Citizenship/Jurisdiction Cites

[aksis]

Limited Authority of Federal Law

20. “Congress as a legislative body, exercises two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union; the other, an absolute exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia…
It cannot be denied that the character of the jurisdiction which Congress has over the district, is widely different from that which it has over the states; over them , Congress has not exclusive jurisdiction. Its powers over the states are those only which are specifically given, …”, Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)

21. Territorial courts are not courts in which the judicial power conferred by Article 3 can be deposited; yet they are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty, which exists in the government over the territories, or the clause which enables congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States.” United States v. Coe, 155 U.S. 76, 15 S.Ct. 16 (1894)

22. “Congress cannot, by legislation, enlarge the federal jurisdiction…Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the states … And it is only these places, or in the territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction…”
“All powers which pertain to Sovereignty, which have not been delegated to the federal government, belong to the States and the people.” New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. 662 (1836)

23. Chelsea Creek in Boston Harbor is not in the United States. Ellis v. United States, 206 U.S. 246 (1907)

24. “There could be no complete code for the entire United States, because the subjects which would be proper to be regulated be a code in the states are entirely outside the legislative authority of Congress”, Justice Walter S. Cox of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, 1 D.C. Code, Volume 1, p. 10, 1981 edition.

25. “Legislation of Congress… is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States”, Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949)

26. “ This statute [Revenue Statute §5392 defining the crime of perjury] is one of universal application within the territorial limits of the United States…The laws of congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.” Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211 (1894)

27. “An act of Congress does not have sanctity of constitutional provision, … the operation of the act can affect only those subjects over which the central government has jurisdiction.” People v. Kelly, 122 P.2d 655 (1942)

28. “Unless and until the United States has accepted jurisdiction over lands hereafter to be acquired as aforesaid, it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been accepted.” 40 USC §255 and 50 USC §175

29. “Because these parcels are not federally owned, the United States does not have any legislative jurisdiction. I trust that you are aware that the jurisdiction ceded under California Government Code §126 is legislative jurisdiction and that the cession process is based on Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution. Further, the United States must have a real property interest in the land prior to a cession. Consequently, if the United States does not have a real property interest, the State of California cannot and has not ceded legislative jurisdiction to the United States. ” James R. Frey, California State Lands Commission, 1996


Diversity of Citizenship


30. “…technically, there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States…Consequently, one who is created a citizen of the United States, is certainly not made a citizen of any particular State. It follows, that as it is only the citizens of the State who are entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States…then a distinction both in name and privileges is made to exist between citizens of the United States ex vi termini, and citizens of the several States. To the former no privileges or immunities are granted;” Ex Parte-Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)

31. “That there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other, is well established by the decisions of the courts of this country.” Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

32. “This position is that the privileges and immunities clause protects all citizens against abridgment by states of rights of national citizenship, as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship…the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Thirteenth and Fifteenth were adopted to protect the negroes in their freedom. This extended the benefits of the privileges and immunities clause to other rights which are inherent in national citizenship, but denied it to those which spring form state citizenship…We think it quite clear that the right to carry out an incident to a trade, business or calling such as the deposit of money in banks is not a privilege of national citizenship.” Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83 (1940)

33. “No white person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction … owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution. The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to confer the status of citizenship upon a class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States, who could not be brought within the operation of the naturalization laws because they were native born without the status of citizenship.” VanValkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43 (1872)

34. The rights of citizens of the states and of citizens of the United States are each guarded by these different provisions. That these rights are separate and distinct, was held in the Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 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. Page 829, (1873)

35. “…the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. … Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.” Jones v. Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (1993)

36. “State has right to extend qualifications for state office to its citizens, even though they are not citizens of the United States… Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.” Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A.2d 431 (1966)

37. As of 1940, only citizens of different Territories could file suit in a District court. Citizens of a Territory could not file suit against a citizen of a State of the Union because the court did not have jurisdiction over them.
“The Act of 1940 permitted action between a citizen of Hawaii and of Puerto Rico, but not between a citizen of New York and Puerto Rico in the District Court. The 1985 Amendment extends the 1940 amendment to apply to controversies between citizens of Territories or the District of Columbia and foreign states or citizens or subjects thereof.“
“ (d) The word "States", as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.” 28 USC 1332 (d) and Revision Notes

38. Citizens of the States of the Union are nonresident aliens to the Internal Revenue Code. Frank Brushaber was a Citizen of New York and Union Pacific was incorporated in Utah Territory. “Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co., decided January 24, 1916, It is hereby held that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913.” Treasury Decision 2313, March 21, 1916

continued in next post...

[aksis]

The Territories: The Inchoate States of the United States


39. A territory is a state as that word is used in treaties with foreign powers… The territories are inchoate states under the sovereignty of the United States. “If Congress authorizes the creation of courts and the appointment of judges for a limited time, it must act independently of the Constitution and upon territory, which is not part of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution.
“1. The District of Columbia and the territories are not states within the judicial clause of the Constitution giving jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different states.
“3. That the District of Columbia and the territories are states as that word is used in treaties…
“4. That the District of Columbia and the territories are not within the clause of the Constitution providing for the creation of a supreme court and such inferior courts as Congress may see fit to establish.”, O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933)

40. Under the Treaty with Spain, the territories were called “states” for the purpose of ownership, disposition, and inheritance of property. It is these inchoate states, and not the sovereign States of the Union, that are subject to the Internal Revenue Code. Congress does not include the States of the Union in the definition of “United States” or “States” in 26 USC 7701.

41. Congress deleted references to Alaska and Hawaii in Title 26 as each of these Territories was admitted into the Union, thereby recognizing that the Internal Revenue Code has no inherent operation within the States of the Union.

42. The federal codes typically refer to the “States of the United States” as places where federal law has operation. These are the territories owned by the United States, not the States of the Union.
“ (a) When used in the regulations of this subpart, the term ‘state’ includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States, and Guam, and American Samoa.
“(b) When used in the regulations of this subpart, the term ‘United States’, when used in the geographical sense, means the several states (including the territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States), the District of Columbia, …The term ‘citizen of the United States” includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, …26 CFR § 31.3132(e)-1


43. Any civil action for the collection of internal revenue taxes may be brought in the district where the liability for such tax accrues, in the district of the taxpayer's residence, or in the district where the return was filed. . 28 USC 1396 Internal revenue taxes

44. The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division is authorized to determine administratively whether the Federal Government has exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction over offenses committed upon lands acquired by the United States, and to consider problems arising therefrom. 28 CFR 0.56 Exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction

45.The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope.” United States Court of Claims, Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States, 470 F.2d 585, at 589 (1972)

[Big Al]

Aksis: Your post has to be one of the best I've ever read on this forum. Thanks for posting.

[Codee]

CARLISLE v. U S, 83 U.S. 147 (1872)

"The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign. The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence."

Based upon the date of that citation, it is apparent that this citation was one of the first aggresive moves by the judiciary to implement a condition of fear in the minds of the otherwise free people of North America after the implementation of the 14th in 1868. Probably the first real governmental brainwashing initiated.

Jerry

Originally Posted by Codee

CARLISLE v. U S, 83 U.S. 147 (1872)

"The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign. The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence."

[jojoeraider]

This sovereign person says'' THE original 14 amendment provides rights to all sovereign people not just to negros. IF you wil get a copy of the "RED AMENDMENT" ,you will understand that you have all kinds of liberties that have been hidden from most citizens/or soverneign people more than 150 years.

[charlesa6]

jojoeraider, welcome to the suijuris forum. Your point been noted.

[Answerman]

Here is a new one I snatched up...


This act deprives the appellees of their liberty and property without due process of law, and abridges the privileges and immunities of the appellees as citizens of the United States within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment…. This provision of the constitution is to be liberally construed, (Boyd v. U. S. 116 U.S. 635 , 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524,) Mugler v Kansas 123 U.S. 623 (1887)

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Answerman

Here is a new one I snatched up...


This act deprives the appellees of their liberty and property without due process of law, and abridges the privileges and immunities of the appellees as citizens of the United States within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment…. This provision of the constitution is to be liberally construed, (Boyd v. U. S. 116 U.S. 635 , 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524,) Mugler v Kansas 123 U.S. 623 (1887)

Mugler v Kansas 123 U.S. 623
http://supreme.justia.com/us/123/623/case.html

Boyd v. U. S. 116 U.S. 635
http://supreme.justia.com/us/116/616/case.html


I read through both cases, but could not find that quote.

I might not have read thorougly enough though and will re-examine them later to find the quote.

Could you point out roughly where in either of the cases the quote is found?

[Answerman]

There should be plenty for you to search on here for mugler

This act deprives the appellees of their liberty and property without due process of law, and abridges the privileges and immunities of the appellees as citizens of the United States within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment. At the time of the passage of this act it was one of the fundamental rights of appellees, as citizens, to manufacture beer, and to use their brewery for that purpose. The state could only restrain this right by virtue of the police power, which could only be exercised to the extent reasonable and necessary for the preservation and promotion of the morals and health of the people of Kansas. This act goes further than this. It destroys their property for the public use other than for police purposes, and without compensation. This is depriving them of their property without due process of law. This provision of the constitution is to be liberally construed, (Boyd v. U. S. 116 U.S. 635 , 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524,) that there may be no arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty, or arbitrary spoliation of property. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 31 , 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 357; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064. This question has never been decided by this court. Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U.S. 25 , arose under the right of the state to impair the obligation of the contract entered into between the state and the company by its charter. In Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129, the court refused to decide the question on a moot case. In the License Cases, 5 How. 589, the sole question under consideration was the violation of the commerce clause. The Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, did not touch upon this question, as they decided that the police power could regulate slaughter-houses, even to the extent of granting a monopoly, and demonstrated that all persons could still pursue their business of slaughtering subject to these regulations. The cases of Union Co. v. Landing Co., 111 U.S. 746 , 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 652; Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U.S. 659 ; and Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U.S. 814 ,-all arose and were decided under the contract clause of the constitution.

and from Boyd

This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be obsta principiis.