Citizen of the United States ?

[palani]

Fulltitle
I did have a hard time reading the year of the earliest photocopy you provided. They are interesting to examine.

No, there is no 'Citizen of Philadelphia' mentioned, only qualifications to be permitted into the body politic. The largest category is NATURAL BORN. The principle requirement for all categories is TAXES WERE PAID which means the State of Pennsylvania has taken cognizance of the ownership of property located within the State and that you have permitted them to tax it. All electors had to be MALE. There was no requirement that electors be WHITE (probably expected the property tax requirement to settle this issue).

As to NATURAL BORN status, if you read the passage I entered, you will find no reference to these men being United States citizens. Others may be referred to as United States citizens (foreign born and citizens of some other of the United States).

And perhaps a State's codes might not mention things it has no authority concerning

Exactly so; however, this does not mean that the lawmakers can't write deceptive code. After all, it is up to each [person] to determine what applies and what does not. They obviously want to ensnare as many [people] in their webb as they can.

Is that a good or a bad thing?

I would guess overall it is BAD. Hurricane Katrina is a good example. If Louisianna were populated by Louisianna citizens when the hurricane hit they might have migrated to the far corners of the state but immediately after the disaster they would be back rebuilding their homes. Instead the state is populated by US citizens who flee to population centers that hand out charity until they have abused the privilege so much they are invited to leave a year later.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Ahem. US Constitution, Article I, sec. 2, clause 2:
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have ... been seven years a Citizen of the United States ....

US Constitution, Article I, sec. 3, clause 3:
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have ... been nine years a Citizen of the United States ....

Shoonra, the following has been broken down in paragraph numbers/letters
please provide rebuttals referencing any law or authority which contradicts such and reference each point raised by paragraph letter/number

Declarations are INSUFFICIENT as declarations premit LYING BY OMMISSION
Your failure to rebut, on a point by point basis & referencing each paragraph shall be your tacit admission to the following

Maybe one of these days you will realize that you have bought into a lie, hook, line, & sinker

This is where you will have to throw away your ego, Shoonra, and believe in something which counts
whether you are fixin' to retire from your government job or not
From the desk of Weis:

(a) Did the status of United States citizen or citizen of the United States exist as a National form of citizenship prior to the 14th amendment and was the term “United States” in regards to citizenship referred to in the singular prior to the Fourteenth amendment?
(1) James G. Blaine, a congressman for BOTH the 39th & 40th Congresses; a member of the committee of 15 who initiated the colorable Reconstruction Acts which forced the implementation of the 14th Amendment through unconstitutional martial Law measures; and one of the main drafters of the language of the 14th Amendment said the following regarding United States citizenship as described in the Fourteenth Amendment:

“ The slaves recently emancipated by proclamation, and subsequently by Constitutional Amendment, have no civil status. They should be made citizens. We do not, by making them citizens, make them voters,—we do not, in this Constitutional Amendment, attempt to force them upon Southern white men as equals at the ballot-box; but we do intend that they shall be admitted to citizenship, that they shall have the protection of the laws, that they shall not, any more than the rebels shall, be deprived of life, of liberty, of property, without due process of law, and that “they shall not be denied the equal protection of the law.” And in making this extension of citizenship, we are not confining the breadth and scope of our efforts to the negro. It is for the white man as well. We intend to make citizenship National. Heretofore, a man has been a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of some-one of the States: now, we propose to reverse that, and make him a citizen of any State where he chooses to reside, by defining in advance his National citizenship—and our Amendment declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” This Amendment will prove a great beneficence to this generation, and to all who shall succeed us in the rights of American citizenship; and we ask the people of the revolted States to consent to this condition as an antecedent step to their re-admission to Congress with Senators and Representatives.” POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS LEGISLATIVE, DIPLOMATIC, AND POPULAR 1856-1886 sec 61. The Reconstruction Problem- JAMES G. BLAINE. NORWICH, CONN. THE HENRY BILL PUBLISHING COMPANY 1887

(2) Since Blaine said that the only form of citizenship was that of a state citizenship conferred in one of the Union states prior to the 14th amendment, then The term “United States” as used in regards to citizenship prior to the 14th amendment always referred to the United States in the plural sense and not as a singular entity.
(3) Therefore, A United States National citizenship did not exist prior to the 14th Amendment and the term “citizen of the United States” never referred to a National form of citizenship.
(b) Did the language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (14 Stat. 27) set the premise for this aforementioned National Citizenship as decreed in the 14th Amendment?

(1) CONGRESS'S POWER TO ENFORCE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS: LESSONS FROM FEDERAL REMEDIES THE FRAMERS ENACTED by Robert J. Kaczorowski Copyright © 2005 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College Harvard Journal on Legislation (JOL) - Volume 42, Number 1, Winter 2005 says that : “Because the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 are central to the meaning and scope of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is necessary to examine the statute's provisions. In brief, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 conferred U.S. citizenship on all Americans”

(2) Since this Analysis states that the Fourteenth Amendment’s scope was set forth by the Civil Rights Act regarding citizenship, the concept of a “citizen of the United States” being a singular National citizenship was first set forth by the Civil Rights Act and later incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment.
(3) Therefore the Civil Rights Act of 1866 did in fact set the premise for this unprecedented National citizenship as decreed in the 14th Amendment.
(c) Did the several Union states have power to confer their respective state citizenship around the time of the Civil Rights Act and was the “citizen of the United States” status written in the Civil Rights Act only a Federal citizenship?

(1) March 27, 1866 - Johnson’s Veto of the Civil Rights Act - Senate Journal, p.279: says that, “By the first section of the bill all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. It does not purport to declare or confer any other right of citizenship than federal citizenship. It does not purport to give these classes of persons any status as citizens of States, except that which may result from their status as citizens of the United States. The power to confer the right of State citizenship is just as exclusively with the several States as the power to confer the right of federal citizenship is with Congress.”

(2) Since the President of the United States of America in 1866 said that this “citizen of the United States” status could only be a singular Federal citizenship and not one which is conferred by any one of the several states, then this aforementioned singular National citizenship status implemented by the Fourteenth amendment can only be a federal type of citizenship which emanates out of Washington D.C.
(3) Therefore, the “citizen of the United States” status in both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment can only be construed to mean a Federal or National form of citizenship emanating out of Washington D.C.
(4) Since the President of the United States of America in 1866 said that the conferring of a singular state citizenship was an exclusive power reserved to any one of the Union states, then the several states at the time had the power to confer their respective state citizenship to the exclusion of the federal government conferring such citizenship.
(5) Therefore, the federal government had no power to confer state citizenship because it was a power reserved only exclusively for any one of the several Union states.
(6) Some more citations to illustrate that, prior to the 14th amendment, “citizen of the united States” always meant a citizen of only one of the several Union States, that the term “United States” always was used in a plural sense and not a singular sense , and that Congress never had any power to confer state citizenship:

(A) Ex Parte Knowles 5 Cal. 300 (1855) "A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as use in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be obtained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States”
(B) Sharon v. Hill, (1885) 26 F 337, 343."Prior to the adoption of this amendment, strictly speaking, there were no citizens of the United States, but only some one of them. Congress had the power "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," but not the power to make a naturalized alien a citizen of any state. But the states generally provided that such persons might, on sufficient residence therein, become citizens thereof, and then the courts held, ab convenienti, rather than otherwise, that they became ipso facto citizens of the United States”.

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice

Originally Posted by palani

Fulltitle
I did have a hard time reading the year of the earliest photocopy you provided. They are interesting to examine.

No, there is no 'Citizen of Philadelphia' mentioned, only qualifications to be permitted into the body politic.The largest category is NATURAL BORN. The principle requirement for all categories is TAXES WERE PAID which means the State of Pennsylvania has taken cognizance of the ownership of property located within the State and that you have permitted them to tax it. All electors had to be MALE. There was no requirement that electors be WHITE (probably expected the property tax requirement to settle this issue).

And WHITE didnt necessarily have to do with skin color.

As to NATURAL BORN status, if you read the passage I entered, you will find no reference to these men

Perhaps there was only ever intent to refer to persons.

...being United States citizens.

I dont intend to or aim to deny the significance of say Philadelphia state citizenship. However, I'm getting more to a notion that is expressed in this: Why should one look up in a apple tree for bananas and be disappointed to find only apples?

Others may be referred to as United States citizens (foreign born and citizens of some other of the United States).

Exactly so; however, this does not mean that the lawmakers can't write deceptive code. After all, it is up to each [person] to determine what applies and what does not. They obviously want to ensnare as many [people] in their webb as they can.

You are probably right. Perhaps it was all a snare?

I would guess overall it is BAD.

Why?

Hurricane Katrina is a good example. If Louisianna were populated by Louisianna citizens when the hurricane hit they might have migrated to the far corners of the state but immediately after the disaster they would be back rebuilding their homes.

Perhaps it never intended to refer to men.

Instead the State is populated by US citizens who flee to population centers that hand out charity until they have abused the privilege so much they are invited to leave a year later.

"...and the greatest of these is charity" 1 Cor 13:13

[mrg]

Looks a lot like a "banknote."

Was there anything on the back?

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Quote:
Originally Posted by weishaupt1776
In orgininal premise, members of congress are not "citizens of the United States", just citizens/representatives of those sovereignties

I agree with you in a sense. But there may just be more than meets the eye. Perhaps I'm aiming to slice the hair a bit more finely. You see, my priority is clarity to those that may be reading this and who are seeking truth rather than the typical "feel good" mythology: thus the basis or penchant for getting to the nitty gritty. So...at 1774, say, maybe there could be conceivably the idea of "members of the Continental Congress" without membership in any kind of Union of American States/Colonies. However, it might be worth noting that there was already some notion of "United Colonies of America" long, long before 1774. However, in a sense I agree with you. However, I get a slant on the point you are making and it rings rather true.

Ahem. US Constitution, Article I, sec. 2, clause 2:
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have ... been seven years a Citizen of the United States ....

See it may be that they were only expounding upon the same principles that were "customary" before--codifying what was obvious among themselves and/or 'the learned'.

US Constitution, Article I, sec. 3, clause 3:
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have ... been nine years a Citizen of the United States ....

....
I guess there is a point ...

Articles of Confederation - 1778.

Constitution for the United States - 1787.

Difference in years: nine years.

more below

...a natural born citizen of some other of the United States... (From the previously-quoted act of Philadephia of 1790)

It may be that in the bits Shoonra quoted that it was intended to mean the same that State of Philadelphia meant by "citizen of some of other of the United States" or rather a 'state citizen' as opposed to a 'federal citizen'.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Ahem. US Constitution, Article I, sec. 2, clause 2:
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have ... been seven years a Citizen of the United States ....

US Constitution, Article I, sec. 3, clause 3:
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have ... been nine years a Citizen of the United States ....

Shoonra, you've either overlooked or intentionally omitted facts. The original premise can be found in the Articles of Confederation which was, according to the purpose of Annapolis Convention, to be modified the following year at the Constitutional Convention in Philly.

In the Articles of Confederation, the only reference to a citizen can be found in Article IV

The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state, to any other state of which the Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any state, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

If any person guilty of or charged with treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any state, shall flee from Justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall upon demand of the governor or executive power of the state from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offence.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other state.

As you can see, there is no reference of any sort to a "citizen of the United States" or "United States Citizen".

Any conditions or restrictions on who would represent a state was left completely up to the state (as evident in Article V of the Articles of Conf.). This was the original intent.

Articles of Confederation, Article V reads in part

For the more convenient management of the general interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislature of each state shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each state, to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead, for the remainder of the year.

No state shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor by more than seven Members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.

The creator (in this case, the collection of individual states) was never intended to be subordinate to that which it created (the Federal United States).

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/documents/aofc.html

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1...tion/annap.htm

http://www.archives.gov/national-arc...stitution.html

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by mrg

Looks a lot like a "banknote."

Was there anything on the back?

Without Prejudice.
The newer ones have a number on the back. I would imagine that one had the same red series # on the back that is on the front.

And yes it does look like a bill of some sort.

[charlesa6]

Yeah, it does.

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.
Well hmm I guess there are ..some..similarities.

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

The creator (in this case, the collection of individual states) was never intended to be subordinate to that which it created (the Federal United States).

Perhaps subjugation was in mind from the very beginning.