Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0
HEIGHT=

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity
HEIGHT=

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.
HEIGHT=

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums
HEIGHT=

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board
HEIGHT=

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« WAXMAN TRIES TO PULL A FAST ONE- HARD QUESTIONS ALSO ASKED ABOUT ANH-US PRESIDENT'S ROCKEFELLER AFFILIATIONS | Main | News for the Day that you Probably Won't see in the Lame Stream Media »

Re: State Citizenship Is Alive And Well, but neither they nor any federal citiens are made liable for IRC subtitle A income "taxes"

>  for which the entirety of the U$ citizens/slaves are liable

You are trafficking in persistent myth and hearsay, kind Sir.

When Congress extended the Constitution into D.C. in 1871
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm#1871
http://www.supremelaw.org/stat/16/16stat426.gif  (Sec. 34, last sentence)
it also guaranteed Separation of Powers to all federal citizens
(read "only Congress can make Law"; 
Executive Branch can NOT make law -- PERIOD!!)

Because there is no liability STATUTE for taxes imposed
by IRC subtitle A, federal citizens are NOT made liable
for those taxes by any Act of Congress.  1 U.S.C. 101
("Act of Congress" defined).

And, the Supreme Court has held, in Commissioner v. Acker,
that such a tax liability may NOT arise from Regulations
authored by administrative agencies, absent the required
Act of Congress:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm

Here, read it for yourself:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=361&invol=87

But the section contains nothing to that effect, and, therefore,
to uphold this addition to the tax would be to hold
that it may be imposed by regulation,
which, of course, the law does not permit.
United States v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351, 359 ;
Koshland v. Helvering, 298 U.S. 441, 446 -447;
Manhattan Co. v. Commissioner, 297 U.S. 129, 134 .


CONCLUSION:  federal citizens are NOT liable
as such for taxes imposed by subtitle A of the IRC,
notwithstanding the Regulations at 26 CFR 1.1-1(b):

http://www.supremelaw.org/cfr/26/26cfr1.1-1.htm#b
    (b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In 
general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all
resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the
Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the
United States.

[end quote]

Accordingly, the latter Regulation is UNconstitutional
for violating the
holding
supra in Commissioner v. Acker.

 
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


From: Exposé <informationhighwayman@googlemail.com>
To: Bill <billmay@wvi.com>
Cc: LB Bork <info@pacinlaw.org>; GeneralCongress@constitutionalgov.us; Big Al <bigal123@ncol.net>
Sent: Tue, May 4, 2010 8:59:50 AM
Subject: Re: GCongress> SPAM-ALERT! - Re: State Citizenship Is Alive And Well

The point is:
ALL CAPITAL LETTERS / UPPER CASE NAMES simply state you are a slave and therefore chattel and/or surety for any debt made against your (joint or several) 'worth'.
All slaves are owned by someone or something else (like a: corporation, government or monarch or church) and slaves do not (and cannot) own anything anymore than your, say, car can own anything.
What you may think you own is, in fact, controlled (and/or taxed etc) by your (monarch, state or corporate) owner[s].
As received, under the 14th Amendment, the government cannot be sued without its permission and its PUBLIC DEBT (for which the entirety of the U$ citizens/slaves are liable) cannot be challenged (because slaves have no authority nor standing unless it is GRANTED by their owner[s]).

M0RE:
[Capitis Diminutio (meaning the diminishing of status through the use of capitalization) In Roman law. A diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or curtailment of a man's status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications.

Capitis Diminutio Minima (meaning a minimum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John Doe) - The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man's family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation [pride] of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) [of his own right, not under any legal disability] or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. [Parental authority] It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 16, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom.Law, 144Capitis Diminutio Media (meaning a medium loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John DOE) - A lessor or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man loses his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.

Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN) - The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.

Diminutio. Lat. In civil law. Diminution; a taking away; loss or depravation.

Capite. - Lat. By the head.

As Black's Law Dictionary explains, the full capitalization of the letters of one's natural name, results in a diminishing or complete loss of legal or citizenship status, wherein one actually becomes a slave or an item of inventory. The method by which the State causes a natural person to "volunteer" himself into slavery, is through forming legal joinder, implied or stated, with the entity or legal fiction (name all CAPS). Of course, most natural persons wouldn't willingly form such an unlawful but legally reductionist joinder, so trickery and obfuscation are used. The initial joinder is formed when a legal Birth Certificate is issued by the State, name in all CAPS. In fact, both the Certificate of Birth AND Social Security number, are for "inventory" control purposes, similar to the Amistad Schooner's manifest or those numbers or records used by legal entities or Corporations to track, account for, use and dispose of inventory. It is under the Admiralty jurisdiction Terri Schiavo's fate was determined, and under this alien fictional jurisdiction many of today's legal or other fictional entities such as "gay marriages" are fabricated. Commensurate with color of law, they appear to "be," but they are not. Indeed, under common law and the American Constitution, "gay marriage" is unlawful and an oxymoron (contradiction). This, no legal maneuver can change.

Whereas one may have legal recourse in a Corporate or Admiralty Court, no lawful or moral remedy will be found. Administrative directives of the legal tribunal or Admiralty jurisdiction, while having the color or appearance of law, may be legal but are in fact unlawful due to the nature or status of the Court's origin, which is predicated upon fiction. Admiralty Courts are in effect vastly inferior to the intentions and authority of those who founded the American Constitutional Republic. When searching America today, one would be hard pressed to locate an authentic Constitutional or Common law Court. This unlawful condition prevails in both Canada and the United States. A serious breech of Constitutional fidelity surfaced recently, when it was discovered Judges in Oregon were not properly sworn to uphold the Oregon Constitution and therefore were acting without Constitutional authority. The Courts and Judges in question, therefore, represent an alien power or entity.

-coutesy http://www.slaveshipamerica.com

Exposé

##############################
#########

On 04/05/2010, Bill <billmay@wvi.com> wrote:

There was information that came down in an Oregon Circuit court a few years ago wherein it was acknowleged by the court that the upper case name is a US Trust.
 
This makes sense since US Citizens are not citizens in the true and original meaning of the word but are on par with subjects with civil and almost no constitutionally secured rights.
 
If one looks at the case history of the court I think you will see a correlation between the upper case name and the closure of all judicial court back in the early 50's. I have not looked but I suspect the change happened around 64 - 65. Much happened during those time with all sorts of new laws going in to regulate the private lives of individuals - such as the gov taking over and telling people at what age they could drink.
 
The current  legislative courts have jurisdiction over US Citizens but not white state born people.
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Exposé
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: SPAM-ALERT! - Re: GCongress> State Citizenship Is Alive And Well

Hi.
Please G00GLE:
"Capitis Diminutio Maxima" BLACK'S LAW
AS IS WITH QU0TES

Exposé
############################

On 04/05/2010, Douglas Smith <raimford1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Expose,  I have a Black's 4th and can not find any ref. to "SLAVE NAME".  Could you help a guy out and cite the page number.  Also the web site http://www.naturalperson.com/New%20Website/5%20Advance/Advance%203%20Final.html  does not come up when clicked upon.  Could you check it out and make sure it's correct.  Thanks, Doug.
 

--- On Tue, 5/4/10, Exposé <informationhighwayman@googlemail.com> wrote:
From: Exposé <informationhighwayman@googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: SPAM-ALERT! - Re: GCongress> State Citizenship Is Alive And Well
To: "Big Al" <bigal123@ncol.net>
Cc: "Mark Ferran" <mferran@nycap.rr.com>, "Douglas Smith" <raimford1@yahoo.com>, "Bill" <billmay@wvi.com>, jon.roland@constitution.org, GeneralCongress@constitutionalgov.us, "LB Bork" <info@pacinlaw.org>
Date: Tuesday, May 4, 2010, 3:32 AM


M.F. WR0TE:
"It would suck for upper case "Citizens" if there really was a legal distinction between lower case "citizens" and upper case "Citizens".  There are no such things as "upper case" Citizens, except in the minds of a few dumb dumbs who want to feel superior, but are clearly NOT.

Sheesh! Talk about dumb fecks that do not know the difference betwixt:
citizen = lower case, nor
Citizen = Title Case (like a headline or a book's title or a proper Christian and Surname, nor-
'CITIZEN' UPPERCASE = Slave names, dating from Roman times and law.
SLAVE NAMES:  Paradigm:  Capitis Diminutio Maxima.  
Blacks Law Dictionary Revised 4th Ed.1968.   The highest or most comprehensive loss of status.  Changing someone's name to a slave name - I.e. from Title Case (Your Proper Name) to UPPER CASE (ALL CAPITAL LETTERS) WHICH IS A SLAVE RE-NAMED AS PROPERTY OF THE STATE OR AN ESTATE ETC.   http://www.naturalperson.com/New%20Website/5%20Advance/Advance%203%20Final.html 

Exposé
Copula eame se non posit acceptara jocularem. 
##########################

On 04/05/2010, Big Al <bigal123@ncol.net> wrote:
ROTFLMAO    The Court lied and you believe the Pig Swill and coverup the courts don't want you to find out.  Your last statement was that of a deranged brainwashed subject/slave. The Informer has a new book out that exposes the lies you just put forth.  Dare you to buy it and then say the same thing?  OH, egg on face time. if you do read it.  So remain ignorant see if I care. He has real history  that has been covered up so qwell ewven the people in England don't know.  Very few do know in England.  Hey I used his works back in 1998 and got completely Free from the Private collection agency by writing the owner and telling him wjho I was and they were not telling me who they thought I was by the Presumtive Rule.  Do you even fathom what I just said?  Tell me what the word FEDERAL means, if you can?  I mean the real meaning of FEDERAL not what the corporation wants you to believe.  Go to the etymology of the word. Mark You are a corporate plaint are you not?  Speak just like one. Spew the same filth as they do.
Big Al

On Mon, 03 May 2010 22:44:45 -0400, Mark Ferran <mferran@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

The King of England conquered the territory of 13 Colonies in America and the Sovereignty of the King of England was divided into 13 colonies and delegated to 13 colonial governors for the 13 colonies.  The governors carried out the King's "General Instructions" and His Executive Orders.  After the Revolution, the Sovereignty of the King devolved upon "The People" of the United States CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA., 2 U.S. 419 (1793)  who called themselves "citizens of the United States"   (Treaty of Paris 1783 ) during and after the Revolutionary War.

All beings in America are subject to the Jurisdiction of the citizens of the United States and to any government(s) which they may ordain and establish.

As already pointed out, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court explicitly held that "People of the several States" = "The People" of the United States = "Citizen of the United States" = "citizen of the United States".
 http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/scott/

All those in America who are not citizens of the United States have no right to enter nor to remain on American Soil without a work VISA or foreign diplomatic Papers, and are subject to arrest in Arizona.

 ----- Original Message -----
 From: Douglas Smith
 To: Bill ; Exposé ; jon.roland@constitution.org ; Mark Ferran
 Cc: GeneralCongress@constitutionalgov.us
 Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:21 PM
 Subject: Re: GCongress> State Citizenship Is Alive And Well


       Mark, you wrote:

       "It would suck for upper case "Citizens" if there really was a legal distinction between lower case "citizens" and upper case "Citizens".  There are no such things as "upper case" Citizens, except in the minds of a few dumb dumbs who want to feel superior, but are clearly NOT.

       Go to the Constitution of the United States at Article 1, Section 2, Clauses 1 and 2  and tell me what the terms "People of the several States" and "Citizen of the United States" is.  Are the two terms synonomous?  If so, then your article below lacks merit and is just a waste of time for a person with a bit more knowledge to read.  I would suggest that you start reading and asking questions.  Better to keep your mouth shut and thought an idiot than to open it and leave no doubt.

       Question:  If 1) the original 13 colonies revolted and became 13 nations (read culminating paragraph to the Declaration of the United States) and 2) the People of the 13 States radified the Constitution of the United States in 1789 (see section/claus stated above) and 3) the 14th Amendment states "..and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (the Federal government) , are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." then where does the sovereignty of the people reside, with the State in which they reside or with the United States Government?  I find it hard to believe that I am subject to two jurisdictions 24/7/365 or that I am subject to the Federal government alone 24/7/365.  I await your answer.  Doug.

        On Mon, 5/3/10, Mark Ferran <mferran@nycap.rr.com> wrote:


         From: Mark Ferran <mferran@nycap.rr.com>
         Subject: Re: GCongress> State Citizenship Is Alive And Well
         To: "Bill" <billmay@wvi.com>, "Douglas Smith" <raimford1@yahoo.com>, "Exposé" <informationhighwayman@googlemail.com>, jon.roland@constitution.org
         Cc: GeneralCongress@constitutionalgov.us
         Date: Monday, May 3, 2010, 2:57 PM


         The Fourteenth Amendment only grants birthrights of citizenship.  The Fourteenth Amendment does not take any citizenship rights away.  The Fourteenth Amendment does not take any rights away from anyone.  The Fourteenth Amendment gives every birthright citizen of the United States the constitutional right to become the state-citizen of any US State that he chooses to reside in.  That right did not exist in the Constitution before the Fourteenth Amendment.    But, the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant the right to become a state-citizen to people who are merely a state-citizen of one state but who are not also "citizens of the United States".  But, the question is: Can there be and is there someone who is a state-citizen but not a citizen of the United States.

         The Answer would be: a foreign-born ALIEN who has been accepted by the state and given the status of state-citizen but who was not Naturalized as a citizen of the United States.

         BEFORE the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, there certainly were persons who were state-citizens of one state but NOT a citizen of the United States:  A man named Dred Scott, THE SLAVE was decided to be a state-citizen of one state but NOT a citizen of the United States.   http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/scott/   In the course of the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized the Power of each State to confer the status of state-citizen upon a black man, an alien, etc..  There is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment that purports to take away that Power from the legislature of the states to deal with people within their borders in that manner.  But, the State's Power to confer the status of state-citizen ends at its borders, and no one having only that state-granted status has any right to be within the United States that another state is bound to respect:
           "It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States. And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States."
         http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/scott/

         Thus, if Bill is merely a state-citizen of Montana, but not also a citizen of the United States, if Bill goes to Arizona and some policeman pulls him over and Bill says "I am not a citizen of the United States", then Bill has violated the new Arizona Law by being present in the US illegally, because he is not a "citizen of the United States", and he has no VISA.  It is no defense that a Mexican claims he is recognized as a state-citizen in another state (such as New York or California).  States do not have the Power of US Naturalization, and while they might currently harbor illegal aliens, states cannot give Aliens any legal status outside of their own state borders.  Thus, if Bill is caught in Arizona, then upon his admission that he is "not a citizen of the United States" he can be arrested seized and found guilty of the Arizona law and placed in prison or deported.   So, the desire Bill has to be a state-citizen AND "not a citizen of the United States" only proves that some white skinned people are not as smart as brown skinned Mexicans, and we should also rid our country of the dumber of the two.

         The Supreme Court of the United States has never recognized a meaningful or legal distention between lowercase "c" and upper case "C" in the Constitution and Amendments.  The Supreme Court made no such distinction in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856):
           "The question then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endue him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent? Does the Constitution of the United States act upon him whenever he shall be made free under the laws of a State, and raised there to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen in every other State, and in its own courts? "
           "In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.
           "It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States. And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States."
         http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/scott/

         The claimed citizen/Citizen distinction is idiotic and is totally meaningless except to PAYtriots-for-Profit who have SOLD the idea that is a magical cure, or that it makes the believer feel superior in some way.   The People who wrote, ratified, and lived with the 14th Amendment in the 19th and early 20th Centuries never recognized any distinction between lowercase "c" and upper case "C" in the Constitution and Amendments.   It was not until fairly recently that some PAYtriots-for-Profit discovered they could SELL a pretended distinction between lowercase "c" and upper case "C" in the Constitution and Amendments to dumb dumbs.

         Incidentally, all the later amendments only used a small "c" in the phrase "citizen of the United States".

         Yet everyone acknowledges that the 19th Amendment gave White WOMEN (even those descended from people on the Mayflower) the constitutional right to vote.  It states:
           "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
         If there was a legal distinction between "c" and "C", then upper case women "Citizens" would not have any constitutional right to vote.

         Similarly, upper case "Citizen" men would not have a right to vote at age 18:
           "The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age." (Amendment 26)
         Similarly, an upper case "Citizen" could be denied the right to vote on the basis of RACE:
           "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." (Fifteenth Amendment)
         Similarly, a poor upper case "Citizen" man would not have a right to vote for the President:
           "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax." (Amendment 24)
         It would suck for upper case "Citizens" if there really was a legal distinction between lower case "citizens" and upper case "Citizens".  There are no such things as "upper case" Citizens, except in the minds of a few dumb dumbs who want to feel superior, but are clearly NOT.

           ----- Original Message -----
           From: Bill
           To: Douglas Smith ; Exposé ; jon.roland@constitution.org
           Cc: GeneralCongress@constitutionalgov.us
           Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 1:50 PM
           Subject: GCongress> State Citizenship Is Alive And Well



           http://www.articleslash.net/Legal/64245__State-Citizenship-Is-Alive-And-Well.html

           More info on state-only citizenship. All evidence leads to the conclusion the constitutions still mandate it but that the gov has used deception and force to deny it to those to whom it applies.

           There would be good reason for this because the gov has very little lawmaking power over state citizens and it would cause an outcry from the other races to amend all constitutions to make them equal - which would strip the gov of most of its power over everyone.

           State Citizenship Is Alive And Well
           At least as for as the constitutions are concerned - but not as far as the gov is concerned.
           Did the 14th Amendment do away with State Citizenship?
           "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states." Black's Law Dictionary, 5thEdition, p. 591 [1979].

           The answer is absolutely not.

         In fact the leading and controlling case on State Citizenship and United States Citizenship is the Supreme Court case,The Slaughter-House Cases (16 Wallace 36: 21 L.Ed. 394 [1873]). In this case, the Supreme Court distinguishes between State Citizenship and United States Citizenship.

         "It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics of the individual." The Slaughter-House Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 74.

         "The importance of the case can hardly be overestimated. By distinguishing between state citizenship and national citizenship and by emphasizing that the rights and privileges of federal citizenship do not include the protection of ordinary civil liberties such as freedom of speech and press, religion, etc., but only the privileges which one enjoys by virtue of his federal citizenship, the Court averted, for the time being at least, the revolution in our constitutional system apparently intended by the framers of the amendment and reserved to the states the responsibility for protecting civil rights generally." Cases In Constitutional Law by Robert F. Cushman, 5th Edition, pp. 250-251 (College Law Textbook) [1979].

         "Citizenship is elaborated in two privileges and immunities clauses of the United States Constitution. . . . The Slaughter-House Cases [1873] 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, emphasized the distinct character of federal and state citizenship. Slaughter-House held that privileges and immunities conferred by state citizenship were outside federal reach through the Fourteenth Amendment. . . . Federal citizenship was seen as including only such things as interstate travel and voting. While subsequent decisions have extended the meaning of citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment, Slaughter-House is still controlling in that it precludes use of privileges and immunities language in protecting citizens by federal authority." Constitutional Law Deskbook - Individual Rights, by Chandler, Enslen, Renstrom; Second Edition, p. 634 (Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, 1993).

         "The Fourteenth Amendment did not obliterate the distinction between national and state citizenship, but rather preserved it. Slaughter-House Cases." 103d Congress, 1st Session, Document 103-6: The Constitution of the United States of America; Analysis And Interpretation: Annotations Of Cases Decided By The Supreme Court Of The United States To June 29, 1992, p. 1566. 1

         In addition, the Supreme Court in The Slaughter-House Cases concluded that there are two citizens under the Constitution of the United States:

         "The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established.

         It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

         We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section, which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several States. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same, and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.

         The language is, ‘No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.’ It is a little remarkable, if this clause was intended as a protection to the citizen of a State against the legislative power of his own State, that the word citizen of the State should be left out when it is so carefully used, and used in contradistinction to citizens of the United States, in the very sentence which precedes it. It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and with a purpose.

         Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment." The Slaughter-House Cases: 83 U.S. 36, at 73-74.

         "The expression, Citizen of a State, is carefully omitted here. In Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution of the United States, it had been already provided that ‘the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.’ The rights of Citizens of the States [under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1] and of citizens of the United States [under The Fourteenth Amendment] are each guarded by these different provisions. That these rights are separate and distinct, was held in the Slaughterhouse Cases, recently decided by the Supreme court. The rights of Citizens of the State, as such, are not under consideration in the Fourteenth Amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions." United States v. Anthony: 24 Fed. Cas. 829, 830 (Case No. 14,459) [1873]. 2

         "This provision [The Fourteenth Amendment] protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. See Slaughter-House Cases 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)." Jones v. Temmer: 829 F.Supp. 1226, 1232 [1993].

         "In regard to that amendment [The Fourteenth Amendment] counsel for the plaintiff in this court truly says that there are certain privileges and immunities which belong to a citizen of the United States as such; otherwise it would be nonsense for the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit a State from abridging them, and he proceeds to argue that admission to the bar of a State of a person who possesses the requisite learning and character is one of those which a State may not deny. In this latter proposition we are not able to concur with counsel. We agree with him that there are privileges and immunities belonging to citizens of the United States, in that relation and character, and that it is these and these alone which a State is forbidden to abridge. But the right to admission to practice in the courts of a State is not one of them. This right in no sense depends on citizenship of the United States. It has not, as far as we know, ever been made in any State, or in any case, to depend on citizenship at all. Certainly many prominent and distinguished lawyers have been admitted to practice, both in the State and Federal courts, who were not citizens of the United States or of any State. But, on whatever basis this right may be placed, so far as it can have any relation to citizenship at all, it would seem that, as to the courts of a State, it would relate to citizenship of the State, and as to Federal courts, it would relate to citizenship of the United States.

         The opinion just delivered in the Slaughter-House Cases renders elaborate argument in the present case unnecessary; for, unless we are wholly and radically mistaken in the principles on which those cases are decided, the right to control and regulate the granting of license to practice law in the courts of a State is one of those powers which are not transferred for its protection to the Federal government, and its exercise is in no manner governed or controlled by citizenship of the United States in the party seeking such license.

         It is unnecessary to repeat the argument on which the judgment in those cases is founded. It is sufficient to say they are conclusive of the present case." Bradwell v. State of Illinios: 83 U.S 130, at 138-139 [1873] 3

         Therefore, State citizenship and United States citizenship are provided for in the Constitution of the United States. A citizen of a state is to be found at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States whereas a citizen of the United States is located at the Fourteenth Amendment.

         _________________________________

         1 “... [U]ndoubtedly in a purely technical and abstract sense citizenship of one of the states may not include citizenship of the United States." United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company: 164 U.S. 686, 688 [1897] get case

         2 “Appellant does not invoke the commerce clause, and is neither a citizen of a state nor of the United States within the protection of the privileges and immunities clauses of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment. Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. (US) 168, 177, 19 L ed 357, 359; Pembina Consol. Silver Mining & Milling Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U.S. 181, 187, 31 L ed 650, 653, 8 S.Ct. 737, 740, 2 Inters Com Rep 24; Selover, B. & Co. v. Walsh, 226 U.S. 112, 126, 57 L ed 146, 152, 33 S.Ct. 69, 72."Asbury Hospital v. Cass County N.D.: 326 U.S. 207, 210-211 [1945] get case

         3 This case was decided one day after The Slaughter-House Cases (Slaughter-House, April 14, 1873; Bradwell, April 15, 1873). This is a practice of the Supreme Court of taking a legal principle decided the day before and changing its status. The status of the legal principle before was that of stare decisis or settled, its new status is that of being well settled.

         © Copyright 2005 Daniel Joseph Goodman

         Questions? Comments! xGoodmanx@excite.com

         Dan Goodman, known as J.D. Goodman or “J.D." is a legal researcher. Other articles authored by “J.D." relating to the area of law are, How Well Do You The Constitution and Is The Bill Of Rights Necessary?.



         Tags:  law, constitution, 14th amendment, the slaughter house cases, state citizenship, citizen of a state,


----------------------------------------------------------------------

         _______________________________________________
         GeneralCongress mailing list
         GeneralCongress@constitutionalgov.us
         http://constitutionalgov.us/mailman/listinfo/generalcongress_constitutionalgov.us




--
"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the greatest liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."  -- H.L.  Mencken



--
<br>
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the public believes is false".  --The late, arguably suicided, William Casey, Director of Central Intelligence's 1st address to his staff in 1981.  
JOB'S DONE, THEN?

We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force. --Ayn Rand <br>




May 5, 2010 in Current Affairs | Permalink