Article III Court or Bust!

[notorial dissent]

Wasn't that exactly what I said???

If you have something that says that a state could grant citizenship that had any kind of legal standing, anymore than simply being resident alien in the state would, ahd did not imply US citizenship, I would like to see it, otherwise, I will have to respectfully disagree with you here.

One could certainly be a resident of a state without having US citizenship, but I do not think they is precedent for them being a citizen without being also a US citizen. And, it still does not alter the jurisdictional arguments or anything else.

[rachel]

This is the same level of nonsense that continues to insist that there were two classes of citizenship from the founding of the republic, when it was contemplated that everyone who was considered a citizen of the the several states would automatically at adoption become also citizens of the republic which became the national government. At which point state citizenship equated US citizenship and as such was passed down from then on. There was never contemplation, or case law for that matter, of someone being a state citizen without being a US citizen, despite Rachel and her ilk's claims to the contrary.

No, Dred Scott v. Sandford held that neither Congress nor any State could determine who was a citizen for Art. III purposes. U.S. citizenship was limited to only those who were members of the sovereign at the adoption of the Constitution, which meant Negroes were excluded and could never be included, and those Congress chose to later naturalize (except Negroes). For purposes of state immunities and privileges, any state could determine who would be a state citizen.

Of course, the 13th and 14th Amendments changed this ruling by defining U.S. citizenship by those who were born or naturalized in the United States which obviously includes the states.

What rachel and her ilk twist around is that they believe 14th Amendment citizenship is some kind of second class status and that state citizenship is limited to the sovereign. In other words, the 14th Amendment attempted to bring everyone down to the status of a slave, and sovereignty (state citizenship) must be beligerently claimed and defended in order to exercise sovereign rights as they see them.

What might you think of this?

"No white person born within the limits of the United States…owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution. The purpose of the 14th Amendment... 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 operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, at the same time left them without citizenship. Such persons were not white persons but in the main were of African blood, who had been held in slavery in this country..."Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. Sup Ct. 43.(1872)

Kind of makes you a foolish liar doesnt it!
Much like the ilks of Dan Blowhard Evens.

And there's this!

“As citizens of the United States we are members of a single great community consisting of all the states united, and not of distinct communities consisting of the states severally. No citizen of the United States is an alien in any state of the Union; and the very status of national citizenship connotes equality of rights and privileges, so far as they flow from such citizenship, everywhere within the limits of the United States.” Colgate v Harvey 296 U.S. 404 (1935)

(Overruled on other grounds).

Wow! did you catch that?

and not of distinct communities consisting of the states severally

So who was that 1874 "Constitution of the United States" for again?
Notice that I didnt say "Constitution of the United States of America" because that would indicate the several states union.
It must have been for those 14th amendment citizens who needed a government established in the 1871 act for their body politic.
The same reason for the 1866 Civil right's Act.

[rachel]

Okay.....let's remove the sharp objects and dangerous liquids from Rachel's reach.......slowly step out of the room, whilst NOT turning my back to her....all the while I think of two quotes that apply here:

1. "You are talking about the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind!"

2. "[w]hat you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Idiotic?
So who exactly do you think the 1866 Civil Rights Act was meant for?
What, you beleive that rights in an enactments overrule the bill of rights of the constitution?
Wheres the ratification to the U.S. Constitution for changes of rights in light of the civil rights act?
You dont have any idea do you?
Haaa!........
Not only did you drink the cool aid, but you took the whole pitcher of cool aid with you.

[rachel]

Okay.....let's remove the sharp objects and dangerous liquids from Rachel's reach.......slowly step out of the room, whilst NOT turning my back to her....all the while I think of two quotes that apply here:

1. "You are talking about the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind!"

2. "[w]hat you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

I've noticed all you do is hide behind other posters with your childish remarks.
You ever going to step up to the plate and act like a real man.
You bring nothing to the table.

[rachel]

Okay.....let's remove the sharp objects and dangerous liquids from Rachel's reach.......slowly step out of the room, whilst NOT turning my back to her....all the while I think of two quotes that apply here:

1. "You are talking about the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind!"

2. "[w]hat you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Actually God has mercy, hes made you some what unaccountable by putting you in a stuper.
If I could recite the chapter and verse off the top of my head, I would.
But, nonethless, you're in a stuper.
You dont actually think do you?
You just wait for the band wagon to come by and join in without ever realizing what you are idiotically cheering for.
Thats behavior unseen by any idiot Hendrickson follower.

[LPC]

What might you think of this?

"No white person born within the limits of the United States…owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution. The purpose of the 14th Amendment... 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 operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, at the same time left them without citizenship. Such persons were not white persons but in the main were of African blood, who had been held in slavery in this country..."Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. Sup Ct. 43.(1872)

Kind of makes you a foolish liar doesnt it!

You're saying that the California Supreme Court made that United States Supreme Court into "foolish liars"?

You see, the Val Valkenburg decision is inconsistent with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases (which was decided the following year, in 1873), because in those cases the Supreme Court declared that the 14th Amendment "overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.” The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 72-73 (1873), (emphasis in original).

And there's this!

“As citizens of the United States we are members of a single great community consisting of all the states united, and not of distinct communities consisting of the states severally. No citizen of the United States is an alien in any state of the Union; and the very status of national citizenship connotes equality of rights and privileges, so far as they flow from such citizenship, everywhere within the limits of the United States.” Colgate v Harvey 296 U.S. 404 (1935)

(Overruled on other grounds).

Wow! did you catch that?

Did you catch this:

By the original constitution citizenship in the United States was a consequence of citizenship in a state. By this clause [of the 14th Amendment] this order of things is reversed; ... and citizenship in a state is a result of citizenship in the United States.

Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, 427, n. 3 (1935), quoting the opinion of Judge Woods in United States v. Hall, 26 Fed.Cas. No. 15,282, page 79, 81.

So who was that 1874 "Constitution of the United States" for again?

You're the only one to claim that there is an "1874 Constitution of the United States."

[rachel]

What might you think of this?

"No white person born within the limits of the United States…owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution. The purpose of the 14th Amendment... 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 operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, at the same time left them without citizenship. Such persons were not white persons but in the main were of African blood, who had been held in slavery in this country..."Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. Sup Ct. 43.(1872)

Kind of makes you a foolish liar doesnt it!

You're saying that the California Supreme Court made that United States Supreme Court into "foolish liars"?

You see, the Val Valkenburg decision is inconsistent with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases (which was decided the following year, in 1873), because in those cases the Supreme Court declared that the 14th Amendment "overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.” The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 72-73 (1873), (emphasis in original).

And there's this!

“As citizens of the United States we are members of a single great community consisting of all the states united, and not of distinct communities consisting of the states severally. No citizen of the United States is an alien in any state of the Union; and the very status of national citizenship connotes equality of rights and privileges, so far as they flow from such citizenship, everywhere within the limits of the United States.” Colgate v Harvey 296 U.S. 404 (1935)

(Overruled on other grounds).

Wow! did you catch that?

Did you catch this:

By the original constitution citizenship in the United States was a consequence of citizenship in a state. By this clause [of the 14th Amendment] this order of things is reversed; ... and citizenship in a state is a result of citizenship in the United States.

Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, 427, n. 3 (1935), quoting the opinion of Judge Woods in United States v. Hall, 26 Fed.Cas. No. 15,282, page 79, 81.

So who was that 1874 "Constitution of the United States" for again?

You're the only one to claim that there is an "1874 Constitution of the United States."

So! whats your point?
Dread Scott was of African blood and what did the courts say about who the 14th was for?
Can you read and comprehend that the feds didnt intervene in this case, Van Valkenburg v. Brown was never overruled?
Even Title 42 reflect Van Valkenburg v. Brown!

[natty]

Wasn't that exactly what I said???

No. You said there was no case law for someone being a state citizen without being a US citizen.

The Dred Scott court said freed slaves/negroes could never be US citizens. At the time, many states allowed freed slaves to be state citizens; and, if the 2 dissenters in the case were correct, 9 out of the original 13 states allowed negroes to be citizens.

[natty]

What might you think of this?

"No white person born within the limits of the United States…owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution. The purpose of the 14th Amendment... 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 operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, at the same time left them without citizenship. Such persons were not white persons but in the main were of African blood, who had been held in slavery in this country..."Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. Sup Ct. 43.(1872)

Kind of makes you a foolish liar doesnt it!

What I think of that is it accurately reports the ruling in the Dred Scott case and how the 14th Amendment changed that decision, and is exactly what I said.

The Dred Scott court gave the rationalization for slavery. "We the People of the United States" did not include slaves. Slaves were persons, but they could never be citizens entitled to equality with the sovereign people. Slaves were negroes. Therefore, negroes were a lower form of being. Hence, even freed slaves and the entire negro race could never attain the status of the sovereign people who were all other persons born in the United States and naturalized citizens.

White persons born in the U.S. were U.S. citizens before the 14th Amendment and they were U.S. citizens after the 14th Amendment. So the 14th Amendment brought ALL persons (white or black, red, yellow, or brown) born or naturalized in the United States into the sovereign body of "We the People of the United States".

There is absolutely no support for your belief that a United States citizen is somehow a lower class of citizenship. You simply can not read or choose to interpret things in order to support your preconceptions. The 14th Amendment did not cure racism, but it eliminated the legal basis for racism.

[natty]

And there's this!

“As citizens of the United States we are members of a single great community consisting of all the states united, and not of distinct communities consisting of the states severally. No citizen of the United States is an alien in any state of the Union; and the very status of national citizenship connotes equality of rights and privileges, so far as they flow from such citizenship, everywhere within the limits of the United States.” Colgate v Harvey 296 U.S. 404 (1935)

(Overruled on other grounds).

Wow! did you catch that?

and not of distinct communities consisting of the states severally

So who was that 1874 "Constitution of the United States" for again?
Notice that I didnt say "Constitution of the United States of America" because that would indicate the several states union.
It must have been for those 14th amendment citizens who needed a government established in the 1871 act for their body politic.
The same reason for the 1866 Civil right's Act.

Did you catch this, rachel?

No citizen of the United States is an alien in any state of the Union;

If they are not an alien, how can they be another class of citizenship? U.S. citizenship and state citizenship are not mutually exclusive as you insist.
You either can't read or you choose to interpret things to support your preconceived conclusions, or you are an idiot.

[notorial dissent]

Natty, again still not what I said.

You are correct as far as Dred Scott, the court held that the Negroes were not US citizens and could NOT be US citizens. Basically that they had no rights at all, they were property, descended from property and that was it. As I recall the justification of the decision was that the Negroes, a) were Negroes to begin with, which was the real reason, b) there not citizens at the founding of the nation, and c) they were at that time, and until after the 13th amendment legally property and there fore could not be citizens.

My personal opinion was that Scott was the result of very tortured logic and of a legal rendering equivalent to the later gerrymandering of voting districts. Taney was a southerner and extremely pro-south and against anything that upset the status quo. and My personal opinion is that Dred Scott was a poorly decided opinion based soley upon the agenda of the court rather than actual law, that it was bad law, and ultimately very destructive to the country as a whole.

Further, the argument, was that the States could put “foreigners” or any other person on a legal with its own citizens, which they did and still do-or at least to, it DID NOT however say that they made them citizens, only on par with State citizens.

What the ruling did say, and which will highly irritate Rachel and her crowd, is that EVERYONE who was a citizen of their state at the time of sovereignty of the national government was automatically a US citizen, and so therefore were their descendants.

There is nothing in Dred Scott, or anything else that I have yet to see that says that after the Constitution that a State could grant any kind of citizenship except to a US citizen, rights and prerogatives yes, citizenship NO.

The 14th amendment removed the impediment of requiring that someone born in this country's parents had to have been citizens for them to be citizens-specifically the Negoes newly freed.

[wserra]

the feds didnt intervene in this case, Van Valkenburg v. Brown was never overruled?

Many levels of ignorance in play here, folks.

Poke it with sticks if you must. But reason is never going to work.

[rachel]

the feds didnt intervene in this case, Van Valkenburg v. Brown was never overruled?

Many levels of ignorance in play here, folks.

Poke it with sticks if you must. But reason is never going to work.

Call it what you want, but civil rights do not equate to the bill of rights.
Theres a difference in law form.
One is of the common law and the other is statutory or civil law.
How you stand within what law form determines which rights you have.

[cdj1122]

" ... You simply can not read or choose to interpret things in order to support your preconceptions. ... "

.
Sure she can.
.
Court Jesters are needed to provide mirth and lighten the travails of everyday life.

[natty]

Call it what you want, but civil rights do not equate to the bill of rights.
Theres a difference in law form.
One is of the common law and the other is statutory or civil law.
How you stand within what law form determines which rights you have.

Total nonsense.
"Civil rights" are the legislation. Without legislation, the courts would have no jurisdiction to provide a remedy.

Take Title 42, sec. 1983 for instance. This civil right law provides a remedy for any violation of a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, ie., bill of rights.

Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such
officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

[natty]

My personal opinion was that Scott was the result of very tortured logic

The logic may have been tortured, but it was the only rationalization possible due to the fact that the framers created a paradox when they compromised on slavery. How can a man be the property of another man?
The court's answer?--a slave was not a man. The logical extension of course was neither could a freed slave be a man.

[Prof]

My personal opinion was that Scott was the result of very tortured logic

The logic may have been tortured, but it was the only rationalization possible due to the fact that the framers created a paradox when they compromised on slavery. How can a man be the property of another man?
The court's answer?--a slave was not a man. The logical extension of course was neither could a freed slave be a man.

Actually, Natty, I think you are correct -- and most historians would probably agree with you .

Many Pro- Slavery proponents, in order to "justify" slavery, had to argue that Blacks "needed" slavery because of their "nature" and were not capable of freedom. This is one of the roots of the institutional racism of the post Civil War South.

[rachel]

Rachel, do not goad or provoke me, you will not like the consequences.

Your complete lack of understanding of U.S. Constitutional law, statutory law and common law is a yawning abyss of ignorance made wider and deeper by similar lack of understanding regarding the heirarchy of government - from local (at the lowest level) to Federal at the highest.

Also, your complete lack of historical perspective show either willful ignorance, or a real ugly racist/white supremicist side. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do not have white robes and matching hood in your linens drawer.

The Constitution of the United States of America consists of seven articles, just seven. Article I, Section 2, third paragraph begins, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

This is the "three-fifths clause" whereby non-free people were counted as 3/5th of a person for purposes of representation in the House of Reprsentatives. And by non-free people, they meant slaves. Needless to say, this gave the South a certain amount of extraordinary influence for a number of years. However, with the first waves of immigrants arriving in the 1840s and 1850s, southern power began to wane.

Fast forward to a post-Civil War America. You now have all these people (blacks/ex-slaves) who are no longer slaves, but what are they? They were ALL born here (an act in 1802 prohibited the further importation of slaves - more on this later*), bit some mechanism had to be put in place to guarantee their rights and those of future generations.

Ding, ding, ding.........the amendment process of the U.S. Constitution. mendments 1 through 10 were part of the package to get the Constitution ratified. A couple more were added prior to the Civil War, then Amendments 13, 14, and 15 were added. The 13th prohibited slavery. The 15th ensured that ex-slaves, or anyone of race and color could vote.

And then there is the 14th Amendment, in which Section 1 states, "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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now, I will use you as an example. We will assume you were born in a state of the Union, lets say the town of Mullet, in the state of Deedeedee (which could be any of the states in the Union). By the lucky act of being born you are a citizen of the United States of America and your rights as a US citizen are the same NO MATTER in which state you are. Now, let us say you still reside in Deedeedee, you also have rights as a resident of that state. However, those rights stop at the boundries of your resident state. Move to a new state and reside there, then their laws and rights govern your actions. Additionally, the rights you enjoy as a resident of Deedeedee cannot be any less than the rights you enjoy as a federal citizen.

So, you have certain rights as a citizen/resident of a particular state AND you have rights as a citizen/resident of the USA.

All of this was done by amending the U.S. Constitution. No new constitution was made, no secret enactment of a secret Constitution ever occured, all htat has ever occured is the passage of the original 7 article US Constitution, simultaneous with 10 amendments, which has been followed by an additional 18 Amendments. And to the best of my knowledge, anyone who has gone into court and tried to argue that any federal law or statute does not apply to them because they have only accepted state "citizenship" and rejected federal "citizenship" has seen that arguement routinely rejected by the courts as being meritless.

So, Rachel can tilt at her 14th Amendment windmill if she likes (cue Man From La Mancha music) but her quest has been previously deemed a failure by the courts.

* - in 1802 Congress passed a law that banned the importation of any more slaves to the USA. A great moral victory for the north. What the northerners did not realize, but which the southerners knew was that the slave population was growing naturally and would continue to do so, thus, there was no need to import new slaves as they were being produced domestically. It is believed that the US is the only place in history where a slave population grew naturally.

As a side note, towards the end of the Civil War, the CSA was seriously considering allowing the emancipation of some slaves if they would aid the war effort in the manufacturing industries.

You can have your opinion and express it all you like, but the fact remains.

"No white person born within the limits of the United States…owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution. The purpose of the 14th Amendment... 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 operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, at the same time left them without citizenship. Such persons were not white persons but in the main were of African blood, who had been held in slavery in this country..."Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. Sup Ct. 43.(1872)

[rachel]

Call it what you want, but civil rights do not equate to the bill of rights.
Theres a difference in law form.
One is of the common law and the other is statutory or civil law.
How you stand within what law form determines which rights you have.

Total nonsense.
"Civil rights" are the legislation. Without legislation, the courts would have no jurisdiction to provide a remedy.

Take Title 42, sec. 1983 for instance. This civil right law provides a remedy for any violation of a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, ie., bill of rights.

Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such
officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

Here we go again. This statute only applies to....

any citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof

The courts say that not everyone owes his citizenship as 14th amendment "U.S. citizen" being subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

No white person born within the limits of the United States…owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution. The purpose of the 14th Amendment... 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 operation of the naturalization laws because native born
Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. Sup Ct. 43.(1872)

Ask Dan Blowhard Evans if he's figured out what this "jurisdiction" is?

[Dr. Caligari]

Rachel, when are you going to post some evidence for your preposterous assertion that Congress adopted a Constitution in 1874?