[netwrkranger]

I can't help but notice you have quickly abandoned your statement of quote: "Nonsense, since one cannot be a state citizen without having US citizenship, one can be a resident, but that is all", after being soundly refuted on that issue.

Notorial Dissent wrote:

My apologies, my misunderstanding of the presentation. Does not alter the fact that from fifth sentence on it is nonsense. The Act had nothing to do with the 13th, was not concerned with “Black People”, and in fact had no effect on them unless they chose to leave the country and take up citizenship elsewhere. The rest is a mishmash totally unrelated to the Act itself mixed with an anti tax con, none of which is viable. Thank you for posting the complete text.

If expatriation has nothing to do with taxation, tell me, why does the US goverment want to tax former American expatriats for up to 10 years for leaving the US?

http://www.escapeartist.com/efam/59/...horeHaven.html

I believe the author of the 1st post that I submitted was seeking to provide solutions and give thoughts to ponder to those of Moorish descent concerning the events surrounding the Civil War and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment ratifications. That has everything to do with the "Black People" since they were the "problem" for the occurances of the Civil War, Reconstruction, and those several amendments which is not to say there were other motivations abound during that time period.

Notorial Dissent wrote:

I not forgetting for a moment, and the answer is no, they are not. They are not separate state/nations, they are part of a federal union called the United States of America, and they gave up the ability to naturalize at that union. If you bother to check, you will not find any state with a law about naturalization, since it is reserved solely to the Federal Govt, further, you will find that in each instance, the state requirement for “citizenship” requires US citizenship.

More to the point, Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the constitution gives specifically to the Federal Govt the power to: “establish a uniform rule of naturalization”, and Section 10 specifically forbids the states from “enter(ing) into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal” which specifically means they are not sovereign and independent with regards to other nations.

I won't bother to check anything =D. If you make the allegation, you suffer the duty of proof. Why should I do your work for you? I will, however, read what you share. You are getting better about citing admittedly so. I distinctly remember the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights saying those powers not delgated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States. Perhaps you are forgetting the doctrine of dual sovereignty?

US federal government system, established under the US Constitution (ratified 1788), in which the central government and state governments operate in two different spheres, each with specified power or sovereignty. The Constitution also provides each sphere with concurrent (shared) powers. When a question arises over state rights versus central government authority, the Supreme Court may intervene.
Source: http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/dual+sovereignty