The Day Our Country Was Stolen: 14th Amendment

[netwrkranger]

Some additional information concerning allegiance and expatriation through legal history and jurisprudence of the UK.

United Kingdom

The English doctrine, which was at one time adopted in the United States, asserted that allegiance was indelible: "Nemo potest exuere patriam". Accordingly, as the law stood before 1870, every person who by birth or naturalization satisfied the conditions set forth, though he should be removed in infancy to another country where his family resided, owed an allegiance to the British crown which he could never resign or lose, except by act of parliament or by the recognition of the independence or the cession of the portion of British territory in which he resided.
Allegiance is the tie which binds the subject to the Sovereign in return for that protection which the Sovereign affords the subject. It was the mutual bond and obligation between monarch and subjects, whereby subjects are called his liege subjects, because they are bound to obey and serve him; and he is called their liege lord, because he should maintain and defend them (Ex parte Anderson (1861) 3 El & El 487; 121 ER 525; China Navigation Co v Attorney-General (1932) 48 TLR 375; Attorney-General v Nissan [1969] 1 All ER 629; Oppenheimer v Cattermole [1972] 3 All ER 1106). The duty of the Crown towards its subjects is to govern and protect. The reciprocal duty of the subject towards the Crown is that of allegiance.
At common law allegiance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign. As the subject owes to his king his true and faithful allegiance and obedience, so the Sovereign is to govern and protect his subjects, regere et protegere subdititos suos, so as between the Sovereign and subject there is:

• duplex et reciprocum ligamen; quia sicut subditus regi tenetur ad obedientiam, ita rex subdito tenetur ad protectionem; merito igitur ligeantia dicitur a ligando, quia continet in se duplex ligamen (Calvin's Case (1608) 7 Co Rep 1a; Jenk 306; 2 State Tr 559; 77 ER 377).

Natural allegiance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every subject, for as soon as the Sovereign is born, they owe allegiance and obedience (Ex parte Anderson (1861) 3 El & El 487; 121 ER 525). Natural-born subjects owe allegiance wherever they may be. Where territory is occupied in the course of hostilities by an enemy's force, even if the annexation of the occupied country is proclaimed by the enemy, there can be no change of allegiance during the progress of hostilities on the part of a citizen of the occupied country (R v Vermaak (1900) 21 NLR 204 (South Africa)).
Allegiance is owed both to the Sovereign as a natural person and to the Sovereign in the political capacity (Re Stepney Election Petition, Isaacson v Durant (1886) 17 QBD 54 (per Lord Coleridge CJ)). Attachment to the person of the reigning Sovereign is not sufficient. Loyalty requires affection also to the office of the Sovereign, attachment to royalty, attachment to the law and to the constitution of the realm, and he who would, by force or by fraud, endeavour to prostrate that law and constitution, though he may retain his affection for its head, can boast but an imperfect and spurious species of loyalty (R v O'Connell (1844) 7 ILR 261).
There were four kinds of allegiances (Rittson v Stordy (1855) 3 Sm & G 230; De Geer v Stone (1882) 22 Ch D 243; Isaacson v Durant (1886) 54 LT 684; Gibson, Gavin v Gibson [1913] 3 KB 379; Joyce v DPP [1946] AC 347; Collingwood v Pace (1661) O Bridg 410; Lane v Bennett (1836) 1 M & W 70; Lyons Corp v East India Co (1836) 1 Moo PCC 175; Birtwhistle v Vardill (1840) 7 Cl & Fin 895; R v Lopez, R v Sattler (1858) Dears & B 525; Ex p Brown (1864) 5 B & S 280);
(a) Ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura et indefinita, and this originally is due by nature and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia, and those that owe this are called subditus natus;
(b) Ligeantia acquisita, not by nature but by acquisition or denization, being called a denizen, or rather denizon, because they are subditus datus;
(c) Ligeantia localis, by operation of law, when a friendly alien enters the country, because so long as they are in the country they are within the Sovereign's protection, therefore they owe the Sovereign a local obedience or allegiance (R v Cowle (1759) 2 Burr 834; Low v Routledge (1865) 1 Ch App 42; Re Johnson, Roberts v Attorney-General [1903] 1 Ch 821; Tingley v Muller [1917] 2 Ch 144; Rodriguez v Speyer [1919] AC 59; Johnstone v Pedlar [1921] 2 AC 262; R v Tucker (1694) Show Parl Cas 186; R v Keyn (1876) 2 Ex D 63; Re Stepney Election Petn, Isaacson v Durant (1886) 17 QBD 54);
(d) A legal obedience, where a particular law requires the taking of an oath of allegiance by subject or alien alike.
Natural allegiance was acquired by birth within the Sovereign's dominions (except for the issue of diplomats or of invading forces or of an alien in enemy occupied territory). The natural allegiance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every subject, for as soon as they are born they owe by birthright allegiance and obedience to the Sovereign (Ex p. Anderson (1861) 3 E & E 487). A natural-born subject owes allegiance wherever they may be, so that where territory is occupied in the course of hostilities by an enemy's force, even if the annexation of the occupied country is proclaimed by the enemy, there can be no change of allegiance during the progress of hostilities on the part of a citizen of the occupied country (R v Vermaak (1900) 21 NLR 204 (South Africa)).
Acquired allegiance was acquired by naturalisation or denization. Denization, or ligeantia acquisita, appears to be threefold (Thomas v Sorrel (1673) 3 Keb 143);

• (a) absolute, as the common denization, without any limitation or restraint;
• (b) limited, as when the Sovereign grants letters of denization to an alien, and the alien's male heirs, or to an alien for the term of their life;
• (c) It may be granted upon condition, cujus est dare, ejus est disponere, and this denization of an alien may come about three ways: by Parliament; by letters patent, which was the usual manner; and by conquest.

Local allegiance was due by an alien while in the protection of the Crown. All friendly resident aliens incurred all the obligations of subjects (The Angelique (1801) 3 Ch Rob App 7). An alien, coming into a colony also became, temporarily a subject of the Crown, and acquired rights both within and beyond the colony, and these latter rights could not be affected by the laws of that colony (Routledge v Low (1868) LR 3 HL 100; 37 LJ Ch 454; 18 LT 874; 16 WR 1081, HL; Reid v Maxwell (1886) 2 TLR 790; Falcon v Famous Players Film Co [1926] 2 KB 474).
A resident alien owed allegiance even when the protection of the Crown was withdrawn owing to the occupation of an enemy, because the absence of the Crown's protection was temporary and involuntary (de Jager v Attorney-Geneneral of Natal [1907] AC 326).
Legal allegiance was due when an alien took an oath of allegiance required for a particular office under the Crown.
By the Naturalization Act 1870, it was made possible for British subjects to renounce their nationality and allegiance, and the ways in which that nationality is lost are defined. So British subjects voluntarily naturalized in a foreign state are deemed aliens from the time of such naturalization, unless, in the case of persons naturalized before the passing of the act, they have declared their desire to remain British subjects within two years from the passing of the act. Persons who from having been born within British territory are British subjects, but who at birth became under the law of any foreign state subjects of such state, and also persons who though born abroad are British subjects by reason of parentage, may by declarations of alienage get rid of British nationality. Emigration to an uncivilized country leaves British nationality unaffected: indeed the right claimed by all states to follow with their authority their subjects so emigrating is one of the usual and recognized means of colonial expansion.

- Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegiance

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by jeagas68

Let me tell you a story about how Americans have been fooled, you thought the Federal Government still did not have control in 1931?
Some think it was 1865 of the civil war, some think a Constitution matters. It don't mean crap, it was their instrumentality to entertain you because they did not have radio or tv when it actually happened. See the State Of Louisiana registered as a Federal Corporation in 1812 and then the golden carrot of a social welfare system was dangled like a Golden Carrot called a Social Security System lured your family in (5 USC 552a(13);

Source http://www.manta.com/

Legislative Office Of The State Of Louisiana Inc
900 N 3rd St, Baton Rouge, LA 70802-5236, United States (Map) (Is This Your Company?)
Phone: (225) 342-7015
SIC:Legislative Bodies
Line of Business:Legislative Body
This company profile is for the private company State Of Louisiana, headquarters located in Baton Rouge, LA. State Of Louisiana's line of business is executive office.
Year Started:1812
Contact Name:Cathelene Blanco
Contact Title:Governor

The same holds true with Florida, with exception to the date of incorporation.

Company Profile: State Of Florida

Year Started:1845

State of Incorporation:N/A

URL:www.state.fl.us

Location Type:Headquarters

Stock Symbol:N/A

Stock Exchange:N/A

Also Does Business As:N/A

NAICS:N/A

SIC #Code:9111

Est. Annual Sales:N/A

Est. Employees:132,287

Est. Employees at Location:297

Contact Name:Charles H Bronson

Contact Title:Commissioner
Data above provided by D&B.

[Notorial dissent]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

I had sought to present an alternative view of the 14th Amendment and from a Moorish perspective. It was not intended as a rebuttal, but more of an alternate contrast to the first post.
Then you should have presented it as such, which you did not. The fact that that take is pure booswah is then irrelevant???

I also felt that the article which I posted raised good points again from a Moorish perspective. If you felt it was drivel, that is your perogative of course.
Then you should have posted it as such, however, since the bulk of the material is totally false, it does not add a thing to your argument




That's interesting... here's what the preamble of the act says:

The doctrine that no man can cast off his native allegiance without the consent of his sovereign was early abandoned in the United States, and on July 27, 1868, the day before the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, U.S. Congress declared in the preamble of the Expatriation Act that "the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,"
I am not arguing either the quote above or the date of issue, however, the interpretation and statements in the article you posted were false. I have seen no indication, that one had anything to do with the other, and the historical interpretation of the law bare that out. The gist of the law is that the US in law recognizes, and will defend the right of a foreign subject to renounce their status to that sovereign by leaving that country, and going to another to seek citizenship.
- Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegiance



As far as the Expatriation Act of 1868 goes, this is what I dug up in its entirety:



In my opinion, that paragraph above says quite a bit more concerning the act than the opinion you espouse, Notorial Dissent.

If you could, would you produce for us a copy of the Expatriation Act of 1868? Could you also produce for us cites or writings supporting your assertions?

Expatriation is part of the answer to becoming a state national being that rebuttals of the presumptions of being a statutory U.S. citizen is substantial to that process.
Nonsense, since one cannot be a state citizen without having US citizenship, one can be a resident, but that is all. When the Federal Govt was established the states ceded the power of naturalization as they did the power to print money to the new Federal Government.

Regards,
netwrkranger

You might try the following for some actual commentary on the act http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/alu...in_lecture.htm

[netwrkranger]

Notorial Dissent wrote:

Then you should have presented it as such, which you did not. The fact that that take is pure booswah is then irrelevant???

Perhaps you missed the very top of the post where it said 'another perspective'???

Notorial Dissent wrote:

Then you should have posted it as such, however, since the bulk of the material is totally false, it does not add a thing to your argument

You failed to point out which parts of the article were false instead of wholesale disregard of the article. Also, what part of another perspective says argument?

Notorial Dissent wrote:

I am not arguing either the quote above or the date of issue, however, the interpretation and statements in the article you posted were false. I have seen no indication, that one had anything to do with the other, and the historical interpretation of the law bare that out. The gist of the law is that the US in law recognizes, and will defend the right of a foreign subject to renounce their status to that sovereign by leaving that country, and going to another to seek citizenship.

And your citations for your assertions are..... ??? You need to be more specific in which interpretations or statements are false and refute each one.... kind of like an affidavit. Also, I think you are leaving out some important information. The US also recognizes the right of a US citizen to renounce their citizenship.

Notorial Dissent wrote:

Nonsense, since one cannot be a state citizen without having US citizenship, one can be a resident, but that is all. When the Federal Govt was established the states ceded the power of naturalization as they did the power to print money to the new Federal Government.

That's interesting. These cases are in contradiction to your first assertion.

"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)]

"But a person may be a citizen of a particular state
and not a citizen of the United States. To hold
otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest
exercise of its sovereignty -- the right to declare who
are its citizens."
[State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889)]

"We have in our political system a Government of the
United States and a government of each of the several
States. Each of these governments is distinct from the
others, and each has citizens of its own ...."
[United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]

There is a distinction between citizenship of the United States**
and citizenship of a particular state, and a person may be the
former without being the latter.

[Alla v. Kornfeld, 84 F.Supp. 823]
[(1949) headnote 5, emphasis added]

You are also forgetting that each one of the "States" are actually republics and are nations in their own right. Each republic will have its own rules for naturalization.

[netwrkranger]

Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this princi-ple, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of for-eign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruc- tion, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and prop-erty that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circum-stances.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That whenever it shall be made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons for such imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the Presi-dent shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, it shall be the duty of the President to use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress.

Approved, July 27, 1868.

[Notorial dissent]

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.

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

You are also forgetting that each one of the "States" are actually republics and are nations in their own right. Each republic will have its own rules for naturalization.

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.

[palani]

Naturalization has a definition in the U.S. It is

Originally Posted by Bouvier 1856

NATURALIZATION. The act by which an alien is made a citizen of the United States of America.

and a naturalized citizen is defined as

Originally Posted by Bouvier 1856

NATURALIZED CITIZEN. One who, being born an alien, has lawfully become a citizen of the United States Under the constitution and laws.

Aliens cannot be naturalized by states because only the United States of America can declare its' own citizens. Why look for any deeper meaning than this? It is all word art.

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

they gave up the ability to naturalize at that union.

Per the above definitions the states never had and never will have the power to naturalize. In the same sense the United States as a legal person has no power to dictate to the states who may or may not be citizens of that state. This is the more important issue rather than the diversions the word artists attempt to spin. The 14th amendment was all about forcing the southern states to accept newly minted "citizens".

If the United States actually could dictate the composition of the body politic to the states would the whole concept of a republic be thrown out with the rest of the bath water?

[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

[mrg]

How, precisely, is this "[m]ore to the point?

Can you/will you show, using the words found in the Constitution itself, that indeed, "Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the constitution gives specifically to the Federal Govt the power to: 'establish a uniform rule of naturalization'?"

How, precisely, and with specific particularity, is it other than that Article I "specifically" addresses "legislative Powers" vested in the Congress, rather than "gives" "specifically" these, or any part of these "Powers" (or any other "Power") to the seemingly elusive "Federal Government," as is your stated claim?

Can you/will you point to any specific terms "gives" "is given" in "...this Constitution for the United States of America," relating to any VESTED "Power(s)?"

What is the difference between specific terms and figures of speech, and why might one prefer the figure of speech to precise terms?

Are things similar the same?

[Notorial dissent]

Originally Posted by 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.

Oh really! Since my statement was

Originally Posted by notorial dissent

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.

and I certainly haven’t retracted it, and it has been far from refuted.

I gather from your comments, that I am supposed to give way because Palani, who while apparently quite capable at cut and paste still has not mastered elementary vocabulary, and is still incapable of comprehending what he has cribbed. What amazes me is that he managed to get the right two definitions, and still cannot read plain English when it smacks him in the face, and then proceeds to make the statement “Aliens cannot be naturalized by states because only the United States of America can declare its' own citizens. Why look for any deeper meaning than this?” when the very definitions he copied contradicts him. And then proceeds to make the following equally silly pronouncement, “Per the above definitions the states never had and never will have the power to naturalize. In the same sense the United States as a legal person has no power to dictate to the states who may or may not be citizens of that state.”

The states had, up until the act of union, full and plenary authority and power to determine who was or was not a citizen of that state. That authority expired at the act of union, per previous references. Naturalization is, was, and always has been the act of making an alien a citizen of a state. Since some of the first legislation of the new nation concerned the process of naturalization for the new nation, it would seem that they too disagree with your take on the subject.

In actuality, the United States, could and did dictate to the states the composition of the body politic, in that they dictated who could or could not vote for federal offices, and what the criteria and requirements for citizenship was. A republic is a very fluid form of government as was proven by the varying ways that the states formed their governments.

Do you have any concept of what expatriation is? Apparently not from the way you attempt to use it. It certainly has little if anything to do with taxation.

Expatriation:(Merriam Webster online dictionary)
:to leave one's native country to live elsewhere; also : to renounce allegiance to one's native country:
In plain English to pick one's self up and move to a different country, generally with the intent to become a citizen of the new country, with the implication of giving up one's natural citizenship.

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

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?

No, I don’t expect you will, since it would destroy your little fantasy, not my problem. There are in fact NO state laws regarding naturalization for the simple fact that it is not an authority of the states. As I pointed out, the naturalization authority rests squarely with the federal govt, not the states, and I provided the source.