:
Quote
“…Mr. Bingham was the author of the Amendment. This was true only as regards the first section.”
…
“[Mr. Bingham] As the author of the proposition, his testimony should be given much weight, and he was furthermore one of the best, if not the best, constitutional lawyer in the House of the Thirty-ninth Congress.”
See also:
Quote
Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, took a decided stand against the whole measure, declaring that it was not only unconstitutional, but that it was subversive of the true theory of our Federal system. His position was that the theory of those who advocated the bill would make the people subject to the absolute control of Congress, and that this was contrary to the intentions of the Fathers.
So inasmuch as you may take it as a slap in the face that someone questions FG, I present historical concern of the same debate.
Read the house debates themselves. These people were there, WHILE THE 14th was being decided on. I think their concerns are the same as mine:
http://memory.loc.go…73.db&recNum=17
Quote:“…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 again:
http://memory.loc.go…73.db&recNum=18
Quote:“In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense…All persons living within a within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. 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.”and yet again:
http://memory.loc.go…73.db&recNum=12
Quote:“..this term 'citizen of the United States.' What is it? Is it simply to put man in a condition that he may be an elector in one of the States?…Or is it to set him upon some pedestal, some position, to put him out of reach of State legislation and State power?”So to argue with me, that my position is erroneous, is to say that the men in the room during this legislation were also erroneous with their concerns.
I rest
Admin,
In response to 1.
Quote:1. The disagreement results in WHAT I am saying is “essentially equivalent”:“Essentially equivalent” means “specifically not the same”
1.1-1.5, I agree that a 14th Amendment citizen may have, or at least appear to have, similar rights to those of state citizens; my focus isnt on that. As I pointed out previously, if there is no act disallowing us to use the term “we the People Citizen” or “Citizen of the United States of America”, or specifically “Citizen, but not 14th Amendment citizen, of the United States” that it would be better to do so, especially in the light of the cases that point out clearly that one does NOT have to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a Citizen of a State:
Quote:“[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) ]
You specifically excluded:
“Van Valkenbrg v. Brown (1872), 43 Cal. Sup. Ct. 43, 47.
Bowlin v. Commonwealth (1867), 65 Kent. Rep. 5, 29.”
..so that means that you included Crosse v. Bd. of Supvrs of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966) into this debate.
In response to 2.
Quote:2. I asked you for cases AFTER both the 15th and the 19th Amendment. You violated my request by citing cases before the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920's. That means the following cases have to be excluded:Van Valkenbrg v. Brown (1872), 43 Cal. Sup. Ct. 43, 47.
Bowlin v. Commonwealth (1867), 65 Kent. Rep. 5, 29.
As mentioned above, your exclusion of two of the 13 cases (and subsequently a 3rd in line 3.) leaves 10 cases that admit my position, as you failed to deny or exclude them.
In response to the second number 2.
We are in agreement, which supports the theory that a citizen is less than a Citizen, because if nothing else, the removal of one of the Amendments does not affect the Rights of a “Citizen” the way it does a “citizen”.
Quote:“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.[Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905) ]
In response to 3.
Quote:3. You cite Colgate v. Harvey to establish that fourteenth amendment citizenship is “paramount and dominant”. It was overruled by Madden v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83 (1940).You point out correctly that that case was over ruled. But look what that case says. Even this court recognizes differences between state and national citizenship:
Quote:There is no occasion to attempt again an exposition of the views of this Court as to the proper limitations of the privileges and immunities clause. There is a very recent discussion in Hague v. Committee Industrial Organization. 13 The appellant purports to accept as sound the position stated as the view of all the justices concurring in the Hague decision. This position is that the privileges and immunities clause protects all citizens against abridgement by states of rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or [309 U.S. 83, 91] natural rights inherent in state citizenship. 14 This Court declared in the Slaughter-House Cases15 that the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Thirteenth and Fifteenth were adopted to protect the negroes in their freedom. This almost contemporaneous interpretation extended the benefits of the privileges and immunities clause to other rights which are inherent in national citizenship but denied it to those which spring from [309 U.S. 83, 92] state citizenship.'We repeat, then, in the light of this recapitulation of events, almost too recent to be called history, but which are familiar to us all; and on the most casual examination of the language of these amendments, no one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in them all, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him. …
'And so if other rights are assailed by the States which properly and necessarily fall within the protection of these articles, that protection will apply, though the party interested may not be of African descent. But what we do say, and what we wish to be understood is, that in any fair and just construction of any section or phrase of these amendments, it is necessary to look to the purpose which we have said was the pervading spirit of them all, the evil which they were designed to remedy, and the process of continued addition to the Constitution, until that purpose was supposed to be accomplished, as far as constitutional law can accomplish it.'
[Madden v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83 (1940)]
In response to 4.
This is an assumption, in the sense that a case may still arise where a “citizen of the United States” has not achieved to a right yet, that is secured to a state Citizen, and another Amendment must be made. Has there been yet, for example, a case where a full blooded Black man has been questioned on his eligibility to the Presidency? or a case where a Women is questioned of her ability to purchase land from an Indian tribe where the Federal Government declined the first right to refusal? Now these of course seem silly now, but there may some day be an Amendment required to ensure that full blood black men can be considered “natural Born Citizens of the United States”. As you pointed out these discussions may appear racist, but they are based on history, and unfortunately the U.S. and her documents were founded on racism.
In response to 5 – 5.3
Quote:5. You suggest that:“If by 1897 99% of the white men declared their status as citizens, this case reads true. In fact, what is an example of one of the “exceptional” or “uncommon” people they are referring to?? Perhaps a State citizen who failed to join the membership??”
IN REFERENCE TO MY QUOTE:
“a citizen of the state is considered as synonymous with citizen of the United States, and the one is therefore treated as expressive of the other. This flows from the fact that the one is normally and usually the other, and where such is not the case it is purely exceptional and uncommon. “
In the case above notice the words “considered as”, “treated”, “normally”, “usually”, “exceptional”, “uncommon”.”
What you really mean to imply is that those “Citizens” who refused to convert to “citizens of the United States” are the only exceptional case where “state citizens” and “citizens of the United States” are not equivalent. On that point, we disagree with you. As we said, all “Citizens” are white males. “citizens of the United States” ADD additional minorities to that status:
Although you state that on this point you disagree, you have not provided evidence to the contrary, specifically with regard to “who or what is an exception, or uncommon 'people'”? As I suggested, it MAY BE the rare State Citizen.
In response to:
“White men are STILL included in the “citizen of the United States” category, because if they are underage voters and WHITE, they are covered by the 26th Amendment ALSO.”
I agree partially, I would clarify that white men MAY be included!! Just because the Amendment allows for White men under a certain age to vote, doesnt mean that they do. If a true State Citizen thought this beyond his ability, could he not deny to vote, or even register?
You claiming that I am in agreement with you on this, shall in no way be presumed to be my intention, just as my claim that you now agree with me has no bearing on your own position. I have stated before, and I continue to state that FG is the greatest source of information I have found. I have directed people, including attorneys who think the Income tax applies to all for example, to this site and have convinced them through the words of the law that FG cites of the truth. I continue to hold that this site is extraordinary in the information it has. And again, the only thing I have question over, even still, is that 14th Amendment citizenship is what we should be claiming.
I think I have at least shown that the courts also question this matter quite frequently.
Admin,
In response to:
3. We showed that the “Citizen” and the “citizen of the United States” are essentially equivalent (in RIGHTS), AT THIS TIME, but were not always equivalent, for the purposes of states rights.
This is absolutely false!! NO EVIDENCE has been provided that shows that a “Citizen” is equal to a 14th Amendment citizen, in fact, the opposite is true. By your own admission, the only thing you have shown is that over the course of time Congress has enacted laws that give the appearance that they are equal!!
There is only one Mona Lisa, although an artist may be able to recreate it over the years, they are not equal. Congress has added more and more touch ups to the Mona Lisa over the years, as people noticed inconsistencies, and today they have a painting that 'seems' identical. Except that it's title is mona lisa, not Mona Lisa. [Call this insignificant, it is still a fact.] At any time someone can peel back a corner and see that it's a fake. Same with the 14th Amendment citizen.
If for some reason it was determined that the 19th Amendment for example was improperly ratified, then all female citizens of the United States technically lose their right to vote, but not we the people Citizens. If the 15th Amendment was found to be adopted fraudulently, then blacks would lose their right to vote, like another corner pulled back.
I have read virtually every document on FG, and I have never found anything I disagree with, except the 14th Amendment, so 1 out of 2 billion is certainly no insult to FG.
I think Admins position relies heavily on a few pieces of case law, Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) for example, which is not a case about citizenship but rather:
“This case involves the question whether merchandise brought into the port of New York from Porto Rico since the passage of the Foraker act is exempt from duty, notwithstanding the 3d section of that act which requires the payment of '15 [182 U.S. 244, 248] per centum of the duties which are required to be levied, collected, and paid upon like articles of merchandise imported from foreign countries.' “
With knowing this is a case regarding 'porto rico' the context of the cite becomes more clear:
Quote:The 13th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude 'within the United States, or in any place subject to their jurisdiction,' is also significant as showing that there may be places within the jurisdiction of the United States that are no part of the Union. [such as porto rico or other territories] 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. [subject to their jurisdiction in the 13th]How can it possibly be contended that:
Quote:“Subject to THEIR jurisdiction”. [only means] States of the Union. In a POLITICAL context and not a LEGISLATIVE context. Found in the Thirteenth Amendment. Used in a GEOGRAPHIC and not POLITICAL sense within the constitution. Attaches to allegiance to a state of the Union and not the national government or to domicile in the state.”When the above case SPECIFICALLY says that:
“'within the United States, or in any place subject to their jurisdiction,…is to confess the very point in issue,…that those states were no longer a part of the Union, [yet] they were still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?[their jurisdiction]”
I do apologize if you think this is an attempt to simply argue, I ASSURE you it is not!!
FG seems to be well aware that that the Federal Government is not beyond obfuscation, I think they would admit that the 39th Congress was as corrupt as any, I think they would also admit that they rely on trickery to make Americans Federal Subjects, yet with this issue they seem 100% certain that the 14th Amendment was a noble cause. Although you provide evidence to support your position I offer cases that say the opposite, for example:
“a citizen of the state is considered as synonymous with citizen of the United States, and the one is therefore treated as expressive of the other. This flows from the fact that the one is normally and usually the other, and where such is not the case it is purely exceptional and uncommon. “
In the case above notice the words “considered as”, “treated”, “normally”, “usually”, “exceptional”, “uncommon”.
If by 1897 99% of the white men declared their status as citizens, this case reads true. In fact, what is an example of one of the “exceptional” or “uncommon” people they are referring to?? Perhaps a State citizen who failed to join the membership??
You said the cases I used were pre 15th and 19th amendment, this again proves that amendments were needed to make the 14th amendment appear equal:
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)
A fundamental right belongs to a state Citizen, a limited right belongs to a national citizen.
Here are some post 15th and 19th cases, per your request.
Quote:“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.[Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905) ]
“On the other hand, there is a significant historical fact in all of this. Clearly, one of the purposes of the 13th and 14th Amendments and of the 1866 act and of section 1982 was to give the Negro citizenship. . .”
[Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1967), 379 F.2d 33, 43.]
“[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) ]
“United States citizenship does not entitle citizen to rights and privileges of state citizenship.”
[K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236, 256 P. 545 (1927), 48 Supreme Court. 527.]
“A citizen of the United States is ipso facto and at the same time a citizen of the state in which he resides. While the 14th Amendment does not create a national citizenship, it has the effect of making that citizenship 'paramount and dominant' instead of 'derivative and dependent' upon state citizenship.”
[Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U. S. 404, 427.]
“A fundamental right inherent in “state citizenship” 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 as specifically granted or secured to all citizens or persons by the Constitution of the United States.”
[Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78. ]
“The [14th] amendment referred to slavery. Consequently, the only persons embraced by its provisions, and for which Congress was authorized to legislate in the manner were those then in slavery.”
[Bowlin v. Commonwealth (1867), 65 Kent. Rep. 5, 29. ]
“No white person. . . owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution.”
[Van Valkenbrg v. Brown (1872), 43 Cal. Sup. Ct. 43, 47.]
“The rights of the state, as such, are not under consideration in the 14th Amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions.”
[United States v. Anthony (1873), 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830.]
“There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of he state”.
[Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)]
“As applied to a citizen of another State, or to a citizen of the United States residing in another State, a state law forbidding sale of convict made goods does not violate the privileges and immunities clauses of Art. IV, Sec. 2 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution if it applies also and equally to the citizens of the State that enacted it.” (Syllabus)
[Whitfield v. State of Ohio: 297 U.S. 431 [1936]]
In the sense that I'm certain that FG members do not wish for people to simply accept their words as fact, but rather we should study and learn ourselves; and in the sense that I hold the same belief, I will pose a couple of more cases, NOT BECAUSE I want anyone to change their position, but because I want them to question it. If you research these cases, and I have about 100 more, I think they will do just that, that is make you question that a 14th Amendment citizen is EQUAL to a “we the people Citizen”.
Let me know
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)
Quote:The case of Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. [83 U.S.] 130, decided at the recent term of the supreme court, sustains both of the positions above put forth, viz., first, that the rights referred to in the fourteenth amendment are those belonging to a person as a citizen of the United States and not as a citizen of a state; and second, that a right of the character here involved is not one connected with citizenship of the United States.Quote:“To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the [14th] amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership. Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by 'the people of the United States,' and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of 'the United States of America,' entered in to a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen – a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.”
[Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1874).]
Quote:“The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established. . . .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.
We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section (2nd clause of the 1st section), which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several states. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.”
[Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 73-74.]
Quote:Having shown that the privileges and immunities relied on in the argument are those which belong to citizens of the states as such, and that they are left to the state governments for security and protection, and not by this article placed under the special care of the Federal government, we may hold ourselves excused from defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States which no state can abridge, until some case involving those privileges may make it necessary to do so.'Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 75-76, 78-79.
Quote:'We do not conceal from ourselves the great responsibility which this duty devolves upon us. No questions so far reaching and pervading in their consequences, so profoundly interesting to the people of this country, and so important in their bearing upon the relations of the United States and of the several States to each other, and to the citizens of the states and of the United States, have been before this court during the official life of any of its present members. We have given every opportunity for a full hearing at the bar; we have discussed it freely and compared views among ourselves; we have taken ample time for careful deliberation, and we now propose to announce the judgments which we have formed in the construction of those articles, so far as we have found them necessary to the decision of the cases before us, and beyond that we have neither the inclination nor the right to go.'Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, at 67 (1873).
Quote:The sole question presented by the appeal, therefore, is as to whether, under a proper construction of the act referred to, a corporation of a state, for the purpose of the act, is embraced within the designation 'citizens of the United States.' [164 U.S. 686, 688] The act was considered in Johnson v. U. S., 160 U.S. 546 , 16 Sup. Ct. 377, and we there held that a person who was not a citizen of the United States at the time of an alleged appropriation of his property by a tribe of Indians was not entitled to maintain an action in the court of claims, under the act in question. These was not in that case, however, any assertion that the claimant was a citizen of a state, as distinguished from a citizen of the United States. It was also declared that, as the court of claims had no general jurisdiction over claims against the United States, it could take cognizance only of such matters as by the terms of the act of congress were committed to it. While, undoubtedly, in a purely technical and abstract sense, citizenship of one of the states may not include citizenship of the United States, this does not meet the question which we are to construe, which is, what is the meaning of the words 'citizens of the United States,' as used in the statute? Unquestionably, in the general and common acceptation, a citizen of the state is considered as synonymous with citizen of the United States, and the one is therefore treated as expressive of the other. This flows from the fact that the one is normally and usually the other, and where such is not the case it is purely exceptional and uncommon. These considerations give rise to an ambiguity which we must solve, not by reference to a mere abstract technicality, but by that cardinal rule which commands that we seek out and apply the evident purpose intended to be accomplished by the law- making power.Congress has frequently in its legislation, as also the treaty-making power, used the words 'citizens of the United States' in the broadest sense, and as embracing corporations created by state law. Thus, in section 2319 of the Revised Statutes, the right to purchase mineral deposits in the public lands was conferred upon 'citizens of the United States and those who have declared their intention to become such.' Section 2321, however, in regulating the mode by which the fact of citizenship should be established, provided that 'in the case of a corporation organized under the laws of the United States, or of any state or territory thereof,' the fact should be evidenced [164 U.S. 686, 689] 'by the filing of a certified copy of their charter or certificate of incorporation.'
164 U.S. 686
When we read the section of code directly before your quoted section:
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. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898)]
we see this:
Quote:'By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393); and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States, and of the state in which they resideWe know that the states are “alien” to the Federal Government.
When you say that “their jurisdiction” means that of the several states, is this simply an interpretation?
Quote:their/ðɛər; unstressed ðər/ Show Spelled[thair; unstressed ther] Show IPA
–pronoun
1. a form of the possessive case of they used as an attributive adjective, before a noun: their home; their rights as citizens; their departure for Rome.
All who agree should raise their right hands. All writers know that their first books are not likely to be bestsellers.
I agree that “its” is a pretty definite word but
Also in
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 [federal] United States, and subject to the [federal] jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the [federal] 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.'To be 'completely subject' to the political jurisdiction of the United States is to be in no respect or degree subject to the political jurisdiction of any other government.
Since naturalization is something that CAN ONLY take place in the Federal United States, it leads me to believe that the “united States” in the term “born or naturalized in” MAY be the Federal Government.
If we are to believe that “United States” in the 14th Amendment simply means general geographic area, then certainly native Americans would be born in the “United States”, but that is not the case, even though the reservations are in the “united States” and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
