Constitution Questions

#1 02-02-2004, 10:46 PM

A while back Jerseee said that if I read the constitution critically I wouls see that there is more than one kind of person in it.&

This is what I found:

Article 2, Section 1, paragraph 6, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States..."

Is there a difference in these two Citizens?

Amendment 4 "The right of the people to be secure in their persons..."

Amendment 11 "...Citizens of subjects..."

Amendment 14, Paragraph 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the Unites States, and subect to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.& No State shall make or inforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The above reference&could be&completely wrong when looking&for the distinction between people in the constitution but, I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask.

Also in Amendment 14 I noticed that the word citizen isn't capitalized like it is in the other references.& Does this have any signifigance?

Thanks,

Montana

#2 02-02-2004, 10:49 PM

Correction:

Amendment 11 reads "...Citizens or Subjects..."

Sorry about that.

Montana

Jerseee · #3 02-02-2004, 11:52 PM

Montana,

You are growing!!!! Congratulations. When you read critically after knowing the truth, the words in the constitution jump right off the page at you!

And yes there is a difference in the spelling of the word citizen.

If you notice, the word changes spelling and is even phrased different, after the 12th amendment.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, created that citizen for the corporation (UNITED STATES).

Also, there is a difference to the citizens in Art.2
In fact there are 3 types of citizens: natural born, US citizens, and foreign nationals. Which one are you?

You are well on your way to more truth!

It makes me feel good to know I have helped you in some way. A testimony like this has no price--that is why we give the information to all for free who seek it! Thanks Sui Juris for this medium.

Ice · #4 02-03-2004, 08:22 AM

Isn't it amazing what one small and seemingly insignificant definition can do?& The definitions pertinent to the above are "person", "citizen" and "United States".& A little education not only exposes truth, but brings more questions to the table... questions that will be answered and expose even more truth.

I expect the government's opinion is that education can be a very dangerous thing... which is why there is so little educating being done in the public schools.

&

Jerseee · #5 02-03-2004, 08:31 AM

Ahhh,

Ice the soothsayer.

Ice · #6 02-03-2004, 08:35 AM

I should post that question in regards a letter from SS that I posted over at TSN and see how many folks can answer the question.& What an eye opener!

Tricky little devils, ain't they?!

James · #7 02-03-2004, 10:50 AM

>> Amendment 11 reads "...Citizens or Subjects..."<<
&<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>
To be correct it is “…citizen or subjects…” The word citizen or subjects are not capitalized. Therefore they are not proper nouns.<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
The word citizen (e.g., citizen of…) is not a proper noun, but a pronoun meaning to take the place of a noun (person, place, or thing).<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
The word Citizen, with capital “C,” is a proper noun referring to a particular person (the sovereign). <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
"Always capitalize proper nouns...& [Proper nouns], independent of the context in which they are used, refer to specific persons, places, or things (e.g., Dan, Austin, Rolls Royce)." ("Manual on Usage & Style," Eighth Edition, ISBN I-878674-51-X, published by the Texas Law Review in 1995.)<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
"The name of a particular person (Frank Sinatra), place (Boston), or thing (Moby ****).&Proper nouns are capitalized."("The Elements of Style," Fourth Edition, ISBN 0-205-30902-X, written by William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, published by Allyn& & Bacon in 1999 page 94.)<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
Basically, “Citizen” refers to the sovereign and “citizen” refers to a slave (14th Amendment). <o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
>> Also, there is a difference to the citizens in Art.2
In fact there are 3 types of citizens: natural born, US citizens, and foreign nationals.<<<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>
How about Citizen, US citizen and subjects.
Could you please expound on the phrase foreign national?<o

></o

>
Where is this fact found? Thanks <o

></o

>
I also would like to thank Sui Juris for this medium. Iam new to this forum and find it has some knowledgeable people contributing to it.<o

></o

>
&<o

></o

>

Jerseee · #8 02-03-2004, 11:56 AM

My bad,

I meant, Art III, sec 2.

"Section. 2.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." 

The last underlined phrase addresses foreign States&which has its own Citizens/Subjects/Nationals.& Just as the US&(both gov. corp and non-corp)&has its own Citizens/Subjects/Nationals.& It is written in your passport.& They give you a choice.& Also, the mere fact that the constitution states "two or more&States" clearly recognizes a potential third State or Jurisdiction being involved in a controversy.& If not, it would have only mentioned the US and DC. &I apologize for the confusion.& Welcome to the forum James.

#9 02-03-2004, 05:58 PM

James,

My copy of the Constitution&does have Citizen and Subjects capatitalized.& My copy is downloaded off of a government web site so, either the person that typed it did it wrong, or more likely, the government is just trying to keep me confused.

Also, I have the same Elements of style book as you

So, whose copy is right?

Montana

James · #10 02-03-2004, 10:01 PM

Montana,
&
>>My copy of the Constitution&does have Citizen and Subjects capatitalized.<<<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>
Thanks for sharing your source.<o

></o

>
&
>>more likely, the government is just trying to keep me confused.<<<o

></o

>
That seems to be what they do best.
&
>> So, whose copy is right? <<
That is a good question and a decision you will have to make.
&
My copy was from “CITIZENS RULE BOOK,” “American Government and Economics”(A Becka Book Publications) and “Legal Information Institute” to wit:
“Amendment XI
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.”
&(http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxi.html)
&
I personally don’t trust everything the corporate government puts out. 
&
Does the site you use mention Constitution of the United States or Constitution for the United States? (Read the Preamble.) 
&<o

></o

>