RSS

“Citizen of the United States”

22 Jun

The following quote is attributed to http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter3.htm and apparently reports a dialogue between a litigant and some “insider” (perhaps a federal judge or prosecutor):

“Why are defendants in federal district court always asked if they are ‘citizens of the United States’?”

He replied without hesitation, “So we can determine jurisdiction.  In many cases the federal court does not have jurisdiction over a citizen unless they testify they are a citizen of the United States — meaning a federal citizen under the 14th Amendment.”

I quickly interjected, “What if the individual denied being a citizen of the United States and claimed to be a sovereign citizen of Oklahoma?”  The attorney bowled me over with, “We don’t get jurisdiction.”

The previous dialogue impelled me to look up the meaning of “citizen of the United States” as found in the national Constitution.  The concept of “citizenship” is expressly addressed at eleven points in the Constitution:

Article 1 Section 2 Clause 2:  “No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and have been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”

Note that the term “Citizen of the United States” is capitalized.  Note also that at the time the national Constitution was adopted by the people, the term “United States” signified the several United States.  Thus, to be elected as a representative, you did not have to be a Citizen of the State that elected you, but you had to be an inhabitant of that State and you had to have been a Citizen of one of the other several “United States” for at least seven years.  Thus, a Citizen of the State of Georgia could run for office as a representative from the State of Virginia, provided that the Citizen of the State of Georgia was at least an inhabitant of the State of Virginia.

This implies that at least back in A.D. 1789, your “citizenship” was probably an attribute of your birth that stayed with you even when you migrated to another State.  If you were born in the State of Virginia, even though you moved to Vermont, you would still be a Citizen of the State of Virginia.

Thus, the term “Citizen of the United States” was a kind of shorthand to indicate people who were Citizens of any one of the several States of the Union.  Thus, “Citizen of the [several] United States” apparently meant “State citizen”.

A similar reference to citizenship concerning eligibility for Senators is found at Article 1 Section 3 Clause 3:

“No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”

Again, we see evidence that “Citizen of the United States” means “Citizen” of the several “United States” or “State citizens”.

Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 applies to the citizenship required to be eligible to the office of President.  (That clause is especially interesting today in light of the fact that President Obama is alleged to have been born in Kenya and therefore ineligible to be President.)

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Yeas a Resident within the United States.”

Clearly, the phrase “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” had to signify those people who were citizens of each of the thirteen States of the Union that existed prior to the “adoption” of the Constitution.  Again, we see that “Citizen of the United States” meant “Citizen of the [several] United States” or “State Citizen”.

I presume that by “natural born Citizen,” the Constitution meant to describe all of those future presidential candidates who were not born at the time the Constitution was adopted but would subsequently be “naturalized” by birth as a Citizen of whichever State where his birth took place.  Again, the Constitution appears to be talking about State citizens.

Some (rightfully, I think) currently attach great danger and disability to the concept of residency.   If you admit to being a “resident,” you’re presumed to be one of the serfs on the global plantation under the 14th Amendment.

So it’s interesting to also note also that to be president you must be “Resident within the United States” meaning resident within one of the States of the Union.  This contrasts to the 14th Amendment’s (adopted A.D. 1868) reference to “citizens of the United States” (note the word “citizens” is uncapitalized) “and the State wherein they reside”.   When the Constitution was adopted in A.D. 1789, we had “Residents within the [several] United States”.  When the 14th Amendment was ratified almost a century later, people were citizen of the State wherein they resided.  The word “within” suggests a location without loss of status or capacity.  The word “wherein” suggest “in” (at least to me).  The word “in” means “under or subject to”.  In A.D. 1789, our “Residents” were “within” a State of the Union.  In A.D. 1868, our 14th Amendment citizens “resided” “in” (under or subject to) a State.

I may be using the words “within” and “wherein” to leap to unwarranted implications concerning pre- and post-14th Amendment concepts of “residency”.  But even if that’s true, it still appears possible to currently admit being a “resident” or even having a “residence”—provided that you qualify your admission so as to signify “residence within the several United States” as found in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the national Constitution.

Article 3 Section 2 Clause 1 declares in part:

“The judicial Power shall extend to all . . . Controversies . . . between a State and Citizens of another State;—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.”

I’m not going to dive deeply into that Clause, but notice: 1) the word “Citizens” always signifies a “Citizen” of a State of the Union; there is no hint to suggest the existence of a single, national “Citizen of the [singular] United States”; and 2) the word “Citizens” was always capitalized.

There’s nothing spectacular or certain about the fact that the words “Citizen” and “Citizens” are capitalized throughout the body of the Constitution and continue to be so through the 11th Amendment (A.D. 1798).  Such capitalization was simply a convention used by the Founders to highlight virtually every noun in the Constitution.

But starting with the 14th Amendment (A.D. 1868), the concept of citizenship is addressed by five Amendments and in every instance, the words “citizen” or “citizens” are not capitalized.

This distinction does not prove or even necessarily suggest that all pre-14th Amendment State “Citizens” were signified by capitalization and all post-14th Amendment “citizens” are signified by the lower case.   But the distinction is at least interesting.

Article 4 Section 2 Clause 1:

“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States”

That’s an intriguing and somewhat mysterious clause worthy of much more study.  But this much is clear: Again, the Constitution sees citizenship as attaching only at the State level; there is no suggestion of a singular federal or national citizenship.

More, there is some universal concept and thus preexisting foundation for the “Privileges and Immunities” of the “Citizens of the several States”.  Those “Privileges and Immunities” would seem to be common to all of the several States and thus must not emanate from any single State or even from the national Constitution, but rather from some authority or instrument that is common to (and probably proceeded) all of the “several States”.

What common authority might have laid the grounds for any Privilege and Immunities common to all of the States?  If we rule out the Constitution, that authority might be the Northwest Territorial Ordinance (A.D. 1787) or the Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781)—but those two choices make no sense to me since those authorities were crafted by the States and drafted after the States already existed.

For me, the only logical choice for an authority that creates “Privileges and Immunities” common to all the States would have to be the instrument that created the first thirteen States:  The “Declaration of Independence”.   If I’m  right, those “Privileges and Immunities” may be synonymous with the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in that Declaration.

The 11th Amendment (A.D. 1798) declared:

“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commences or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”

The phrase “one of the United States” again confirms that these “United States” in the body of the Constitution are several rather than singular.

The word “Citizens” again is attached to each of the several States of the Union rather than to any singular national or federal authority.

The 13th Amendment (A.D. 1865) does not deal with the concept of citizenship, but is nevertheless an important indicator of the meaning of the term “United States”:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

Note that the word “their” is plural and refers back to “United States”.  Thus, in the 13th Amendment of A.D. 1865, the “United States” are several.

The trouble begins with the 14th Amendment of A.D. 1868 which declares in part:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Note the word “the” as in “the jurisdiction thereof”.  Compare to “their jurisdiction” in the 13th Amendment.  The word “their” in the 13th was plural and referenced back to the term “United States” and thus revealed that that “United States” was several in nature.  Just three years later, the 14th Amendment’s use of “the” (“the jurisdiction thereof) also referred to a “United States”—but because the word “the” is singular in nature, the referenced “United States” must also be singular.

So far as I’m able to understand, the “United States” found in the 14th Amendment is the first instance in our Constitution where “United States” means something other than the several “United States”.  So far as I can understand, the 14th Amendment marked the first instance in the Constitution that recognized a singular “United States”.

While it’s possible that a singular “United States” may predate the 14th Amendment, it’s certain that the 14th Amendment was the time the Constitution recognized a “citizenship” attached to some singular, “national” entity rather than to the several States of the Union.

Prior to the 14th Amendment, a “Citizen of the United States” was merely a Citizen of any one of the several States comprising the perpetual Union.  After the 14th Amendment, there could also be a second, “national citizenship” called “citizen of the [singular] United States”.

Since A.D. 1948 (with the probable creation of an alternative set of territorial “states” at 28 U.S.C. 81-131), it appears probable that a third “territorial” citizenship was also created.

If so, we may not have (at least) three kinds of citizenship:

1) “Citizen of the [several] United States” (citizens of the individual States of the Union);

2)  “citizen of the [singular] United States” (citizens of the federal government and/or Washington D.C.); and,

3) “citizen of the [territorial] state” (citizens of federal territories like TX, OK, NY and CA).

Only one of these “citizenships” will do you any good:  That of “Citizen of the [several] United States” (a/k/a Citizens of a State of the Union).  In that capacity, you might be able to claim your God-given, unalienable Rights.  The other “citizenships” under the singular “United States” and under the territorial “states” will probably condemn you to the status of a consenting animal, chattel, subject or slave.

The Constitution contains four more Amendments (15th, 19th, 24th and 26th) that include the word “citizen”.  All four amendments involve the right of the “citizens of the United States” (presumably the singular “United States” recognized or created by the 14th Amendment) to vote in what became the national democracy that supplanted the “Republican Form of Government” guaranteed at Article 4.4 to each of the States of the Union.  That “Republican Form of Government” would be available to any “Citizens of the [several] United States” (States of the Union) but would not be available to “citizens of the [singular] United States” nor to “citizens of the [territorial] states”.

The 15th Amendment (A.D. 1870) declares:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

The 19th Amendment (A.D. 1920) declares:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

The 24th Amendment (A.D. 1964) declares:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”

This 24th Amendment strikes me as the first instance when the right to vote was clearly associated with a national election (for President and Vice President; national offices).  It’s not impossible that this 24th Amendment may have officially recognized the existence of the national democracy that had been building since the 14th amendment.  This is not to say that the national democracy necessarily began with the 24th Amendment.  The national democracy may have begun officially about A.D. 1934 with the onset of the New Deal.  The national democracy may have officially begun shortly after A.D. 1948 the introduction of what may be new-and-improved “territorial” states at 28 U.S.C. 81-131.  But the 24th Amendment may be the Constitution’s single most express recognition of the national democracy.

The 26th Amendment declares in part:

“The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”

As you can read from the foregoing, the term “citizen of the United States” could be helpful for hazardous to your health.  I don’t put much stock in the idea that we can clearly distinguish between what kind of citizenship were talking about my use of a capital “C” or use of a lower-case “c”.  If you want to distinguish what kind of “citizen/Citizen of the United States” you are, you’ll have to express that distinction with some number of words rather than mere capitalization.

One of the most intriguing implications of this study is the idea that it’s possible to admit being a “citizen of the United States”—and if you properly qualify that admission—avoid any adverse political or legal consequences.  What could a judge say you expressly claimed to be a “Citizen of the [several] United States” as that term is referenced in Articles 1.2.2, 1.3.3, 2.1.5, 3.2.1, 4.2.1, and the 11th Amendment of the national Constitution?  Would a judge, prosecutor, or other government official responded by saying “The hell you are!  You’re a citizen of the singular United States as found in the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments!”?

Once you raise the issue of what kind of “citizen of the United States” you are, you will have raised an issue that government is unlikely to want to address on the record.  Will they dare to claim you are a citizen of the singular United States after you’ve claimed to be a citizen of the several United States?  I don’t think so.  It would open a can of worms that none of the treasonous whores would like to explore.  Their racket depends in part on their ability to presume that when you admit to being a “citizen of the United States” you necessarily mean being a citizen of the singular United States.  Once you recognize and make issue of the dichotomy, their presumption fails, and they’ll have to provide evidence for a citizen of the singular United States (and thereby reveal the scam), or perhaps just dropped the case.

Remember the dialogue that started this article?

“Why are defendants in federal district court always asked if they are ‘citizens of the United States’?”

He replied without hesitation, “So we can determine jurisdiction.  In many cases the federal court does not have jurisdiction over a citizen unless they testify they are a citizen of the United States—meaning a federal citizen under the 14th Amendment.”

I quickly interjected, “What if the individual denied being a citizen of the United States and claimed to be a sovereign citizen of Oklahoma?”  The attorney bowled me over with, “We don’t get jurisdiction.”

Maybe that quote is true and maybe not.  But it supports the idea that you can properly distinguish between the different classes of “citizen of the United States” you might be able to fend off the jurisdiction and purported authority of “this state”.

Alfred Adask

About these ads
 

4 responses to ““Citizen of the United States”

  1. Harry James

    June 28, 2009 at 9:19 PM

    I suspect that everyone is “considered” or “deemed” to be a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States federal government. This is a disputable presumption and prima facie evidence at best until rebutted.

    “The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen CREATED by Congress.” U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed. 829 (1873).

    So, for whom did Congress “create” this special class of citizenship?”

    “STATUS OF CITIZENSHIP NOT CONFERRED BY RECENT [13th, 14th & 15th] AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION — No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to THEIR jurisdiction, or born without those limits and subsequently naturalized under THEIR laws, owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution.

    PURPOSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. — The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States who could not be brought within the operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, had at the same time left, them without the status of citizenship. Such persons were not WHITE PERSONS, but in the main were of African blood, who had been held in slavery in this country, or having themselves never been held in slavery, were the native-born descendants of slaves. Ellen Van Valkenburg v. Alberty Brown.

    “Residents, as distinguished from citizens, are aliens who are permitted to take up a permanent abode in the country. … They have only certain privileges which the law, or custom gives them. … Their children succeed to their status; for the right of perpetual residence given them by the State passes to their children.” THE LAW OF NATIONS OR THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW, by E. De Vattel, Edition of 1758 translation by Charles Fenwick, Published by the Carnegie Institution, Washington, 1916

    Most claim to be a citizen of the United States and they all claim to be residents in one of the States – PA MD NY etc.

    My question is how does a white man rebut the disputable presumption that he is a member of this special class of citizens; which class of citizens was created by Congress for the numerous class of persons of African blood who could not be constitutionally recognized as citizens because they were not white?

    The Constitution was not lawfully changed to recognize native born blacks as citizens on an equal footing with whites as it should have been, instead Congress, in the 14th Amendment, created a statutory second rate class of citizenship for the blacks and then considers or deems both blacks and whites to be members of this special class of citizens who are completely subject to Congress.

    I could be mistaken but if this special class of citizen was created by Congress for the freedmen how can it legally or lawfully relate to freemen born on the land in one of the Union states and Citizens of that state?

     
  2. Luke

    July 9, 2009 at 5:57 PM

    What “society”? What’s the trade off to entering a society? You certainly cannot have the same character (status) after ‘coming in’ to a society that you had prior else why come in.

    Artificial persons. Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. Black’s 6th Ed.

     
  3. FreeManAndHisDog

    July 14, 2009 at 2:25 AM

    To know how to use capitalization, it is necessary how to correctly use “proper nouns” and “capitonyms” in the English language.

    Notes on capitalization, proper nouns and capitonyms

    On capitalization…

    Take the word “cheese” as a random word to describe capitalization…

    a. The word “cheese” (with no capitalization) is a common word, and is used in its commonly understood meaning. Depending on the sentence, it could mean any cheese, or all cheese or some specific cheese such as my cheese or the cheese, though the word “cheese” itself remains as the commonly understood and agreed meaning of the word “cheese”.

    b. The word “Cheese” is a proper noun (initial letter capitalized) and therefore defines something specific and to scope. The word “Cheese” could be defined to be absolutely anything that the writer wants to define it to be.
    i. The word “Cheese” could be defined by the author to mean a specific cheese – such as “my red cheese on the top shelf”. – Every time the word “Cheese” is used in the context of the document, it would only be referring to “my red cheese on the top shelf” and not any or all cheeses. This type of “Cheese” is still a “cheese” (though a specific type of cheese) and so this proper noun is also a capitonym.
    ii. The word “Cheese” could be defined by the author to mean something completely unrelated to cheese in general. The author could define it as “the local farm”. So when he says he is donating money to Cheese, he is clearly donating money to the local farm. This type of “Cheese” is a proper noun but is not a capitonym.

    – Named things are also in this category but are not general words, such as John, Joe, Mary etc., therefore are also not (cannot be) capitonym.

    Now, there are both the citizens of any State of the United States of America, and there are the citizens of the United States.

    Notice here how I did not use capitalization as instead I used the qualifier “of” XXX. If I make it clear, there is no need for capitalization.

    Capitalization is used to further differentiate, but it depends on context / scope / jurisdiction of the actual document.

    So be careful not to rely on capitalization alone to distinguish between the two; the citizen of any of the States of the United States of America, and the citizen of the United States.

    The two are distinguishable…

    ” We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several states. Each is distinct from the other and each has citizens of its own… ” [U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588]

    ” In the Constitution of the United States the word “citizen” is generally, if not always, used in a political sense to designate one who has the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state or of the United States. It is also used in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. ” [Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 30 L.ed 766, 7 S.Ct. 656, 763]

    ” …he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,… ” ” One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. ” [McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)]

    ” The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other. ” [Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)]

    ” There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of he state. ” [Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)]

    Check out the articles on the Common Law Subreddit.

    Also be sure to know the difference between the People (that had the United States of America created in Trust in 1787), and the citizen of the United States that is a created role and “office” subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

    The natural person (human being) who plays the role of the “citizen of the United States” takes on fiduciary duties and obligations thereof in order to uphold the laws of that office – the statutory Acts and Bills – and to settle the accounts of that “office” according to the Codes, Rules and Regulations.

    The “office” of ‘citizen’ of the United States, as with ‘resident’, is also known in law as an “artificial person” (a.k.a. an artificial juristic entity), and as its accounts have to be settled accordingly (and the natural person takes on a fiduciary duty to do so), it has to pay Corporate (Income) Tax that comes with the use of the commercial instruments of the third party – the Federal Reserve Corporation.

    On the other hand, the original People and their Posterity have no such obligations and stand sovereign at law (common law) and may bring suits / actions in “courts of record”.

    The People may do business in “lawful money” and settle contracts between themselves. However, those standing as “citizens of the United States” (a created Trustee role and office under the United States) must use legal tender the third party service of the Federal Reserve or other bank, and as such must settle their arguments according to the codes, rules and regulations that come with the use of that service they are providing. – You set up you contractual agreement through use of their currency – a third party service – thus granting them jurisdiction.

     
  4. Warren Hathaway

    April 17, 2012 at 6:41 AM

    You are correct in stating that there are more than one citizen in the country of the United States since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. You refered to three. However, there are two citizens. One is a citizen of the United States, under Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The other a citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United States, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States. A citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution is also a citizen of the several States. Refer to the following:

    “Two Distinct State Citizens For Purposes Of DiversitY Of Citizenship”
    http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b6862bd9-e7a4-4215-bf24-881db524e76f

    “Diversity of Citizenship: The Basics”
    http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=76d8e5c8-ac03-4a26-91ac-f32701cd3eef

    Though not stated in these works, a citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution is a citizen of the Union. A citizen of the United States, under Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, is a citizen of the District of Columbia, and the territories and possessions of the United States, as well as the federal enclaves within the several States.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,003 other followers