neo
Forum Replies Created
jb,
I see what you are saying. I think it would be great if they repealed all of those amendments, and moved forward with the premise that all men(women too) are created equally. Let's be real honest though. We know that this is sinful and fallen world. I think we can all comfortably say that the 14th Amendment, and certainly the 16th have at least a modicum of obfuscation surrounding their application.
The “conspiracy theorist” in me wants to believe that there is this elite-banker class of people who truly live in this country as kings . . . and their perspective is that the vast majority of people need to be ruled and lorded over. Being as objective about this as I can, I can't say I disagree with them. The information that I have is constantly being shared with those I consider to be on a higher intellectual level than most . . . and their attitude is, “… oh well, they'll just change the law …” or “… well, what can I do about it…” — and then they resume their fantasy football or college football “opiate drip.” With this type of attitude, it's no wonder that we all find ourselves ensnared by a “scheme of legislation” by which many (not all) are brought under the full authority of Congress.
Yes, Congress essentially enacts the amendments, but only as agents of “We the People”. Citizenship is commuted to the inhabitants of Federal territories ex proprio vigore by an “Act of Congress” … but the chains that bind are only binding if they choose to keep their domicile and characterization as someone on Federal territory. They can, in fact, be domiciled on Union state land, and adopt and procure the rights of Union state Citizenship.
Let's be real for a second about what that affords. I don't think you disagree that the real issue here is financial slavery and total financial control by the elite.
1. Do you admit that a Union state Citizen is a “nonresident alien” for the purposes of the Federal Income Tax?
2. Do you admit that a “nonresident alien” does not have to provide a SSN/TIN for non “trade or business” activity?
3. Do you admit that a “nonresident alien” who is effectively connected with the conduct of a “trade or business” must provide a SSN/TIN?
4. Do you admit there are provisions under the tax code to allow for the actualization of those two statuses?
5. Do you admit that the biggest barrier to overcome is communicating the difference between nationality and statutory citizenship to a gatekeeper?
6. Do you admit that nationality (14th Amendment citizenship) and statutory citizenship are two mutually exclusive things?
If you admitted to the aforementioned, then that's really the end of it. Because this is all about escaping the financial slave grid that is being created by the citizenship/tax obfuscation.
The authors of this amendment don't care about rights. They care about money and control. And that's really what the existence on this earth is all about for those who don't love their neighbor or wish to glorify the true and living God.
This citizenship game is about creating false presumption that can be exploited in favor of the architects. I can't think of instances where the confusion has ever gone in favor the other way. If you can corral a country full of separate and independent sovereigns into adopting a moniker that designates them as one and confuse them in the process, you can then shy them away from the “nonresident alien” designation that is 100% the key to escaping this type of financial control. All of the legislation is working beautifully together to enslave the people. I think it's by design. Yet, there is a remedy for everyone under the law. One just has to keep the terms and contexts straight.
It is what it is. They created the 14th Amendment, so there is no denying it. To deny your 14th Amendment citizenship IMMEDIATELY strips one of their credibility. I will not do it. Instead, I will embrace it, admit to it, and articulately educate others about the difference. That's really all you can do! Beyond that, you're called to suffer and glorify God! If you speak the truth in this fallen world, you will be persecuted, because the world loves the darkness, the politics, and the lies.
I don't really disagree with anything you said. It just doesn't really matter though, because 14th Amendment citizenship is a super-set of statutory “citizenship” and Union state Citizenship. Both of the latter are contained in the former. Just like the Corvette and the Equinox are both Chevys. It just so happens that one of the Chevys is better than the other.
Can a 14th Amendment citizen have an inferior status to that of a Union state Citizen? Absolutely . . . if you are talking about a 14th Amendment citizen that is a statutory “citizen.”
Can a 14th Amendment citizen have the same status as a Union state Citizen? Absolutely . . . if you are referring to a 14th Amendment citizen that IS a Union state Citizen.
Can a 14th Amendment citizen who was a Federal “citizen” and negro have an inferior status to that of a Union state Citizen? Yes! But ONLY by virtue of the statutory “citizen” status coupled with no voting rights. But that is all moot now!
As for not depending on the 14th Amendment when overseas . . . you can say that . . . but the reality of the matter is that you ARE a 14th Amendment citizen and nothing will change the government's mind on that. To dispute it makes you look like a Patriot whacko (my opinion — no offense). Rather than deny the truth of the matter. Embrace it, and be able to justify why NATIONALITY/POLITICAL status is mutually exclusive from DOMICILE/CIVIL STATUS by an articulate and well supported legal argument.
They have been able to create the confusion by creating sets within a superset, and then using non-specific language which can be interchanged depending on context. This gives the Satanists the ability to twist words, phrases, and meanings for their own self-serving agenda.
Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.
jb,
A) Fourteenth Amndt citizenship COULD be a stepping stone for statutory citizenship, but it doesn't have to be. It really depends on which political subdivision is at issue — United States** or United States***. Remember though, within the context of the 14th Amendment they are talking about POLITICAL JURISDICTION because they are talking about NATIONALITY. It cannot be LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION because in a Federal Government, POLITICAL JURISDICTION and LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION are two mutually exclusive things — there is ZERO CONNECTION!!! United States** is a subset of United States*. United States*** is also a subset of United States*, thus, the only way Fourteenth Amendment citizenship could be used as a stepping stone for statutory citizenship is through an unrebutted presumption or failure on one's part to clarify POLITICAL JURISDICTION from LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION. It's really that simple. Let the other party figure out what they mean . . . they're the one's that think it's one-in-the-same. That's their problem, not yours.
B ) The reality of our world today is everyone has some type of Federal Rights or Jurisdiction involved. The Founder's didn't intend for you to be completely isolated from the Federal Government . . . just that they be limited with powers few and defined. JB, do you travel outside of the country? If you do, you fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. More specifically, you fall directly under the Executive Branch through the United States Embassies of the Department of State. As an American “national” abroad, you are afforded protection from the state in exchange for your allegiance. Thus your 14th Amendment citizenship (read NATIONALITY) is what will save your bacon when you do need “Uncle” to help you out. The Federal Government can be your friend.
C) JB, I agree with you about the capitalization thing. So use this as a clue to context and applicability. Fourteenth Amendment “citizenship” is really NATIONALITY commuted to Union state Citizens through the Fourteenth Amendment. That same “citizenship” is commuted ex proprio vigore to a statutory “citizen” through an “Act of Congress”. Fourteenth Amendment citizenship (NATIONALITY) is only as beneficial in-and-of-itself as its weakest option within the nation (statutory citizenship). If you want the souped-up version, go for Union state Citizenship and make sure you clarify your STATUTORY CIVIL STATUS. Let the capitalization be your guide with regard to context.
By the way. I can't think of ONE reason to ever affirm you are a “U.S. Citizen” with the exception of a DS-11. And even then, I would define the term to mean “national” of the United States of America pursuant to 8 USC 1101(a)(21) and is affirmed ONLY IN A POLITICAL CONTEXT. I would then clarify my STATUTORY CIVIL STATUS as that of a “non-citizen national” pursuant to 8 USC 1452 and an “alien” pursuant to 8 USC 1101(a)(3).
I like the monkey at the zoo analogy. Great example!
jb,
I agree. I think there is something to it.
1. A “citizen” of the United States* is the superset, and only as good/free/beneficial as its weakest link, #2.
2. the “citizen” of the United States**, a subset of United States*, and its superior but stealthy neighbor, #3.
3. the “Citizen” of a Union state, or the United States***, also a subset of the United States*
The sleight of hand occurs when a Union state “Citizen” affirms he is a United States* “citizen” for POLITICAL PURPOSES, which he IN FACT IS!! The spelling and capitalization are identical to the statutory United States** “citizen” for STATUTORY/CIVIL PURPOSES, thus it is almost a certainty that the masses will affirm this status. Plus, nobody knows this stuff . . . especially the “gatekeepers” at the SSA, DMV, DOS, HR, Bank Customer Service, etc.
JB, I do not believe the solution is to deny 14th Amendment Citizenship. This is what the 'patriot-whackos' do (myself being dangerously close to that characterization at one point). Accept it for what it is, a clever scheme, and deal with it. We have no choice! IT IS THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION!!!
It's very easy to clarify one's status on any form. Affirm “Yes” in the POLITICAL sense, and “No” in a STATUTORY sense. Claim to be a POLITICAL “national” pursuant to 8 USC 1101(a)(21), and a STATUTORY “non-citizen national” pursuant to 8 USC 1452. This describes perfectly what a Union state “Citizen” is both lawfully and legally. The truth is what it is!
It's easy. You could almost go somewhere and have a nifty ink-stamp made and start stamping EVERYTHING with it!!!
JB,
Here's what I believe is going on — read this very, very carefully!! Multiple times and slowly!!
Regarding the Slaughterhouse cite. If you think about it, it makes total sense. The 14th applies to NATIONALITY. I don't think you will deny that. Within the NATION lies the 50 Union states, AND the Territories and possessions. You are correct that Union state Citizenship is superior to nationality, but it does not change the fact that you ARE a “national” because of the provisions of the 14th Amendment. As someone domiciled on the 50 states, you are afforded more rights than those of the Territories, thus, the strength of your NATIONALITY comes from your domicile. It's not that the NATIONALITY weakens you, but because the NATION comprises two political subdivisions, NATIONALITY can only be as good as the lowest class of citizen, thus the 14th Amendment deals with “citizens”. The territories are the “weakest link” in the chain if you will, thus the 14th Amendment “citizenship” must accommodate all parties. If you choose to be domiciled upon the Union, your “citizenship” has extra powers afforded to you by that choice because of the Constitution — it was there before NATIONALITY was dreamed up and established by the 14th Amndt. It's not that your NATIONALITY somehow denigrates you. It has to be lesser because it comprises everyone. It can only be as good as the lowest common denominator for whom the NATIONALITY represents with regard to rights afforded under law.
You said it yourself:
“All Corvettes are Chevys … but not all Chevys are Corvettes.” Just because you drive a Chevy Equinox doesn't make my Corvette any less superior. You decided to drive a Chevy because that's the brand where your ALLEGIANCE lies. However, it was your choice to buy an “Equinox” (Federal Territory), while I chose to drive a Corvette (50 states). We all know the Corvette is superior, even though it's a Chevy. For this reason, Chevy cannot boast Corvette performance for all of their cars. They have to only extend the following provisions: They all have 4 wheels, they all are made in Detroit, they all have a steering wheel, etc. They cannot say that all Chevys have 400 hp, two doors, are convertible, and have tires which are 18 inches wide. This only applies to the Corvettes (the Union states).
So, I do believe your assertions about the 'Capitalization' of the term “citizen/Citizen” has merit. I DO NOT believe that in-and-of-itself it should be the basis of a legal strategy, but rather, a clue as to context from which to establish your tactics for eliminating false presumptions. You're right, it is absolutely NOT an accident that they write it that way. Unfortunately, it is so confusing because a 14th “citizen” looks the same on paper as a statutory “citizen.” So knowing the context, NATIONALITY v. DOMICILE will be key in determining which “citizen” they are talking about. And you cannot deny that you are a 14th “citizen” because you are …. whether you like it or not!
Just remember that because of the 14th Amendment, the “citizen” (little-c) becomes the main set … and it includes the statutory “citizen” of the Federal Territories (subset). Whereas the “Citizen” of the Constitution (big-c) is also a subset (and superior to) to the generic, standard options of the 14th Amendment “citizen”.
So, the Citizen, is the Union state Citizen, who is also a “citizen” of the Nation. But be careful, because a statutory “citizen” is also a “citizen” of the Nation.
There is no way around this being the truth of the matter. Use it to your advantage. Knowledge is power, and now that you know that a “Citizen” is a subset of the 14th Amendment “citizen”, always clarify your context. As Admin says, do NOT give them any wiggle room to abuse the presumption.
It's a beautiful scheme. I actually enjoy it for what it is — it's friggin' brilliant. Don't fight the Government or paint yourself as a conspiracy theorist. Simply use the distinction to establish context, and always discriminate between being a NATIONAL “citizen” which may or may not be a statutory “citizen”. You are in fact a NATIONAL “citizen” and a Union state “Citizen”.
JB,
I think all of that has merit. But to me it is very easily explained. With regard to the 14th Amendment, there are citizens, and there are Citizens within the United States*. If you affirm you are a “United States Citizen”, someone (either on purpose or out of ignorance) is going to presume you are a statutory “citizen.”
It's like if I held a ball behind my back, and then asked you which hand it was in. If you say the left, I quickly move it to the right and say, “Nope, you're wrong. Guess again!” When you say right, I quickly move it to the left and say, “Nope, you're wrong. Guess again!” And so it goes ad infinitum, whereby you never win! Don't give them that wiggle room. You can't win by simply answering the question one way or the other. A declaration or definition has to be issued by you on the form to preclude any self-serving presumption by those who wish to abuse you.
With regard to the question, “Are you a U.S. Citizen?”
You say “yes,” and the government self-servingly 'pigeon holes' you into a statutory United States** “citizen” designation. If you say “no,” they're just going to embarrass you and tell you that if you were born in California, that you are a Citizen pursuant to the 14th Amendment. They will do the same thing to anyone who tries this same baloney from within Federal Territory, of course their “citizenship” (read nationality) is NOT extended by the 14th Amendment, but ex proprio vigore through an express “Act of Congress” — but the result is the same. I would say the little ruse has served them well for 150 years. But the jig is up. And any “bad guys” reading this thread now know it!!!
Do the same thing to them that they do to everyone else. Tell them, “We're not going to talk about the Constitution today. Since we're here for a legal purpose, let's keep it limited to statutory terms.” And if they insist on pressing the 14th Amendment, tell them that the 14th commutes NATIONALITY, and that term is statutorily defined as a “national,” and defines your political status within the national body-politic. Then tell them that if they want to know your civil status, they had better regard the proper domicile upon the political subdivision within the national body-politic.
I'm quite certain this will cause them to fold their tents and leave. I'm also quite certain not one in 50 U.S. Attorneys understands this material as well as you do. So, take them downtown to Chinatown!! 🙂
You're right. The term ex proprio vigore itself has proven pretty elusive in the 'Insular Cases' themselves, although the concept is manifest throughout. Below is the only actual example of the ex proprio vigore language I could find . . . and I didn't even list this one in my previous post. Sorry about that!
Quote:The question before us, therefore, is: Has Congress, since the Foraker Act of April 12, 1900 (31 Stat. 77), enacted legislation incorporating Porto Rico into the Union? Counsel for the plaintiff in error give, in their brief, an extended list of acts, to which we shall refer later, which they urge as indicating a purpose to make the island a part of the United States, but they chiefly rely on the Organic Act of Porto Rico of March 2, 1917 (38 Stat. 951), known as the Jones Act. [258 U.S. 298, 306] The act is entitled 'An act to provide a civil government for Porto Rico and for other purposes.' It does not indicate by its title that it has a purpose to incorporate the island into the Union. It does not contain any clause which declares such purpose or effect. While this is not conclusive, it strongly tends to show that Congress did not have such an intention. Few questions have been the subject of such discussion and dispute in our country as the status of our territory acquired from Spain in 1899. The division between the political parties in respect to it, the diversity of the views of the members of this court in regard to its constitutional aspects, and the constant recurrence of the subject in the Houses of Congress, fixed the attention of all on the future relation of this acquired territory to the United States. Had Congress intended to take the important step of changing the treaty status of Porto Rico by incorporating it into the Union, it is reasonable to suppose that it would have done so by the plain declaration, and would not have left it to mere inference. Before the question became acute at the close of the Spanish War, the distinction between acquisition and incorporation was not regarded as important, or at least it was not fully understood and had not aroused great controversy. Before that, the purpose of Congress might well be a matter of mere inference from various legislative acts; but in these latter days, incorporation is not to be assumed without express declaration, or an implication so strong as to exclude any other view.Again, the second section of the act is called a 'Bill of Rights,' and included therein is substantially every one of the guaranties of the federal Constitution, except those relating to indictment by a grand jury in the case of infamous crimes and the right of trial by jury in civil and criminal cases. If it was intended to incorporate Porto Rico into the Union by this act, which would ex proprio vigore make applicable the whole Bill of Rights [258 U.S. 298, 307] of the Constitution to the island, why was it thought necessary to create for it a Bill of Rights and carefully exclude trial by jury? In the very forefront of the act is this substitute for incorporation and application of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. This seems to us a conclusive argument against the contention of counsel for the plaintiff in error.
BALZAC v. PEOPLE OF PORTO RICO, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)
The 'Citizenship Clause' isn't extended to Puerto Rico until the Jones-Shafroth Act of 1917 (39 Stat. 951, Sec. 5). In this Act, Congress extends 'United States Citizenship' (read 'nationality') to the inhabitants of Puerto Rico through an express application (ex proprio vigore) of the 'Citizenship Clause' of the 14th Amendment.
Here's what it says:
Quote:Sec. 5. That all citizens of Porto Rico, as defined by section seven of the Act of April twelfth, nineteen hundred, “temporarily to provide revenues and a civil government for Porto Rico, and for other purposes,” and all natives of Porto Rico who were temporarily absent from that island on April eleventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and have since returned and are permanently residing in that island, and are not citizens of any foreign country, are hereby declared, and shall be deemed and held to be, citizens of the United States : Provided, That any person hereinbefore described may retain his present political status by making a declaration, under oath, of his decision to do so within six months of the taking effect of this Act before the district court in the district in which he resides, the declaration to be in form as follows :“I,____________, being duly sworn, hereby declare my intention not to become a citizen of the United States as provided in the Act of Congress conferring United States citizenship upon citizens of Porto Rico and certain natives permanently residing in said island.”
In the case of any such person who may be absent from the island during said six months the term of this proviso may be availed of by transmitting a declaration, under oath, in the form herein provided within six months of the taking effect of this Act to secretary of Porto Rico: And provided further, That any person who is born in Porto Rico of an alien parent and is permanently residing in that island may, if of full age, within six months of the taking effect of this Act, or if a minor, upon reaching his majority or within one year thereafter, make a sworn declaration of allegiance to the United States before the United States District Court for Porto Rico, setting forth therein all the facts connected with his or her birth and residence in Porto Rico and accompanying due proof thereof, and from and after the making of such declaration shall be considered to be a citizen of the United States.
I think the proper application of the ex proprio vigore concept really does a good job of reconciling the 'conflict' and inherent confusion that I know I had! I knew the final answer . . . I just couldn't connect the dots in between. Now I can! It's like the Murphy v. Ramsey 114 U.S. 15 (1885) case says, it's all a constitutional franchise granted by Congress!! I think this is wonderful news, and really pulls back the curtain on the 14th Amendment in a BIG, BIG way!!!
I really appreciate the tenacity and thoughtful posts by both sides. I spent days and days reading and re-reading those posts . . . trying to reconcile the answer myself. I never would have been able to come up with this without that exchange. Thanks to both Admin and JB for great work!
- Quote:“As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”
— Proverbs 27:17
Please prayerfully consider the following post. I believe this is the explanation we are all looking for and will bring this thread to a beautiful and eloquent close incorporating all perspectives into a satisfactory package that brings all case law, and all other points brought up into reconciliation with one another.
Here it goes…
Admin has stated that the United States as used in the Constitution does NOT include the Federal Territories. This citation supports that.
Quote:“As the only judicial power vested in Congress is to create courts whose judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, it necessarily follows that, if Congress authorizes the creation of courts and the appointment of judges for limited time, it must act independently of the Constitution upon territory which is not part of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution.”[O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 53 S.Ct. 740 (1933)]
But, the 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution, and JB points out the following from the Department of State:
Quote:U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 – Consular Affairs(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization.
(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 – Consular Affairs 7 FAM 1110 Page 3 of 13 territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that (B ) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child's parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
So we find ourselves on the “horns of a dilemma.”
1. Federal Territories are NOT within the meaning of the United States as used in the Constitution.
However,
2. Those born or naturalized in Federal Territories procure “Citizenship” (really nationality) just like those in the Union.
So we are left to conclude that the Federal Territories are also included within the meaning of the 14th Amendment despite numerous clear court rulings to the contrary.
But don't forget the following:
From 1901 – 1905, the Supreme Court in a series of opinions known as the Insular Cases held that the Constitution extended ex proprio vigore to the territories. See De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901); Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222 (1901); Armstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243 (1901); Downes v. Bidwell,182 U. S. 244 (1901); Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903); Dorr v. United States 195 U.S. 138(1904); Goetze v. United States, 182 U.S. 221 (1901); Huss v. New York and Puerto Rico S.S. Co., 182 U.S. 392 (1901); and Rasmussen v. United States, 197 U. S. 516 (1905).
Go and read any Organic Act that extended rights and established Constitutional Franchises (see Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885)) to any of the unincorporated territories. Congress, in the process “cherry picks” what aspects of the Constitution are going to apply to each territory. INCLUDED IN THESE ACTS IS THE “CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.”
So here is what is going on — Admin is right, only the Union states are within the meaning of United States as used in the Constitution, thus, by virtue of State Citizenship, nationality is commuted by the 14th Amendment. NATIONALITY!!! NOTHING SINISTER . . . NO CONSPIRACY!!!
JB is also right, inhabitants of the territories and possessions are also being naturalized (commuting of nationality) just like inhabitants of the States of the Union. But it is occurring ex proprio vigore through an “Act of Congress” — commuting a Constitutional Franchise through Congressional authority but it is NOT occurring through the 14th Amendment … it is occurring through the “citizenship clause” of the 14th Amendment ex proprio vigore! Big difference — same final result … plus extra confusion for the vast majority of those who care to delve into the topic. Until now!!!
Finally, I would like you all to consider the following alternative analysis of an oft quoted portion of the Wong Kim Ark ruling, and how I believe it is appropriately interpreted.
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 (POLITICAL JURISDICTION).' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States (GOVERNMENT), but completely subject to their (THE GOVERNMENT'S) political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance (NOT IN A STATUTORY WAY, BUT AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE NATIONAL BODY-POLITIC … AS OPPOSED TO ALLEGIANCE TO THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT). And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898) ]
Now, in view of all of this. Please print up the following attachment. Read the two pages very carefully. Then take the “citizenship model” (pg. 2) and go back and reference the entire thread.
You will see it brings the entire dispute to a close, and brings EVERYTHING into perfect harmony with absolutely NO dispute with case law, legal definitions, the Dept of State Foreign Affairs Manual . . . or anything else for that matter.
Again, the key to understanding the confusion is this:
1. The 14th Amendment applies DIRECTLY to State Citizens of the 50 Union states.
2. The “Citizenship Clause” of the 14th Amendment applies to the intended audience of a particular “Act of Congress” ex proprio vigore, and not DIRECTLY by the 14th Amendment itself. A very big distinction!
As I stated in the post above:
Quote:The only thing I am still having problems with is how to reconcile and logically explain how a citizen of American Samoa and Swains Island — a “national” of the United States*, is not a “citizen of the United States” when “14th Amendment Citizenship” is used to commute a Constitutional State Citizen and a “citizen” of a US** Territory into a “national” of the United States*. The Am Sams and other Citizens (Constitutional and Statutory) end up with the same political status in the end — “national” of the United States*. The only way to reconcile this is to say that 14th Amendment Citizenship is more accurately referred to as 14th Amendment Nationality, and constitutional citizenship applies to Union domiciliaries and statutory citizenship applies to US** Territory domiciliaries, but both obtain nationality through the 14th Amendment.
Section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act:
Quote:The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B ) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
This seems to be the best way to reconcile the apparent conflict. In the above statement, they are not referring to 14th Amendment Citizenship when referencing (A) a citizen of the United States, but statutory citizenship, thus citizens of American Samoa and Swains Island are afforded the appellation of “national of the United States**” by qualifying through the provisions of (B ) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
14th Amendment Citizenship MUST refer to nationality . . . there is no other way around it. It's the only way to reconcile everything.
State Citizenship avails one to the 14th Amendment and being a “national” of the United States*
An “Act of Congress” avails one to the 14th Amendment and being a “national” of the United States*
And Section 101(a)(22)(B ), also an “Act of Congress”, avails those not enumerated in (A) into a “national of the United States**” which is also a “national” of the United States*, yet arriving there separate and apart from the provisions of the 14th Amendment. This is why 8 USC 1101(a)(22) had to be created. It looks identical to 8 USC 1101(a)(21), yet it is not. Very sneeky!!!
It appears the problem has to do with accepting only ONE context of United States within the meaning of the Constitution when clearly there are three that I can see.
United States – the Union or 'States united' as in the Preamble
United States – the government as in IV:3:2; “… nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States…”
United States – the nation as in the 14th Amendment
There are certainly instances and contexts within the Constitution and relative Supreme Court jurisprudence when the “United States” refers to the Union and the context does not extend beyond that. Below is such an instance:
Quote:The same rule was applied to citizens of territories in New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91, 4 L. ed. 44 , in which an attempt was made to distinguish a territory from the District of Columbia. But it was said that 'neither of them is a state in the sense in which that term is used in the Constitution.' In Scott v. Jones, 5 How. 343, 12 L. ed. 181 , and in Miners' Bank v. Iowa ex rel. District Prosecuting Attorney, 12 How. 1, 13 L. ed. 867 , it was held that under the judiciary act, permitting writs of error to the supreme court of a state in cases where the validity of a state statute is drawn in question, an act of a territorial legislature was not within the contemplation of Congress.”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
Ok…no problem here. They're just saying territories are not states within the meaning of the Constitution. This does not conflict within the context of the 14th Amndt if the United States being referred to is the national body-politic and the political jurisdiction it possesses. The Union is just a political subdivision of the nation as are the territories.
The following quote may be causing us to be limited in our perspective:
Quote:“As the only judicial power vested in Congress is to create courts whose judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, it necessarily follows that, if Congress authorizes the creation of courts and the appointment of judges for limited time, it must act independently of the Constitution upon territory which is not part of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution.”
[O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 53 S.Ct. 740 (1933)]
Let's VERY CAREFULLY consider what they are saying here. It does NOT say “…which is not part of the United States within the SOLE meaning of the Constitution.” It is just referring to the Union state/United States meaning within THAT CONTEXT. We know that territories are not part of the Union — and this is what they are saying here. They are not referring to the national body-politic. They are merely comparing the difference between the two political subdivisions within the national body-politic. Again, context is key!
Let's examine again the language of the 14th:
Quote:All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
There are five scenarios for the application of this with regard to political status:
1. Born in the Union (within US*) jus soli — Constitutional State Citizen and “national” of the United States*
2. Born in a territory (within US*) jus soli — “national” of the United States* and statutory “citizen” but NOT Constitutional State Citizen
3. Born abroad (without US*) jus sanguinis — Nationality commuted by father who is a “national” of the United States*
4. Naturalized in either the United States** or the United States*** (there is no other possibility as both are within the United States*)
5. Born in a possession (within US*) — “national” of the United States* but not a “citizen” or Constitutional State Citizen
This last instance is what makes this whole thing problematic and exposes the whole scheme for what it is . . . a ruse to exploit Americans for money. The 14th Amendment commutes 'citizenship' in the national body-politic, and this is really called nationality. So how does one reconcile a citizen of American Samoa and Swains Island? A citizen of American Samoa and Swains Island is a “national” of the United States*, yet they claim they are not “citizens.” How can you have it both ways? Either 14th Amendment Citizenship commutes “nationality” within the United States* body-politic or it commutes citizenship in the United States*** political subdivision. The latter cannot be the case because the fourth word in the 14th Amndt clause above says 'naturalized' — and this has to do with nationality. Constitutional State Citizenship opens the gateway for the 14th Amendment to apply. Whereas an “Act of Congress” is what opens the gateway for the 14th Amendment to apply to “citizens” of U.S.** Territories.
This whole thing deals ONLY with political jurisdiction, therefore the Constitutional provision deals with nationality. Nationality is not State Citizenship. State Citizenship is Citizenship within the United States***, a political subdivision of the United States*. Statutory citizenship in the United States** (political subdivision of the United States*) imputes nationality and political status within the political jurisdiction of the United States*. We know the Constitution is a political document, and not a statutory one, thus political jurisdiction is the ONLY thing referred to in any context with regard to the 14th Amendment, therefore it must apply only to nationality.
I do believe jb and Admin are both right . . . but there is a contextual argument going on over the meaning of “United States” that is stemming from a belief that there is ONLY one meaning within the Constitution. This is clearly NOT the case, and as Admin continually points out, context is the key. And this is especially important with regard to understanding what the Supreme Court is saying and not arbitrarily extending the meaning beyond the clear import of the language being used so as to broaden the scope to subjects NOT intended by Congress.
The only thing I am still having problems with is how to reconcile and logically explain how a citizen of American Samoa and Swains Island — a “national” of the United States*, is not a “citizen of the United States” when “14th Amendment Citizenship” is used to commute a Constitutional State Citizen and a “citizen” of a US** Territory into a “national” of the United States*. The Am Sams and other Citizens (Constitutional and Statutory) end up with the same political status in the end — “national” of the United States*. The only way to reconcile this is to say that 14th Amendment Citizenship is more accurately referred to as 14th Amendment Nationality, and constitutional citizenship applies to Union domiciliaries and statutory citizenship applies to US** Territory domiciliaries, but both obtain nationality through the 14th Amendment.
It would appear that the provisions of the 14th Amendment are among those fundamental provisions of the Constitution extended to Territories whereas the operation of those political rights are extended only as franchises. But I can only conclude that the 14th Amendment applies to United States** Territories as well as those within the Union.
Attached is an Opinion/Order from a United States District Court Judge from San Juan dated Oct 10, 2008. In his “opinion”, it appears he is engaged in nothing more than wishful thinking with regard to the reality of the status of Puerto Rico. He is complaining about a court mandate that two Federally Qualified Health Centers in Puerto Rico pay Medicaid wraparound payments — payments which apparently are much more imposing on the government and people of Puerto Rico than they are in the Union. He complains about the “equal protection” clause not being properly applied.
What's interesting is that the opinion gives a very detailed history of Puerto Rico's status vis a vis the United States, and talks about the Jones-Sanforth Act of 1917 whereby United States Citizenship is commuted through “allegiance”, thus they are referring to nationality. The opinion talks about how citizens of Puerto Rico were citizens of Spain at the time the United States obtained control, thus Puerto Rico had a similar status to that of present-day American Samoa and Swains Island — that of alien 'residents' of the United States**.
We know that “nationality” and 14th Amendment Citizenship are NOT the same (Am Sam/Swains Island). So much like the “Chicken and the Egg” analogy — what happens first, nationality or 14th Amendment Citizenship? Or does that occur simultaneously? It would appear from all the court cases that 14th Amendment Citizenship also applies to inhabitants of unincorporated and unorganized territory, but as pointed out by the court in Wong Kim Ark, supra., the domicile determines civil status, thus 14th Amendment Citizenship on U.S. Territory is inferior to that of 14th Amendment Citizenship on the Union — but only by virtue of domicile. Change domicile and improve/denigrate your legal status either for the better or worse, as the case may be.
“Nationality” cannot be the same thing as Constitutional Citizenship, because Citizens of American Samoa and Swains Island are not Constitutional Citizens, yet they have the following statuses:
Political Status: “national” of the United States* – 8 USC 1101(a)(21)
Civil Status: “national of the United States**” – 8 USC 1101(a)(22)
So it must be concluded that nationality and Constitutional Citizenship are NOT the same.
Admin,
I'm not sure I follow this email. Did he refile in the conventional way AFTER he was released from prison? Or has he somehow “gotten away” with not paying per CtC?
I too believe CtC is fatally flawed because of the “U.S. person” implications.
neo
- Quote:The first clause of this [14th] Amendment determines who are citizens of the United States, and how their citizenship is created. Before its enactment there was much diversity of opinion among jurists and statesmen whether there was any such citizenship independent of that of the State, and, if any existed, as to the manner in which it originated. With a great number the opinion prevailed that there was no such citizenship independent of the citizenship of the State. Such was the opinion of Mr. Calhoun and the class represented by him. In his celebrated speech in the Senate upon the Force Bill, in 1833, referring to the reliance expressed by a Senator upon the fact that we are citizens of the United States, he said: “If, by citizen of the United States he means a citizen at large, one whose citizenship extends to the entire geographical limits of the country without having a local citizenship in some State or territory, a sort of citizen of the world, all I have to say is that such a citizen would be a perfect nondescript; that not a single individual of this description can be found in the entire mass of our population. Notwithstanding all the pomp and display of eloquence on the occasion, every citizen is a citizen of some State or Territory, and as such, under an express provision of the Constitution, is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and it is in this and no other sense that we are citizens of the United States.”
[Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)]
This pretty much says it all!
In consideration of my above post, let's consider PRECISELY what the court in Downes v. Bidwell said:
Quote:“The earliest case is that of Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445, 2 L. ed. 332, in which this court held that, under that clause of the Constitution limiting the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States to controversies between citizens of different states, a citizen of the District of Columbia could not maintain an action in the circuit court of the United States. It was argued that the word 'state.' in that connection, was used simply to denote a distinct political society. 'But,' said the Chief Justice, 'as the act of Congress obviously used the word 'state' in reference to that term as used in the Constitution, it becomes necessary to inquire whether Columbia is a state in the sense of that instrument. The result of that examination is a conviction that the members of the American confederacy only are the states contemplated in the Constitution , . . . and excludes from the term the signification attached to it by writers on the law of nations.' This case was followed in Barney v. Baltimore, 6 Wall. 280, 18 L. ed. 825, and quite recently in Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U.S. 395 , 41 L. ed. 1049, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 596. The same rule was applied to citizens of territories in New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91, 4 L. ed. 44, in which an attempt was made to distinguish a territory from the District of Columbia. But it was said that 'neither of them is a state in the sense in which that term is used in the Constitution.' In Scott v. Jones, 5 How. 343, 12 L. ed. 181, and in Miners' Bank v. Iowa ex rel. District Prosecuting Attorney, 12 How. 1, 13 L. ed. 867, it was held that under the judiciary act, permitting writs of error to the supreme court of a state in cases where the validity of a state statute is drawn in question, an act of a territorial legislature was not within the contemplation of Congress.”[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
The court said, “… neither of them is a state…”. They did not say, “…neither of them is a State…”. The Union states of the Constitution are continually referred to with a capital “S” throughout the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court said that neither the District of Columbia or the territories were a “state” . . . but they are “States” from the perspective of the Federal Government. Thus, his statement is technically correct, and does not render my perspective as contradictory. The Insular Cases provide for inclusion of Federal Territories under constitutional protections but only as Congress may prescribe. Well . . . Congress did prescribe that in the 14th Amendment.
All the talk back and forth about subject to ITS jurisdiction, or subject to THE jurisdiction is talking about the same thing … political jurisdiction. The court said so in Wong Kim Ark. Both the “states” and the “States” are members of the body politic, and thus subject to/its/the political jurisdiction. To suggest that court after court after court “misquoted” this and that is 'curve-fitting.' Are all the courts really that incompetent? Or have we possibly made presumptions about what the real issue is here? I tend to believe the latter.
As evidenced by the story I heard yesterday, people are naturalized in Federal Territories, and thus nationality is commuted. The case law proves there are differences between United States citizenship, and state citizenship. Thus, in this context they are referring to the United States** and the Union states (United States***). As said before . . . context, context, context.
The issues discussed in the 13th, 14th, or whatever the case may be are dealing with political jurisdiction as it is a political document. Based on an individuals 14th Amendment citizenship in either the United States** or the United States***, citizenship in the United States* is commuted. It is thus incumbent on the new 14th Amendment citizen to determine his or her domicile, and that ALONE determines the statutory civil status.
This perspective brings all the case law into harmony, and causes no contradiction, thus, it must be true!
I have an interesting perspective I would like all to consider. I have just read through this entire thread again, and I believe I have an idea that may corroborate both perspectives.
We know that nationality and being a “national” is membership to a body politic through allegiance. The nation comprises the territory, the people, and their government — a body politic. The United States of America has two major political subdivisions: The United States** and the United States***.
Here's what I believe may be going on with the Fourteenth Amendment:
A person born or naturalized in the United States** will be a United States** citizen. This is not equivalent to nationality, but this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship to the United States** commutes nationality.
A person born or naturalized in the United States*** will be a United States*** citizen. This is not equivalent to nationality, but this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship to the United States*** commutes nationality.
A citizen of either the United States** or the United States*** is afforded free choice of domicile throughout the nation. A citizen of the United States** can choose to relocate to the United States***, and will then be afforded the protections there, for as we have said in the past . . . the Constitution attaches to the land, not the People.
What we have is a constitutional citizenship within the nation made manifest through the Fourteenth Amendment, and taking place simultaneously in the two major political subdivisions. This citizenship, whether it be in the United States** or the United States*** commutes nationality. When you take this perspective, the conflicts presented by Admin and JB seem to be reconciled. It then becomes a matter of context, and brings all court cases together into harmony. It also explains the apparent conflict and perspectives that many have that Fourteenth Amendment citizenship is inferior to Union state citizenship. It is . . . if you are talking about United States** citizenship. Yet, on the other side of the coin, we have certain case law that talks about the rights accrued to United States*** citizens and Union state citizens, which as we know, are one in the same.
This is what gave me the idea: Today, I was flying with this guy who told me about a good friend of his who was an English National. This man and his wife were living in Guam while he was flying for an Air Carrier there on a Green Card/Work Permit. In time, both he and his wife were naturalized in Guam, and became American Nationals.
What this tells me, is that this English National, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, was a citizen of the “State” of Guam, and of the United States**. As a result of this Fourteenth Amendment United States** citizenship, he is afforded American Nationality. This newly naturalized American National now makes his domicile upon the Union. He is now a citizen of his Union state and the United States***. In either instance, whether naturalized in Guam, or in Kansas, nationality is commuted.
I don't believe Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship is Nationality. I believe Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship is a citizenship within a political subdivision of the nation . . . either United States** or United States***. This in turn, commutes nationality and citizenship in the United States*.
This is the only logical explanation to explain the conflicts presented in the case law.
