Does anyone know pt 2

[Patriotdiscussions]

Reply from Jeffery

There's no contract, that's why the quote you referred to says implies.

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/re ... 1.0576.pdf

And do yourself a favor and read the whole thing and not the excerpt. The case you're quoting is about a guy who immigrated to the United States from Saxony (before it joined Germany in 1871), pledged allegiance to the United States and argued that therefore he was a citizen. The judges decided that that wasn't sufficient for him to become a citizen and that he had to fulfill all the requirements necessary for naturalization before he becomes a citizen.

1. I understand it says implied, as in an implied CONTRACT correct.

An implied contract is an agreement created by actions of the parties involved, but it is not written or spoken. This is a contract assumed to have been drawn. In this case, there is no written record nor any actual verbal agreement. A form of an implied contract is an implied warranty provided automatically by law.

2. I did read the whole thing, if you did you might of noticed it was the state and not him that was claiming he was a citizen.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Reply from fortin

This is actually a fairly simple case. The federal govt has its laws that specify the steps that an immigrant must take to apply for and obtain US citizenship. Reum was German, but had lived in Minnesota for many years and had even, under that state's generous laws, been allowed to vote in elections. But he had not completed the process set forth in federal law to become a naturalized citizen. Part of this process involved filing various papers by which he pledged his loyalty and allegiance to the US, and renounced any previous nationality or loyalty to another country; this process the court refers to as "the contract of allegiance". Actually "contract" might not be the precise term because there is no negotiation involved, either the applicant does it or else his application isn't moving forward.

Would that then be an adhension contract since no negotiation took place? The answer would be yes I think.

As I said, Reum had been living, even voting, in Minn. for many years, but he had not yet followed through with the naturalization process spelled out in federal law, and the court held that he was, therefore, not yet a US citizen. A state govt could not make him a US citizen, only the terms of federal law could do that. Minnesota might count him as a state citizen and let him vote in state elections, but he was not yet a US citizen because the only laws that could accomplish that were federal laws. Therefore, if he was involved in a court case, he would have to be regarded as a non-citizen of the US.

Interesting reply, so after the 14th your saying there were state citizens RESIDING in the us who were not us citizens correct?

[Pottapaug1938]

Only in the sense that a foreign national could be granted citizenship in a particular state without having satisfied the federal naturalization requirements. If you look at the clear language of the 14th Amendment, it makes clear that you and I, having been born within the United States, are citizens of both the United States and of the state in which we reside. The law of federal or state citizenship HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONTRACT LAW.

Your word games have long since become tiresome, PD.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Only in the sense that a foreign national could be granted citizenship in a particular state without having satisfied the federal naturalization requirements. If you look at the clear language of the 14th Amendment, it makes clear that you and I, having been born within the United States, are citizens of both the United States and of the state in which we reside. The law of federal or state citizenship HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONTRACT LAW.

Your word games have long since become tiresome, PD.

I think the court mentioning at least five times the word contract in relation to citizenship is clear enough, perhaps 6 times is the magic number?

And since you forgot, being born or naturalized is only one of the conditions of being a us citizen, you also have to be subject to the jurisdiction as well.

That is what the word AND means in the first sentence of the the 14th.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

[Patriotdiscussions]

Only in the sense that a foreign national could be granted citizenship in a particular state without having satisfied the federal naturalization requirements. If you look at the clear language of the 14th Amendment, it makes clear that you and I, having been born within the United States, are citizens of both the United States and of the state in which we reside. The law of federal or state citizenship HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONTRACT LAW.

Your word games have long since become tiresome, PD.

And just to be clear, you are stating the court was wrong and there is no contract of allegence as stated in the case? The judge just made that up?

[Patriotdiscussions]

Does an obligation arise from a contract or from nothing at all?

According to Gregg's link it seems citizens have rights and obligations that are legally enforced, just like a contract.

Strange.

Understanding U.S. citizenship.
Citizenship is the common thread that connects
all Americans. Below is a list of some of the
most important rights and responsibilities that all citizens—both Americans by birth and by choice— should exercise, honor, and respect. While some of these responsibilities are legally required of every citizen, all are important to ensure the continued vitality of our country and democracy.

Responsibilities
• Support and defend the U.S. Constitution.
• Stay informed of the issues affecting your
community.
• Participate in the democratic process.
• Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws.
• Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others.
• Participate in your local community.
• Pay income and other taxes honestly, and on time,
to federal, state, and local authorities.
• Serve on a jury when called upon.
• Defend the country if the need should arise.

[Pottapaug1938]

Only in the sense that a foreign national could be granted citizenship in a particular state without having satisfied the federal naturalization requirements. If you look at the clear language of the 14th Amendment, it makes clear that you and I, having been born within the United States, are citizens of both the United States and of the state in which we reside. The law of federal or state citizenship HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONTRACT LAW.

Your word games have long since become tiresome, PD.

I think the court mentioning at least five times the word contract in relation to citizenship is clear enough, perhaps 6 times is the magic number?

And since you forgot, being born or naturalized is only one of the conditions of being a us citizen, you also have to be subject to the jurisdiction as well.

That is what the word AND means in the first sentence of the the 14th.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" referred to those Native Americans who were not yet under federal control (i.e., "Indians not taxed"), and to those children of foreign diplomats of royalty who are born here. There are no longer any of the former; but in the case of, say, the German ambassador who has a child born in Washington, DC during his or her assignment, such a child does not acquire American nationality at birth.

As for the use of the word "contract" in ONE 1879 CASE INVOLVING NATURALIZATION AND NOT BIRTH WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, it would take a lot more than that -- i.e., a body of federal case law of much more recent vintage -- to change the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment. Plus, the judge was using the word "contract" in an illustrative, and not a legal sense; because nowhere in American law is there any reference to citizenship being a matter of contract.

[Gregg]

This was marginally relevant 145 years ago, but your word games about it are not now.

You are a citizen, you can indeed opt out if you want but it involves leaving the country, feel free.

LOCKED, AGAIN