Article III Court or Bust!

[rachel]

When I'm good and ready. Theres a time for everything.

[Prof]

Most of the members of this board understand the history and context of the 14th Amendment. That said, since the Amendment's plain language encompasses all U S Citizens -- whether, like me, a person whose family has lived in this country since before it was a country, and were "citizens" of Maryland at the time of the Revolution (they even fought for Maryland) -- or like my naturalized friend from Germany who became a citizen 20 or so years ago. Playing word games with US Citizen or Citizen of the US or whatever accomplishes nothing.

The U.S. and even the State courts have never made any distinction between the citizenship status described in the 14th and the citizenship status described (or, actually, not described) in the Constitution.

The 14th has even been defined (see Mapp, etc.) as making portions of the orginal Bill of Rights applicable to the States. It has been made applicable to "persons" who are not individuals.

Next, I suppose you will argue that the 14th was adopted by States governed by the Reconstruction Acts and therefore was not "freely" adopted. If you could persuade the States to repeal the Amendment, you could get somewhere. The Courts, however, have consistently held that such issues are political issues, to be resolved between the governments of the US and the States. (Sort of like arguing that the 16th was not properly adopted -- the Courts do not take up such issues.)

So, while no one disagrees as to the history of the 14th, no one disagrees that it operated to confer citizenship upon the freed slaves, and no one with any sense agrees that it created some sort of separate class of citizenship.

By the way, lawsuits under sec. 1983, deprivation of civil rights, are filed, in the hundreds, by persons of every ancestry.

[iplawyer]

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 - you do realize that the holding in this case, that a white woman who was already a US citizen when the 14th amendment was ratified did not automatically gain the right to vote as a result of the ratification of the 14th amendment, has no current application in law since women were granted the right to vote? Do you further realize that you take the quote out of context? Simply put, the court said that as a white woman born in California, she was already a US citizen, and so the ratification of the 14th amendment had no affect on her citizenship status. Finally, do you understand that a decision of the California Supreme Court is not legally effective outside of the great state of California? Your use of the case and the context in which you use it exemplify your ignorance of the law and the application of precedent.

When I'm good and ready. Theres a time for everything.

Put up or shut up. But, when/if you do put up, make sure you use an authority that is legally binding on every US citizen, regardless of what state he resides or was born in.

[Quixote]

When I'm good and ready. Theres a time for everything.

As I wrote before, you might consider doing your research before you publish your conclusion. Now you have to find some act of Congress that you can misconstrue as adopting a constitution. Judging by your reliance on Van Valkenburg, an act by a state legislature, a city council, or the British Parliament would probably work just as well.

[natty]

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.

I wouldn't want to melt your brain, rachel, but you do understand the difference between "within the jurisdiction thereof" and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", no?

To understand "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", you must read Elk v. Wilkins where the court explained the difference between an Indian who desired to live as the white man and an Indian who desired to remain on the reservation.

[rachel]

Most of the members of this board understand the history and context of the 14th Amendment. That said, since the Amendment's plain language encompasses all U S Citizens -- whether, like me, a person whose family has lived in this country since before it was a country, and were "citizens" of Maryland at the time of the Revolution (they even fought for Maryland) -- or like my naturalized friend from Germany who became a citizen 20 or so years ago. Playing word games with US Citizen or Citizen of the US or whatever accomplishes nothing.

The U.S. and even the State courts have never made any distinction between the citizenship status described in the 14th and the citizenship status described (or, actually, not described) in the Constitution.

The 14th has even been defined (see Mapp, etc.) as making portions of the orginal Bill of Rights applicable to the States. It has been made applicable to "persons" who are not individuals.

Next, I suppose you will argue that the 14th was adopted by States governed by the Reconstruction Acts and therefore was not "freely" adopted. If you could persuade the States to repeal the Amendment, you could get somewhere. The Courts, however, have consistently held that such issues are political issues, to be resolved between the governments of the US and the States. (Sort of like arguing that the 16th was not properly adopted -- the Courts do not take up such issues.)

So, while no one disagrees as to the history of the 14th, no one disagrees that it operated to confer citizenship upon the freed slaves, and no one with any sense agrees that it created some sort of separate class of citizenship.

By the way, lawsuits under sec. 1983, deprivation of civil rights, are filed, in the hundreds, by persons of every ancestry.

No one says you cant as a "U.S. citizen" file under 1983.
Whats your point?

[rachel]

Most of the members of this board understand the history and context of the 14th Amendment. That said, since the Amendment's plain language encompasses all U S Citizens -- whether, like me, a person whose family has lived in this country since before it was a country, and were "citizens" of Maryland at the time of the Revolution (they even fought for Maryland) -- or like my naturalized friend from Germany who became a citizen 20 or so years ago. Playing word games with US Citizen or Citizen of the US or whatever accomplishes nothing.

The U.S. and even the State courts have never made any distinction between the citizenship status described in the 14th and the citizenship status described (or, actually, not described) in the Constitution.

The 14th has even been defined (see Mapp, etc.) as making portions of the orginal Bill of Rights applicable to the States. It has been made applicable to "persons" who are not individuals.

Next, I suppose you will argue that the 14th was adopted by States governed by the Reconstruction Acts and therefore was not "freely" adopted. If you could persuade the States to repeal the Amendment, you could get somewhere. The Courts, however, have consistently held that such issues are political issues, to be resolved between the governments of the US and the States. (Sort of like arguing that the 16th was not properly adopted -- the Courts do not take up such issues.)

So, while no one disagrees as to the history of the 14th, no one disagrees that it operated to confer citizenship upon the freed slaves, and no one with any sense agrees that it created some sort of separate class of citizenship.

By the way, lawsuits under sec. 1983, deprivation of civil rights, are filed, in the hundreds, by persons of every ancestry.

Yep I agree!

The 14th has even been defined (see Mapp, etc.) as making portions of the orginal Bill of Rights applicable to the States. It has been made applicable to "persons" who are not individuals.

Thats exactly what the 14th did, just portions though. There are other court opinions that agree also. That rights of "U.S. citizens" are different than rights of "State" citizens. I'm glad you agree also.
But as the California courts said, the citizenship established by the 14th doesnt apply to white persons.
Thats evident in title 42.
What makes you think that California is any different than say Mississippi or Maine?
They statutorily define themselves the same way.

Let me ask you something!
Why do the states define themselves in their statutes as a "state" that has DC, the territories and the possessions within the definition if the territories and possessions are not actual states of the union?
The territories and possessions are not "states" of the "United State of America"
No statehood in other words.

[Imalawman]

Thats exactly what the 14th did, just portions though. There are other court opinions [CITE?] that agree also. [mental block]That rights of "U.S. citizens" are different than rights of "State" citizens.[\mental block] I'm glad you agree also.
But as the California courts said the citizenship established by the 14th doesnt apply to those white persons.
Thats evident in title 42.
What makes you think that California is any different than say Mississippi or Maine?

What makes you think they're the same?

[rachel]

Section 2, Article 2 notes that only a natural born citizen of the United States may be elected president.

Section 2, Article 4 notes, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." To wit, the federal rights you enjoy as a citizen of Georgia, will be the same if you move and become a citizen of New York. In short, the federal rights you enjoy are immutable regardless of the state in which you live (are a citizen of). In the obverse, it would also mean that your obligation to the federal government are the same, no matter which state in which you live.

And don't forget, the 14th Amendment applies to people who prior to the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were treated as chattels. It does not apply to white folks as we already had those rights.

If memory also serves, and I am now repeating myself, people who have tried to use the spurious argumement that they are citizens of a particular state, but not of the Federal government and rely on the 14th Amendment, in order to try and opt out of something (usually federal income taxes) have never, ever held water and are now (I think) considered a frivolous arguement and without merit.

But, go ahead Rachel, try it in court sometime if you dare. You will not like the outcome.

I never forget that you always leave out the "jurisdiction" aspect of the 14th amendment.
What is this jurisdiction if everyone prior the 14th is held to be a "U.S. citizen".
Yaa, lots of people were born before the 14th, but they werent subject to this jurisdiction.

[rachel]

Thats exactly what the 14th did, just portions though. There are other court opinions [CITE?] that agree also. [mental block]That rights of "U.S. citizens" are different than rights of "State" citizens.[\mental block] I'm glad you agree also.
But as the California courts said the citizenship established by the 14th doesnt apply to those white persons.
Thats evident in title 42.
What makes you think that California is any different than say Mississippi or Maine?

What makes you think they're the same?

Read the civil codes to the definition of "state" for each state.
They are the same as 26USC 7701.

[Prof]

I am going to try to address these questions rationally:

Thats exactly what the 14th did, just portions though. There are other court opinions that agree also. That rights of "U.S. citizens" are different than rights of "State" citizens. I'm glad you agree also.

Yes, US citizens and state citizens have different rights. All US citizens, which include the citizens of the States and the District of Columbia, have the rights guaranteed under the US Constitution, which includes the 14th. The State laws and constitutions may grant greater rights than say the 5th Amendment does, but may not limited the rights granted under the 5th (or other portions of the Constitution of the US) and made applicable to the States under the 14th. For example, Texas can pass a constitutional amendment to the State Constitution prohibiting a State Income Tax but may not pass a statute or amendment to its laws or Constitution prohibiting a federal income tax.

But as the California courts said, the citizenship established by the 14th doesnt apply to white persons.
Thats evident in title 42.

These are mistatements of the case and mistatements of the law. The 14th was passed to guarantee rights of citizens of color; it applies generally to all citizens, as any review of the jurisprudence will reflect. Reread title 42.

What makes you think that California is any different than say Mississippi or Maine?
They statutorily define themselves the same way.

Both are States of the Union. They are very different legal landscapes. Look at their constitutions and statutes.
Let me ask you something!

Why do the states define themselves in their statutes as a "state" that has DC, the territories and the possessions within the definition if the territories and possessions are actual state of the union?

This is an erroneous reading of definitions used in the definitional section of many statutes. When a statute wants to use shorthand, it will say, the term "State" includes or includes but is not limited to the states of the union, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, etc. That way, the drafter, when stating that Texas will establish a tourism office in each of the States, the drafter does not have to say something like "each of the States and DC and Puerto Rico and ..."

The States do not define themselves as the equivalent of the District, and neither does the US Constitution, for the District is not a state and will not be unless the Constitution of the US is amended (see, DC politics and the statehood issue on Google or Wickipedia).

The territories and possessions are not a "state" of the "United State of America"
No statehood in other words.

And your point is nonexistent.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I am going to try to address these questions rationally...

Prof, from time to time I try to talk to my cats, too.

The net effect is (and will probably remain) the same.