juliusbragg
Forum Replies Created
What evidence do you use to support your claim?:
Quote:The two types of citizens are just different subsets of the same sovereign people in states of the Union.The case law you provided before seems to make the same conclusion that I am.
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]If we agree that the 14th Amendment citizen is different than the Constitutional “we the people” Citizen, then why is there a debate of which is preferred?
One, the lower case citizen, is protected by “civil rights”, whereas the other, the upper case Citizen is protected by unalienable rights. This seems like a no brainer. In the same sense that neo was trying to justify ignoring the facts in order to maintain his position, it seems the same thing is occurring here. (perhaps by both of us)
It seems foolish to look at the cases where the Supreme Court admits that 14th Amendment citizens are far and different from state Citizens, and still claim that we are national citizens, especially when the simple option of abandoning the 14th citizen status causes no issue for those of us not seeking privileges.
Before the 14th Amendment the court held:
Quote:A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States.
[Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)] [61 So.2d 573, emphasis added]Then of course after we see rulings like this:
Quote:There is a distinction between citizenship of the United States** and citizenship of a particular state, and a person may be the former without being the latter.
[Alla v. Kornfeld, 84 F.Supp. 823][(1949) headnote 5, emphasis added]In response to:
Quote:Like neo, you are failing to realize the following, which I already raised in a companion forum and which you ignored and therefore agreed to. The issue is the diferences in CONTEXT that explain the diference in CAPITALIZATION.I think the Federal Rule of procedure 8(b)(6) commands that a response is required:)
Code:(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.
But seriously, you say the context allows for the lower case letter “c” in the new citizen, because the sovereign is not the one writing the Amendment?
If the sovereign isnt writing the Amendment, then that means the Federal Government is writing the Amendment. If the Federal government is writing the amendment, and they only have the power to write rules for Federal citizens, thus wouldnt you agree that this amendment, as it claims, is only referring to those who are “subject to its jurisdiction?
In other words, if Kelloggs writes a rule that says:
Sec 1. “All persons who show up to their work stations at 6:30 a.m., and are subject to the jurisdictions thereof, are hereby considered star workers.”
Sec 2. “No star worker is allowed to park in the Star Worker parking lot.”
Sec 3. “All star workers shall have all of the rights to use of the lounge, the candy machines, the restrooms, and the copy center, as is afforded to Star Workers.”Despite the poor analogy, I think my point comes through quite well, especially if for the past 90 years Kelloggs had ALWAYS REFERRED to star workers as “Star Workers”, and even more so if they hired THE top constitutional lawyer to write it, and emphatically if there had been a nationwide prejudice against workers at their work stations for hundreds of years.
My questions requiring a response for clarity are:
1) do you think a 14th Amendment citizen has all of the rights as a Constitutional “we the people” Citizen?
2) do you even think there is a difference?
3) as you admitted, if there is a difference can they be equal?
4) do you know of any provision anywhere in any code that forbids us (that is those wishing to be sovereigns)from declaring our status as that of a “Constitutional, but not 14th Amendment, Citizen”, or something similar?
5) if not (like the neo argument) isn’t it better to side with an error of caution and avoid declaring our status as 14th Amendment citizens?
6) admit or deny that 14th Amendment citizens could not vote in 1869?
7) admit or deny that 14th Amendment citizens are protected by civil rights?
8) admit or deny that a natural born Citizen of the United States of America, as found in the Organic Constitution, was allowed to vote in 1850?
9) admit or deny that a natural born Citizen of the United States of America, as found in the Organic Constitution, is allowed to vote today?
10) admit or deny that the 14th Amendment brought blacks up to the status of whites?
11) admit or deny that the 14th Amendment brought whites down to the status of blacks?
12) admit or deny that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as found in section 1 of the 14th Amendment has the same meaning as “subject to their jurisdiction” as used in the 13th Amendment only years earlier?Quote: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.13) What act of congress allowed 14th amendment “citizens of the United States” to run for office?
14) admit or deny that these forums are taking up your valuable time?I hate to do this to you, but just like with the neo argument in the sister post, I have a hard time telling the Federal Government that I am a 14th Amendment citizen, and specifically not a “we the people Citizen”, and that I want to be protected by civil rights rather than unalienable rights.
The courts agree with me that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means subject to the exclusive federal jurisdiction:
Quote:“For these reasons your committee do not hesitate to say that the Indian tribes within the limits of the United States, and the individuals, members of such tribes, while they adhere to and form a part of the tribes to which they belong, are not, within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States, and therefore that such Indians have not become citizens of the United States by virtue of that amendment; and, if your committee are correct in this conclusion, it follows that the treaties heretofore made between the United States and the Indian tribes are not annulled by that amendment.”
[Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)]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”
Dont forget the mentality of the people writing this. They could have simply stated “subject to their jurisdiction”, and they did not!! there are NO COINCIDENCES in politics!!
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…”http://memory.loc.go…73.db&recNum=17
Lastly, from a codified standpoint:
Code:§ 1982. Property rights of citizens
All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.
Why would a code EVER have to state something that is already FACT?
If a “citizen of the United States” is the same as a “white citizen”, then why would there need to be a code stating specifically, that with regard to real and personal property, they shall have the same rights???????
Shouldn’t they then also have a code that says “All citizens of the United States shall have the right to go to church, read the bible, and practice their religion, as is enjoyed by white citizens”?
jb
Bravo….not for your research (which may also deserve salutations) but for your rare ability to admit error. So many times on these and other forums, myself not entirely excluded, people have a difficult time admitting defeat, or better said, our erroneous positions. You have listened to the adversaries, re-researched your position, and made a determination of fact, or at least on the side of caution.
Good work!
jb
I'm re-posting the foreign affairs manual for any newcomers to this post. This pretty clearly states, without relying on determinations of USC Title 8 definitions and applicability, that the Passport may be an Identifier of citizenship, “and not nationality.”
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 – Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1300 Appendix D Page 1 of 45
7 FAM 1300 APPENDIX D
PLACE OF BIRTH NAMES IN PASSPORTS
(CT:CON-318; 01-07-2010)
(Office of Origin: CA/OCS/PRI)
g. Requests for No Place of Birth Listing in Passports: An applicant requesting that no place of birth be listed on a passport should be advised that the United States will not issue a U.S. passport with no place of birth listing. The “place of birth” designation is an integral part of establishing an individual's identity. It distinguishes that individual from other persons with similar names and/or dates of birth, and helps identify claimants attempting to use another person's identity. The information also facilitates retrieval of passport records to assist the Department in determining citizenship or notifying next of kin or other person designated by the individual to be notified in case of an emergency. Inquirers may further be advised that:
(2 ) For United States passport purposes, the Department of State has defined the term “bearer's origin” to be the bearer's place of birth as it is presently recognized. That entry is included to assist in identifying the individual, not the individual's nationality. The passport very clearly states that the bearer is a United States national or citizen.
I think there is nothing more clear than the Foreign Affairs Manual…
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 – Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1300 Appendix D Page 1 of 45
7 FAM 1300 APPENDIX D
PLACE OF BIRTH NAMES IN PASSPORTS
(CT:CON-318; 01-07-2010)
(Office of Origin: CA/OCS/PRI)
g. Requests for No Place of Birth Listing in Passports: An applicant requesting that no place of birth be listed on a passport should be advised that the United States will not issue a U.S. passport with no place of birth listing. The “place of birth” designation is an integral part of establishing an individual's identity. It distinguishes that individual from other persons with similar names and/or dates of birth, and helps identify claimants attempting to use another person's identity. The information also facilitates retrieval of passport records to assist the Department in determining citizenship or notifying next of kin or other person designated by the individual to be notified in case of an emergency. Inquirers may further be advised that:
(2 ) For United States passport purposes, the Department of State has defined the term “bearer's origin” to be the bearer's place of birth as it is presently recognized. That entry is included to assist in identifying the individual, not the individual's nationality. The passport very clearly states that the bearer is a United States national or citizen.
NOTICE TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS BORN ABROAD REGARDING PLACES OF BIRTH TO BE WRITTEN IN PASSPORTS
United States citizens born abroad may list the city or town, rather than the country, of their birth in United States passports when there is an objection to the country listing as established by the Department of State. The city or town name to be designated will be the name at the date of the passport applicant's birth, or the current name. The appropriate transliteration of the city or town name will be established by the Office of the Geographer of the U.S. Department of State.
Art IV, Clause 3, Sec 2:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
The wording found in 7701, for example,
“The term “United States person” means – (A) A citizen or resident of the United States.”
had to have had it’s footing somewhere, I think that footing was created with the 14th Amendment and the new Federal Citizen!
To get insight to what are leaders of the 1860’s were thinking, we need only look at the Congressional document,
From the debate over “subject of the jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment:
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…”http://memory.loc.go…73.db&recNum=17
left column, 2nd par.Also, from the same debates:
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.”http://memory.loc.go…73.db&recNum=18
middle column 2nd par.Also from the same debates,
“..this term ‘citizen of the United States.’ What is it? Is it simply to 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?”
http://memory.loc.go…73.db&recNum=12
left column 3rd par.Furthermore, before the 14th Amendment, the House already defined “citizens of the United States” on April 9th, 1866
http://books.google….epage&q&f=falseIf it was already established
“That 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.”
then why the Amendment?
Perhaps the Civil Rights Act was simply a test of the Federal Governments power? To see if the people would notice an over reach by the Federal Government? After all Mr. Bingham, “one of the best, if not the best, constitutional lawyer in the House of the Thirty-ninth Congress.” brought forward to the House, before its passage, that the Civil Rights bill was “without any authority in the Constitution.” The House passed it anyway, sparking the statement ”
http://memory.loc.go…73.db&recNum=17
center column last par.2 years later Mr. Bingham proposed the 14th Amendment to give the 1866 law “validity and force.”
Perhaps the lack of uprising by the people, assured the Federal Government that the States accepted the Feds power. Or, maybe the Federal Government was acting within the Constitution, and the title and application of “citizen of the United States” was ONLY to be applied to those accepting, claiming, or otherwise falling within the Federal Governments exclusive jurisdiction. This is exactly what the United States does today. They make a ‘law’ that only applies to those in Federal Territory, or otherwise subject to the United States Federal jurisdiction, and unknowing Americans and State legislators assume it applies to them!
Art IV, Clause 3, Sec 2:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
ELK V. WILKINS, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)
Quote:“Though the plaintiff alleges that he “had fully and completely surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the United States,” he does not allege that the United States accepted his surrender, or that he has ever been naturalized, or taxed, or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen by the state or by the United States. Nor is it contended by his counsel that there is any statute or treaty that makes him a citizen.”
“For these reasons your committee do not hesitate to say that the Indian tribes within the limits of the United States, and the individuals, members of such tribes, while they adhere to and form a part of the tribes to which they belong, are not, within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States, and therefore that such Indians have not become citizens of the United States by virtue of that amendment; and, if your committee are correct in this conclusion, it follows that the treaties heretofore made between the United States and the Indian tribes are not annulled by that amendment.”
dissenting opinion
“It seems to us that the Fourteenth Amendment, insofar as it was intended to confer national citizenship upon persons of the Indian race, is robbed of its vital force by a construction which excludes from such citizenship those who, although born in tribal relations, are within the complete jurisdiction of the United States. There were, in some of our states and territories at the time the amendment was submitted by Congress, many Indians who had finally left their tribes and come within the complete jurisdiction of the United States. They were as fully prepared for citizenship as were or are vast numbers of the white and colored races in the same localities. Is it conceivable that the statesmen who framed, the Congress which submitted, and the people who adopted that amendment intended to confer citizenship, national and state, upon the entire population in this country of African descent (the larger part of which was shortly before held in slavery), and, by the same constitutional provision, to exclude from such citizenship Indians who had never been in slavery and who, by becoming bona fide residents of states and territories within the complete jurisdiction of the United States, had evinced a purpose to abandon their former mode of life, and become a part of the people of the United States? If this question be answered in the negative, as we think it must be, then we are justified in withholding our assent to the doctrine which excludes the plaintiff from the body of citizens of the United States upon the ground that his parents were, when he was born, members of an Indian tribe, for, if he can be excluded upon any such ground, it must necessarily follow that the Fourteenth Amendment did not grant citizenship even to Indians who, although born in tribal relations, were at its adoption, severed from their tribes, subject to the complete jurisdiction as well of the United States as of the state or territory in which they resided.
Our brethren, it seems to us, construe the Fourteenth Amendment as if it read:
“All persons born subject to the jurisdiction of, or naturalized in, the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside,”
The court all but admits that if Charles Wilkins had been naturalized, or become a federal citizen* by surrendering his foreign allegiance, or became a taxpayer, then he would be a citizen, thus implying that citizenship in the 14th amendment sense is about engaging in Federal Actions. All of the actions above are Federal in Nature, Im sure there is no way the court knew if Mr. Wilkins had payed a sales tax, alcohol tax or a stamp tax, so we have to assume that they can only speak of what they would have access to, ie Income Tax.
* 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”
Its becoming more clear, to me at least, that the fourteenth amendment was a federal power grab, to take the labor of the Slaves for themselves, and to cunningly enslave the previously free whites who were [unknowingly] willing to exchange their state allegiance for federal allegiance.
I think this may shed some light on what the Passport is used for, in addition to an identification of nationality:
http://www.state.gov…ation/94675.pdf
Quote:(2 ) For United States passport purposes, the Department of State has defined the term “bearer's origin” to be the bearer's place of birth as it is presently recognized. That entry is included to assist in identifying the individual, not the individual's nationality. The passport very clearly states that the bearer is a United States national or citizen.and also from State.gov http://www.state.gov…ation/94675.pdf
Quote:NOTE: Place of birth was first added to the U.S. passport designed in 1917. An October 4, 1963 staff study by the Passport Office on “Place of Birth” information in the United States Passport reflects “the passport used during World War I was the first in which including the place of birth of the passport holder was mandatory as part of the identification of the bearer, probably was a wartime travel control measure. The item was included in all subsequent revisions of the passport format, down to and including the present issuances.”Or a tool to make us statutory citizens!
Sorry for the confusion:
Quote:Five-digit ZIP Code – A numeric code that identifies areas within the United States and its territories and possessions to simplify USPS mail distribution. The five digits of the ZIP (Zone Improvement Plan) Code identify the individual post office delivery station associated with the address. This area is also called a “zone.”From page 19 http://ribbs.usps.go…_USER_GUIDE.PDF
This is a pretty interesting site, with VERY interesting wording.
http://www.usembassy…n_services.html
Quote:For after-hour emergencies, please call the Embassy at 01-52-55-5080-2000, press “0”, and ask the switchboard operator to connect you to the duty officer. Also, among the links on the left you will find information for most emergency situations.U.S. citizens in other areas of Mexico should seek the assistance of the U.S. Consulates or Consular agencies located throughout the country. Click on the following to find a directory of Consulates and Consular Agencies.
The United States Government has no higher responsibility than to serve and protect its citizens, including those who reside or are temporarily abroad. The American Citizen Services (ACS) Unit provides prompt, courteous, and efficient services to United States Citizens and other clients, consistent with U.S. laws and regulations.
The ACS Unit in Mexico City provides a wide range of services to American citizens traveling or residing in Mexico City, including applications for passports, registration of citizens living in or traveling in Mexico, information on voter's registration, notarial services for documents to be used in the United States and certain emergency services relating to deaths, arrests and temporary destitution. U.S. citizens in Mexico are, of course, subject to Mexican laws and procedures.
For information on visas for Mexican citizens, please click on http://mexico.usemba…ng/evisas.html. If you still have questions, these must be directed to our visa appointment and information service by calling 01-900-849-4949 from anywhere in Mexico. If calling from the U.S. or using a calling or credit card, please call:
From U.S.: (011-52-477) 788-7070.
From Mexico: (01-477) 788-7070.
Thank you for at least finding this “interesting”
Because this hypothesis COULD be the most important information we ever learn, due to the ramifications of declaring ourselves 14th Amendment citizens if true, I will take your implied admonition and research this exhaustively with an open mind, and try to establish fact supporting this premise.
This may prove to be a daunting task, as this may have been covered up intentionally according to “The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment” by HORACE EDGAR FLACK, Ph.d.
Fellow in Political Science, Johns Hopkins University 1905-06
http://books.google….AAJ&output=textWherein it states:
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:
“…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:
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.I think it should be noted that I am the FARTHEST thing from a Racist, and I am only pointing out that the organic Constitution and the subsequent 14th Amendment were racially motivated!
With that said,
I think, since and because of the 14th Amendment, that:a ) Black men (or anyone else claiming this status of 14th amendment citizen) are “Federal Citizens” AND “state citizens” depending on the situation. For example, with regard to the right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, and to have the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and estate; they are Federal citizens.
Whereas,
b ) White men are “state Citizens”, that also happen to be “Citizens of the states united”, (unless and until they forfeit that status) subject to the “foreign power” of the states.It was subsequently added in the 14th that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, Indians not taxed being excluded, were citizens of the United States.At this time in History, the states were considered foreign powers, with respect to each other, and with the Federal Government. White men were ‘subject’ to these foreign power states (by virtue of being Citizens therein), whereas Black men were not because they were property, and ONLY protected under property rights laws. In order to be [legally] subject to a government, you must also be entitled to the protection of and privileges and immunities of the same government.
So I will continue on with my research and report back any new findings!!
jb
Neo…I don't want you to think that I, a 'newbie' member am taking sides, AND I think that everyone should research as much as possible, but the only thing that you have provided, I think admittedly, is what you 'think' may be correct. You could make the same contention that FG is only providing what they think is correct, but your refusal to side with an error of caution seems absurd.
I would hope, as a brother and a fellow American, you would warn me and others if you saw us making a potential error.
Perhaps if I wrote that I was now certain that the I-80 bridge in Iowa was re-opened, because I put together a couple of excerpts from local media, and you strongly believed that it was not re-opened because of equal information, you would convince me to approach the bridge slowly and with caution! Even if I presented a signed statement from the Governor, declaring it was reopened in contrast to your information, I would be a fool to not heed your advice!
Secondly, with regard to this:
Quote:The Fed's have jurisdiction over postal matters. It's an address! Period! I think the fact that you say California, or Virginia, or whatever, makes it pretty clear you are not in Federal Territory.I would also be careful stating that “it's an address only”!
Quote:“A ZIP Code is a numerical code that identifies areas within the United States and its territories for purposes of …” [cf. 26 CFR 1.1-1(c )].The DMM code, previously found at DMM 122.32 has been moved to DMM 602 1.3e (2)
The U.S. Postal Service cannot discriminate against the non-use of ZIP codes, pursuant to the Postal Reorganization Act, Section 403 (Public Law 91-375).
It's a different subject, but mail from human to human only costs 3 cents (per oz.), if we use the Zip Code, and/or 2 letter STATE abbreviations (CA, MI, FL), we are declaring that we are in the Federal State, and must pay Federal State Rate.
First Class Non Domestic
Without Prejudice
USC-1-207
bk.12 Statutes At Large
Chapter 71 section 23
37th. Congress Session 111
Quote:Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Postmaster-General shall have the power to appoint and commission all postmasters whose salary or compensation for the preceding fiscal year shall at the time of such appointment have been ascertained to be less than one thousand dollars per year; and in all other cases the President shall appoint. The person appointed postmaster shall reside within the delivery of the office to which he shall be appointed.
[…]
[at 12 Stat. 705] SEC. 23. And be it further enacted, That the rate of postage on all letters not transmitted through the mails of the United States, but delivered through the post-office or its carriers, commonly described as local or drop letters, and not exceeding one half ounce in weight, shall be uniform at two cents, and an additional rate for each half ounce or fraction thereof of additional weight, to be in all cases prepaid by postage stamps affixed to the envelope of such letter, but no extra postage or carrier's fee shall hereafter be charged or collected upon letters delivered by carriers, nor upon letters collected by them for mailing or for delivery.
http://memory.loc.go…2.db&recNum=736
http://www.abodia.co…age/postage.htm
My two cents…
It seems to me, that even if ADMIN said “well, it looks as though you are correct” that one should, or would, STILL attach a cheap insurance document to their passport application??
Am I wrong?
Very poignant response!!
I would ONLY ask…why dont you AT LEAST, simply add “of America” next to “United States” before checking the box, just in case the Passport is some sort of tool that makes you a statutory citizen??
Once again, very informative.
I want to point out a couple of issues, first regarding TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983
§ 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights.
I feel that this section would only be necessary for a lessor citizens protection, because a Constitutional Citizen was already protected against deprivation of rights under common law. For example, black men couldn’t cross county lines alone in some areas, therefore their ‘right’ to travel was being deprived by the states, and something needed to be done. Because blacks had no rights under Common law, or the Constitution, because they were not a ‘person’, and since all the 14th Amendment did was make blacks Federal citizens with a handful of “civil rights”, and that the state then had no jurisdiction over, the 14th only gave the appearance of equality and rights.
Even the case law you cite, if highlighted in a different area seems to support this:
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]If you are correct that the 14th Amendment was simply to guarantee to all blacks their rights, then it gives the impression that it was a noble cause by the U.S. Government, which I refuse to believe it was, because of the lessons learned in History. I, on the other hand, take the position that it was done to give the impression of a noble cause, while at the same time making sure that blacks, and perhaps women, would NEVER be eligible for the office of President, and more importantly that some day all Americans would claim to be “14th citizens” with lessor rights.(Which is where we are today). This theory seems to be more in line with what the administrations previous intentions were. When we look at the proposed 13th Amendment by Lincoln, it is easy to see that he was no less racist than others at this time. I find it difficult to believe that a couple of years later, Lincoln is willing to allow blacks to be the same as “we the people Citizens of the United States”, and to even be eligible to be President.
see this timeline:
1861
Lincoln signs a proposed amendment 13:
“ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
1863
Lincolns emancipation proclamation stated:
“all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.”
The “United States” here means the Federal Corporation, because Lincoln is not speaking for the union of states. (I think this is a warning of the harboring Federal property to come by way of the 14th)
1865
13th Amendment
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.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Lincoln obviously DID not want to interfere with States rights of legal slavery when he signed the proposed 13th Amendment.
IF, I am correct that Lincolns intentions were to make slaves “Federal Property” then his statement in the emancipation proclamation would become true. Any person who holds federal property without permission is in rebellion against the U.S.
Then, the other 13th Amendment that was adopted used an interesting phrase, that being, “in-voluntary servitude”!! Why did they do this?? It is my contention that this was the precursor to the 14th Amendments “new” and “lessor” citizen. Now, because of the 13th Amendment, “we the people Citizens” could legally and Constitutionally “volunteer” into slavery, which I contend is that of a lower case “c” “citizen of the United States”
These NEW citizens did NOT have un-alienable rights from God, but rather civil, or in-alienable rights from Government. Over the course of time, most Americans did just that! They volunteered themselves to servitude by claiming and declaring to be 14th Amendment citizens.
I think the lawyers at this time specifically reduced the “C” in citizen, as found in the 14th Amendment, to a lower case “c”, if for nothing else, as a precaution, in the event that the court had to rule as to whether a 14th Amendment black citizen was eligible for office. With a lower case “c” the courts always had an out.
I think this has been tested by the idea that the courts ruled that a 14th Amendment citizen did not have the right to vote for their representation. In a republic, the Right to vote, is an absolute and inviolate Right, and to deny that to anyone proves that they are not a “citizen” to the full effect of the word.
I’m not saying that there weren’t other side effects of the 14th, such as with regard to State officers, but I think it is at least a valid argument that the people of 1868 weren’t ready to have blacks be ‘truly’ equal. If we are to believe that the 14th Amendment made blacks equal to white citizens, then we have to construe that blacks were eligible to be President, but not able to vote for themselves for the position?!
Blacks eventually did become equal to whites, but NOT because Blacks regained their God given rights, but because whites unknowingly gave them up.
LASTLY, if an American claims to be a 14th Amendment citizen, they are claiming that they only have the right to vote because of the 15th or 19 Amendment, since the 14th made us all equal.
“Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
I DON’T CLAIM ANY OF THESE STATEMENTS AS FACT, this is simply what I have put together. I GREATLY appreciate you troubleshooting this theory, I hope you can take the time to do so without thinking this is an attack on your research.
http://supreme.justi…8/162/case.html
Quote:“And still again, after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, it was deemed necessary to adopt a fifteenth, as follows:“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.”
The Fourteenth Amendment had already provided that no state should make or enforce any law which should abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. If suffrage was one of these privileges or immunities, why amend the Constitution to prevent its being denied on account of race &c.? Nothing is more evident than that the greater must include the less, and if all were already protected, why go through with the form of amending the Constitution to protect a part?”
this case establishes VERY WELL that the 14th Amendment created a new and different “citizen” who was similar to a “Citizen” but not one.
Why, after the 14th amendment, which appeared to make all citizens equal, did we need a 15th amendment to allow black men to vote, and later a 17th amendment to allow women to vote if the 14th made all citizens the same?!!!
I think if the 14th Amendment had used a capital “C” in citizen, that the courts would have had no choice but to rule that a black man, or a woman, would then be eligible for the office of President under Article I, § 8.:
“No person except a natural-born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,”
Does Title 8 apply to Nationality or domicile?
I would say it may apply to both. Many of the sections of Title 8 refer to issues that are certainly based on domicile, rather than nationality:
TITLE 8—ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
* CHAPTER 2—ELECTIVE FRANCHISE (§ 31,_32)
* CHAPTER 3—CIVIL RIGHTS (§§ 41_to_43—53_to_56)
* CHAPTER 4—FREEDMEN (§ 61_to_65)
* CHAPTER 5—ALIEN OWNERSHIP OF LAND (§§ 71_to_78—83_to_86)
* CHAPTER 6—IMMIGRATION (§§ 100,_101—241_to_246)“Elective Franchise”, “Civil Rights” and so on. Although many of these sections are repealed or moved, it at least implies that the INTENT of Title 8 was to deal with domicile, and agencies of D.C., ie “Immigration and Naturalization Service”, which is “domiciled” in D.C.
Also see 8 CFR:
TITLE 8 – ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
CHAPTER I – DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
SUBCHAPTER B – IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS
PART 213A – AFFIDAVITS OF SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF IMMIGRANTS
213a.1 – Definitions.As used in this part, the term: Domicile means the place where a sponsor has a residence, as defined in section 101(a)(33) of the Act, in the United States, with the intention to maintain that residence for the foreseeable future, provided, that a permanent resident who is living abroad temporarily shall be considered to be domiciled in the United States if the permanent resident has applied for and obtained the preservation of residence benefit under section 316(B ) or section 317 of the Act, and provided further, that a citizen who is living abroad temporarily shall be considered to be domiciled in the United States if the citizen’s employment abroad meets the requirements of section 319(B )(1) of the Act.
SEE USC Title 8, 1101, 46(B )(1)(c )
“(c ) a child legitimated under the law of the child’s residence or domicile, or under the law of the father’s residence or domicile, whether in or outside the United States, if such legitimation takes place before the child reaches the age of eighteen years and the child is in the legal custody of the legitimating parent or parents at the time of such legitimation; “
With regard to the case law you provided:
“For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words ‘subject,’ ‘inhabitant,’ and ‘citizen’ have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.”
Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874)This is where I have a disagreement, rather a debate, with others here. I think the word “citizen” as used in the 14th Amendment, purposely used a lower case “c” to differentiate from the “we the people” Citizen (who had all rights, including suffrage). I think this happened because the people writing this amendment weren’t writing it for themselves, but rather for the slaves, who certainly were not “we the people” Citizens:
from SEDM.org “…Capitalization is therefore always relative to who is writing the document, which is usually the Sovereign and is therefore capitalized.”
With this idea as my basis for thought, and my belief that rarely does the Supreme court rule incorrectly, I would agree with the above cite, but keep in mind that it says “When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.” If you read the entire case, you will see that a “citizen of the United States” in this sense, was based on whether a women or a slave, at the time the Constitution was written, was simply occupying a physical place in the country as a member of the community with or without constitutional protection.
You will also note, as the outcome points out, that she was not a “we the people” “Citizen of the United States”. This implies, at least to me, that the term “citizen” may be used as an arbitrary word, but when it comes to specific law (or the Constitution in this case) that the term “citizen of the United States” is much more specific.
This bolsters the concern that the “citizen” that USC Title 8 is referring to AT LEAST may be a specific “citizen”.
I found the most interesting part of this case to be here:
“Allegiance and protection are in this connection reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.” http://supreme.justi…8/162/case.html
This supports my earlier contention that, in exchange for the protection by the embassy that we Americans receive while using the passport (in all cases while outside the physical U.S.), whether or not “citizens of the United States” or “nationals of the United States”, or even “native Americans”, we owe an allegiance to that protector, as required in USC Title 22, 212.
In conclusion, because we dont know whether or not USC Title 8 applies to “Domicile”, or to USC Title 22, it is in our best interest to protect ourselves from the possibility that it does by using an attachment.
SIDE NOTE, this case establishes VERY WELL that the 14th Amendment created a new and different “citizen”
Why, after the 14th amendment, which appeared to make all citizens equal, did we need a 15th amendment to allow black men to vote, and later a 17th amendment to allow women to vote if the 14th made all citizens the same?!!!
I do agree with Neo that the responses on some forums are a little harsh, especially when simply asking questions…but, with that said, I think that Neos premise:
Quote:I now have come to the conclusion that we ARE “citizens and nationals of the United States” pursuant to 8 USC 1401Is absolutely false!!! Remember, we're dealing with legislators that have convinced virtually all Americans that they need a license to get married and to operate a private automobile, these are the same legislators that have convinced all Americans that they need permission (permit) from the government to put in a driveway, fix their roof, side their house, put up a fence, put in a well, fish, hunt, etc. These are the same legislators that have used words of art to get all Americans to pay a tax on their private property (of course the property tax is actually a tax on the privilege of transferring property and having the county recorder and the state protect that transfer each year), These are the same legislators that have removed the words “mean and include” from the tax statutes, purposely to trick Americans into giving their hard earned money away to the government, which is actually a private corporation, thanks to these same legislators:
Because of all of this, and a thousand times more, it is sort of a slap in the face to come here and say that we ARE
Quote:citizens and nationals of the United States” pursuant to 8 USC 1401based on Black's law definition of “nationality” and Title 22, 212. These codes that continually refer to other sections, other codes, other chapters, etc. could have simply said:
No passport shall be granted or issued to or verified for any other persons than those owing allegiance to the United States as described in 1101(a)(22) of Title 8.
But as I mentioned in my previous post, I think this is another trick, perhaps to get people to presume, as Neo did, that we must be title 8 nationals and citizens of the United States.
Im sure Neo is correct (from his first comment) that checking the citizen box and leaving off the Social Security number will get you a passport no problem, but we must NEVER make such presumptions, nor allow that a piece of case law, and a definition in Black's law coupled with the USC equates to absolute fact. I think we would ALL agree that if there is a way for the govt. to get you into their exclusive jurisdiction, they will.
I do disagree with Author #2 a tad, that Neo is “the harlot”
and I don't personally have anything against Federal Personnel, and I wouldnt even have anything against the ENTIRE system if:1. all of the words of art were removed,
2. and everyone knew full well that when becoming Federal Personnel you give up your rights,
3. and that Social Security was voluntary,
4. and that by joining it you would be liable for a tax,
5. and that if you engage in commerce on the roads that you need a license,
6. and if you want the city inspectors to make sure your roof is done right that you need a permit,
7. and so on.
BUT with the current system, that is full of tricks, we can never be too safe.
Dont forget that we were all probably “Federal Personnel” at one time!
Quote:USC Title 5, 552(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).
I would also add that the language in Title 22, 212 is very vague, and does not describe in what manner “allegiance” is determined. It does not require that a declaration of allegiance be written, or that any other evidence of allegiance as described in USC Title 8 be prepared, it simply states that one must have allegiance to the “United States”.
Code:TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 4 > § 212
§ 212. Persons entitled to passport
No passport shall be granted or issued to or verified for any other persons than those owing allegiance, whether citizens or not, to the United States.Because of this, a “non-citizen national” can still owe allegiance to the United States in certain circumstances or situations. Since the Passport is used for activity involving foreign countries, where “United States*” has a meaning different than “a federal corporation”, Americans become reliant on the “United States”* for specific matters. This reliance creates an allegiance to the “United States*” in this sense of the word:
Quote:United States. This term has several meanings. [1]* It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations, [2]** it may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or [3]*** it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252.The United States embassies are what we state Citizens would rely on in the event of a problem while in a foreign country. I think, for this reason, state citizens DO owe allegiance to the “United States*” for the purpose of a Passport.
Because “United States” has so many different meanings, and because we do not want to allow for presumptions, we MUST clarify what “United States” we are owing allegiance to when securing a passport.
and I don't personally have anything against Federal Personnel, and I wouldnt even have anything against the ENTIRE system if: