Reflections on the 14th Amendment Sec IV

[mrg]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Welcome to the U.S.S.A

Tell me about it.

I had an interesting quasi-conversation with some lackey in IL SENATOR DURBIN's OFFICE about secret courts last week.

It was like the guy kept trying to answer something that I was not asking, and the more persistent and clearly I tried to phrase things so he could not help but know exactly what I was saying, the more determined he got in trying to answer as if I had asked about something else.

Talk about parallel universes.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by palani

Codee posted



There is too much coincidence that 'An Act Concerning The Rights of American citizens in Foreign States' was passed into law the evening before the 14th amendment passed. In this act the right of expatriation was officially recognized. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...db&recNum=2018

Right of who to expatriate? Was it the right of the US citizen to expatriate or a state citizen who had the right to expatriate?

The foreign states referred to are the states comprising the union. OK The federal government never really had citizens although all of the states recognized the concept of United States citizens. I do not believe in this. First you are to say that for a hundred years states went about "recognizing" a class of people yet to exist? I just cannot buy that without more explaining. Second, What were all of those people who were born in DC and never left? They are not US citizens? What were they? So now here comes the federal government declaring freed slaves and everyone within the United States to be United States citizens. Who or what is the subject of this "government" if there is no federal citizens at this point in time? The United States consists only of the the District of Columbia and the territories and possessions.But has no citizens. So what citizenship status was "puerto-ricans." were they natural born aliens? These are the states that consist of the United States, not the states that are foreign to the United States (Ohio, Virginia and so on). By error you may presume that you are within the United States when you are actually within a foreign country,Foreign to me,,, or to the United States not a possession or territory of the United States.

If you know you have the right to turn down the provisions of the 14th amendment and to expatriate to your own country Do you mean state of the union? Or do you mean "Cody Countryand you do not, you are in insurrection to your own government and to the U.S. constitution.Why would I be in insurection to the US? What did being in a state have to do with insurection. Is there a formal declaration of war on the states by the united states other then the ones that rebelled? Am I to be prosecuted by the states for this insurection? Is it not the states who would have standing to punish for insurection against them? Would not the US be trying to reap proffits from their own ulawfull act which was declared and admitted by them to be unlawful? That is like me hitting you in the face and then suing YOU for battery. If this was the case then a simple lack of standing to sue should squash every tax case. There is a reason this is not the case. As of now I am going with faulty assumption. This is the de facto system set up by the 14th amendment,If it is set up by law then it is De Jure. If the amendment is bad and unconstitutional then it needs to be challenged on that level. If the 14th is good then all of it "creations" are De Jure in which state governments share the same body politic with the federal government.I see this as being said ,
1) There was nobody able to vote for the federal Government until the 14th. (no fed citizens)

2) After the passage of the fourteenth everyone could vote for the first time but now that there was law for it, it became unlawful to do so.

3) The rebelious states are infact now concidered the true states of the union. On top of that all of the states that did not rebel who stayed with the union became the enemy of the true sovereign states of the south.

4) After winning the war the states which won declared themselves to be the US and held themselves criminal while stating the other states were sovereign.

5) They then take the admitted sovereign loser of the war statesw and make them adopt a bunch of laws before allowing the sovereigns to join the criminal party who seems to have all the rights and demands.

I'll just say this. I doubt it. ButI would love to debate this as a stand alone thread... Would anyone like to partake... I would love to be proven wrong and I feel there is a chance for that by looking at your arguments. I am down to argue the con side. Does someone want to kick off for the pro?

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Codee

I'll just say this. I doubt it. ButI would love to debate this as a stand alone thread... Would anyone like to partake... I would love to be proven wrong and I feel there is a chance for that by looking at your arguments. I am down to argue the con side. Does someone want to kick off for the pro?

To be proven wrong on what?

Pro what? and Con what?

State your case

[Big Al]

Congratulation Codee, you have come across the only possible good for the use of case law. Seeing the fraud in arguments is a great tool, just because a court said so and so is the law don't make it so as you well know.

What it does do, is help us prefect are arguments against these fraudulent arguments we hear from the so called law professionals in the court rooms across the land. It's all these BS arguments we hear that need to be beaten back with knowledge of the phoney docturines they spout, ie. For the common good, delegation of powers and on and on ad nauseam.

[palani]

Originally Posted by Codee

I'll just say this. I doubt it. ButI would love to debate this as a stand alone thread... Would anyone like to partake... I would love to be proven wrong and I feel there is a chance for that by looking at your arguments. I am down to argue the con side. Does someone want to kick off for the pro?

I was probably wrong about there being no US citizens prior to 1868. After all, the US could naturalize immigrants. Puerto Ricans weren't declared US citizens until 1915 by act of congress so they could participate in WWI. Generally though, US citizens were considered to be citizens of non-US states (Illinois, Ohio, etc), who derived their US citizenship from their state citizenship.

Or do you mean "Cody Country

If you would like to retain some semblance of constitutional rights I would suggest avoiding allegiance to countries not signatory to the US constitution.

From Kents Commentaries on American Law (1832, vol II, pg 44) -

In the case of Talbot v Janson the subject was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States, in 1775. It was contended, on one side, that the abstract right of individuals to withdraw from the society of which they were members, was antecedent and superior to the law of society, and recognized by the best writers on public law, and by the usage of nations ; that the law of allegiance was derived from the feudal system, by which men were chained to the soil on which they were born, and converted from free citizens, to be the vassals of a lord or superior; that this country was colonized and settled upon the doctrine of the right of emigration ; that the right was incontestible, if exercised in due conformity with the moral and social oblications ; that the power assumed by the government of the United States of naturalizing aliens, by an oath of allegiance to this country, after a termporary residence, virtually implies that our citizens may become subjects of a foreign power by the same means.

The counsel on the other side conceded, that birth gave no property in the men, and that upon the principles of the American government, he might leave his country when he pleased, provided it was done in bona fide, and with good cause, and under the regulations prescribed by law ; and that he actually took up his residence in another country, under an open and avowed declaration of his intent to settle there. This was required by the most authoritative writers on the law of nations ; and Heineccius, in particular, required that the emigrant should depart with the design to expatriate, and actually join himself to another state ; that though all this be done, it only prove that a man might be entitled to the right of citizenship in two countries, and proving that he had been received by one country, did not prove that his own country had surrendered him ; that the locomotive right finaly depended upon the consent of the government ; and the power of regulating emigration, was an incident to the power of regulating naturalization, and was vested exclusively in congress ; and until they had prescribed the mode and terms, the character and the allegiance of the citizen continued.

The judges of the Supreme Court felt and discovered much embarrassment in the consideration of this delicate and difficult question, and they gave no definitive opinion upon it. One of them observed, that admitting the intention of expatriation had been legally declared, it was necessary that it should have been carried into effect, and that the party should have actually become a subject of a foreign government ; that the cause of removal must be lawful, otherwise the emigrant acts contrary to his duty ; that though the legislature of a particular state should, by law, specify the lawful causes of expatriation, and prescribe the manner in which it might be effected, the emigration could only affect the local allegiance of the party, and not draw after it a renunciation of the higher allegiance due to the United States ; and that an act of Congress was requisite to remove doubts , and furnish a rule of civil conduct on this very interesting subject of expatriation. Another of the judges admitted the right of individual emigration to be recognized by most of the nations of the world, and that it was a right to be exercised in subordination of the public interest and safety, and ought to be under the regulation of law ; that it ought not to be exercised according to a man's will and pleasure, without any restraint ; that every man is entitled to claim rights and protection in society, and he is, in his turn, under a solemn obligation to discharge his duty ; and no man ought to be permitted to abandon society, and leave his social and political obligations unperformed. Though a person may become naturalized abroad, yet if he has not been legally discharged of his allegiance at home, it will remain, nothwithstanding the party may have placed himself in difficulty, by double and conflicting chains of allegiance.

[palani]

Big Al

When you start mouthing off about fraud and BS arguments you might want to be prepared to back up your position.

[Big Al]

The doctrines I brought up are the primary excuse for the meanings of the constitution and what the meaning is suppose to mean. At least this is what the courts across the land have spouted as the meaning of the constitution. Is this new to you? It's only been around since the civil war.

[weishaupt1776]

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”.

[Codee]

(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”.

Maybe something got lost in translation. The above quote is a mis-joind sentance. Please review original and re-post so that it can be understood.

I am not convinced that there were no United States citizens until somebody tells me what citizenship a person born in DC and never leaving DC, had.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Codee

Maybe something got lost in translation. The above quote is a mis-joind sentance. Please review original and re-post so that it can be understood.

I am not convinced that there were no United States citizens until somebody tells me what citizenship a person born in DC and never leaving DC, had.

That's fine, but one of the main drafters of the 14th Amndmt says what "citizen of the united states" always meant PRIOR TO the 14th Amndmt.

Also, that one mis-paste of mine surely doesn't discount the rest of the premise regarding what the true meaning of United States Citizenship really is and always has been (Federal Citizenship emanating out of DC)

If you look at Johnson's veto of the 1866 civ rights act, he does indicate that United States citizenship, in a singular sense; is none other than a (previously UN-defined) federal citizenship as opposed to a respective state citizenship which was conferred by a state

Such state citizenship cannot currently be conferred , nor has been possible to confer since 1868; by a state because each state body politic is currently populated with those who which to adhere to a singular Federal Citizenship emanating out of DC.