| |
QUOTATIONS: The following are some highly relevant quotations.
"One may be a Citizen of a state, and yet not a citizen of the United States." Boyd v. State of Nebraska, 143 U.S. 103, 108. And with almost identical wording: Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449; and dozens of others. (Emphasis added.)
"[W]e find nothing...which requires that a citizen of a state must also be a citizen of the United States, if no question of federal rights or jurisdiction is involved." Crosse v. Bd. of Supvrs of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966) (Emphasis added.)
"By metaphysical refinement, in examining our form of government, it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. But constant usage--arising from convenience, and perhaps necessity, and dating from the formation of the Confederacy--has given substantial existence to the idea which the term conveys. 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 [in 1855, before the 14th Amendment created them, in 1868]....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 used 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. If we examine the language closely, and according to the rules of rigid construction always applicable to delegated powers, we will find that the power to naturalize in fact is not given to Congress, but simply the power to establish an uniform rule....[A] distinction both in name and privileges is made to exist between citizens of the United States ex vi termini [ by the very meaning of the term used. Reference is being made to those living in the District of Columbia.], and citizens of the respective States. To the former no privileges or immunities are granted..." Ex parte Knowles, 5 Ca. 300 (1855). (Emphasis added.)
"The 14th Amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States. It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state." United States v. Anthony (1874), 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830. (Emphasis added.)
"United States citizenship does not entitle citizen to rights and privileges of state citizenship." K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236, 256 P. 545 (1927), 48 Supreme Court. 527. (Emphasis added.)
"It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states." Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L. Ed. 997.
"At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people [state Citizens] and they are truly the sovereigns of the country." Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463.
"The people of the state [state Citizens], as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative." Lansing v. Smaith, 4 Wendell 9 (NY) (1829).
The opinion of Judge John Appleton, of the Maine Supreme Court, cannot be stressed too strongly, when he stated that in the Dred Scott Decision, "Justice Taney says 'every person...recognized as citizens of the several states, became also citizens of this new political body'...Taney's opinion, therefore, rests upon a remarkable and most unfortunate misapprehension of facts. Taney would have concurred with (Justice) Curtis had the facts...been pointed out to him." (Emphasis added.)
"A fundamental right inherent in "state citizenship" is a privilege or immunity of that citizenship only. Privileges and immunities of "citizens of the United States," on the other hand, are only such as arise out of the nature and essential character of the national government, or as specifically granted or secured to all citizens or persons by the Constitution of the United States." Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78. (Emphasis added.)
"We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights and powers of the Federal government. They were decided subsequently to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment..." Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 598 (1900).
"[T]he 14th Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to ally doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restriction upon [state] citizenship." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649. (Emphasis added.)
"A citizen of the United States is ipso facto and at the same time a citizen of the state in which he resides. While the 14th Amendment does not create a national citizenship, it has the effect of making that citizenship 'paramount and dominant' instead of 'derivative and dependent' upon state citizenship." Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U. S. 404, 427. (Emphasis added. More is the pity.)
"The (14th) amendment referred to slavery. Consequently, the only persons embraced by its provisions, and for which Congress was authorized to legislate in the manner were those then in slavery." Bowlin v. Commonwealth (1867), 65 Kent. Rep. 5, 29. (Emphasis added.)
"Our Union in its foreign relations presents itself with all its states and territories as one and indivisible; a garment without a seam; but at home we are separate sovereign states of the union. Within the limits of the states, the government of the United States has no powers but those that have been delegated to it." George Bancroft. (Emphasis added.)
After the adoption of the 13th Amendment a bill which became the first Civil Rights Act was introduced in the 39th Congress, the major purpose of which was to secure to the recently freed Negroes all the civil rights secured to white people...No one but citizens of the United States [i.e., the freed slaves] were within the provisions of the Act. Cf. Hague v. C. I. O., 307 U. S. 496, 509. (Emphasis added.)
26 CFR 1.911-2(h) Foreign Country "The term 'foreign country' when used in a geographical sense includes any territory under the sovereignty of a government other than that of the [federal] United States [such as Kentucky]."
"Foreigner. ...a person who is not a citizen or subject of the state or country of which mention is made..." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition.
"The 14th Amendment, declaring that all persons born or naturalized in the [District] United States and subject to its allegiance are citizens, uses the word in the sense of [federal] 'national' or 'subject.'" Encyclopedia of Political Science, art. "Nationality." (Emphasis added.)
"The natives of Puerto Rico and the other ceded islands are [federal] United States nationals, or, as the learned Attorney General prefers to term them, American subjects." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 667. (Emphasis added.)
"In determining the boundaries of apparently conflicting powers between the states and the general government, the proper question is, not so much what has been, in terms, reserved to the states, as what has been, expressly or by necessary implication, granted by the people to the national government; for each state possesses all the powers of an independent and sovereign nation, except so far as they have been ceded away by the constitution. The federal government is but the creature of the people of the states, and, like an agent appointed for definite and specific purposes, must show an express or necessarily implied authority in the charter of its appointment to give validity to its acts." People ex rel. Attry. Gen. v. Naglee, 1 Cal. 234 (California Supreme Court, 1850). (Emphasis added.)
"It scarcely needs to be said [sic!] that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction [from state to federal]...the federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a [s]tate..." "Jurisdiction Over Areas Within the States" A federal government report of 1956. (Emphasis added.)
"...McCULLER, at a place within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, namely Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, on land acquired for the United States and under its exclusive jurisdiction, did take..." (Emphasis added.) United States of America v. ERNEST A. McCULLER, Case No. CR 3-95-73, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, charges filed August 10, 1995.
"The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity is one of the Common-Law immunities and defenses that are available to the Sovereign Citizen of Michigan [or, say, California]." Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d. 45, 109 S. Ct. 2304 (1988).
"Congress exercises its confirmed powers subject to the limitations contained in the Constitution. If a state ratifies or gives consent to any authority which is not specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States, it is null and void. State officials cannot consent to the enlargement of powers of Congress beyond those enumerated in the Constitution." Sandra Day O'Connor, New York v. United States, et al., 488 U.S. 1041
"The more intelligent adversaries of the new Constitution admit the force of this reasoning; but they qualify their admission by a distinction between what they call internal and external taxation. The former they would reserve to the State governments; the latter, which they explain into commercial imposts, or rather duties on imported articles, they declare themselves willing to concede to the federal head." Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist 36. (Emphasis added.)
"A person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, if this birth occurs in a territory over which the United States is sovereign." 3A Am Jur 1420, art. Aliens and Citizens.
"The law is that income from sources not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the U.S. Government (sic) is not subject to any tax under subtitle "A" of the Internal Revenue Code." Letter in response to a Privacy Act request dated 12/12/95, by Cynthia J. Hills, Disclosure Officer, IRS, Service Center, Philadelphia, PA. (Emphasis added.)
In the 1920s, Pulitzer Prize winner for his writings on American Law, Charles Warren, said that "[h]ad the [Slaughterhouse cases] been decided otherwise the States would have largely lost their autonomy and become, as political entities, only of historic interest...The boundary lines between the States and the National Government wound be practically abolished, and the rights of the citizens of each state would be irrevocably fixed as of the date of the Fourteenth Amendment." It was "one of the landmarks of American law." But, this has come to pass, and almost everyone claims to be a federal District citizen--swearing to it on every 1040 Form.
Before the 14th Amendment, in 1868, "it had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing the Union. Those, therefore, who were born and always resided in the District of Columbia or in the Territories, though within the United States, were not citizens...[After that]...the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized. Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a state [e.g., if born in D.C.], but an important element is necessary to make the former the latter. He must reside in the state to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to become a citizen of the Union. Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 72, 74 (1873).
Also you should own your property as 'Private' not as Personal Property!
/S/ Steven Pattison
Posted Apr 22 2006 2:43PM CEST
|
