citizenship page

7/31/2019 Citizenship Page

1/12

1

Cit izen sh ip

As Americans, we are socialized to believe that we are all Citizens of this great

na tion we call the Unit ed Stat es of Amer ica. Quite fra nk ly, most Amer ican s are

pret ty emotional about t he issue. Try telling your n eighbor, who fough t again st

Hit ler in WWII, tha t h es not a citizen of th e Unit ed Sta tes, an d see what rea ction

you get !

The problem is th at th e people who write laws dont wr ite th em in t he sam e man ner

th at you a nd I spea k. [See the section on legal ter ms within The Law page on this

site.] Laws ar e written t o achieve certa in goals and t he words used within laws ar e

selected to achieve th ose goals. Somet imes the goals are legitimat e an d the

language that is used, while confusing at times, is necessary to achieve the goal.

Other times confusing language is used for no other reason than to obscure the

tr ut h from the casua l reader.

The issu e of citizensh ip is no less clouded by su ch u se of lan guage t ha n is a ny other

ar ea of law. The definit ions of words or legal term s mu st be sought out diligen tly

an d th e cont ext in which t hey are u sed always car efully consider ed. [See The Law

for informat ion on words v. legal term s an d issu es of context.]

In the Constitution of the United States, the phrase Citizen of the United States

appears. Because this phrase appears within a Constitu tion, not a statu te, the

meaning of the phrase is determined by the meaning intended by those who wrote

an d signed th e Constitu tion. If th e intended mean ing is man ifest, there is no power

on ear th , including tha t of a criminal in a black r obe, which can alter th e mean ing

of th e phra se. The mean ing of th e phra se Citizen of th e United St at es is well

un derst ood. Tha t phr ase is short ha nd for th e sent ence, All th e Citizens of th e 13

indepen dent na tions [called sta tes] th at a re a par ty to th is Const itut ion. The

important element that you should understand is that the Citizen of the United

States spoken of in the Constitution of the United States is more properly and

accur at ely a Citizen of th e sta te in which he lives. The phra se Citizen of th e

United States is actually a euphemism used for convenience and brevity, and not a

legal t itle.

After the Constitution was signed by all the states, the federal government began

acquiring ter ritories. At th e time, th ese territories were limited to the lands westof the established boundaries of the states, and lands not claimed by the states.

People born in t hose federa lly held t err itories, by par ent s who were not Citizens of a

sta te, becam e de facto citizens of th e United Sta tes. Alth ough at th at t ime ther e

was no statutory authority for such a thing, international law had (and still has) a

long established doctr ine th at , absent a ny extenua ting circumst ances, a person is a

citizen of th e na tiona l jur isdiction (or sovereignty) in which hes born . The federa l

territories were outside of the sovereignty of the individual state governments, and


2/12

2

within the sovereignty of the United States government; hence the de facto status

as a citizen of th e Un ited Sta tes. This principle also applies to persons in

Wash ington DC, which is un der th e exclusive sovereignty of th e United St at es. [For

the sake of clarity, we use a lower case c for a citizen of the federal government

an d an up per case C to denote a Citizen of a st at e of th e Union.] It sh ould be

noted that citizens of the United States are not T h e P e o p l e who created thesta tes, th en by sta te action, crea ted the federa l governm ent . These federa l

citizens ar e not par ties t o the Constit ut ion and t her efore did not ha ve legal claim

to the sa me rights, privileges, and immu nities tha t st at e Citizens did.

One should take careful note that the Citizens of the states of the Union are the

only Citizens wh o possess a ll the r ights, pr ivileges, and imm un ities spoken of in th e

US Constitution, plus what ever a dditiona l rights a re secur ed to them by their own

sta te Const itut ions. At the end of th is section you will see federal an d sta te cour t

cases t ha t clearly show tha t t he r ights of one class of Citizen a re th orough ly

differen t from t he right s (actu ally Congr essiona lly gra nt ed pr ivileges) of the other

class of citizen. This distinction in the class of citizenship continued without

significan t comm ent or concern un til th e end of th e Civil War .

Although the Civil War was not fought over slavery (despite what you were taught

in the public schools), the end of the Civil War nevertheless brought about the end

of involuntary servitude and slavery in America. [See Article XIII of the

Const itut ion of the United States.]

Prior to the Civil War, the southern states did not recognize blacks as persons who

could become Citizens of their st at es. In fact it was well un derst ood by the Citizens

of these southern states that when their state Constitutions protected the right toown property or cha tt el, tha t r ight included holding slaves. Tha t wa s exactly

what the framers of these southern Constitutions had intended and so that

under stan ding was accur at e and factual.

After the South lost the rebellion, the United States took the opportunity to free the

slaves. This was easier said tha n done becau se the Const itutions of th e South ern

sta tes hadn t cha nged a bit just becau se the Sout h ha d lost th e War . Their

Const itut ions still did n ot recognize blacks a s persons wh o could a tt ain citizenship.

Prior to the adoption of the federal Constitution, states possessed unlimited

and unrestricted sovereignty and retained the same even afterwardexcept assuch was surrendered to the federal government or they were expressly

proh ib it ed from exercis in g by t he Unit ed S tates Con stit u tion .

Bla ir v Rid gely, 97 D. 218, 249, S.P. People v. Colema n , 60 D. 581

Congress was faced with a difficult dilemma; it wanted the freed blacks to become

Citizens, but there was nothing in the US Constitution that gave Congress the


3/12

3

power to alter th e Const itut ions of th e Sout her n sta tes. The best Congress could do

in an immediate sense was to consider the South under military occupation of the

United States (which it was) and recognize that as such, the Southern states came

within th e aut hority of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of th e US Const itu tion. [See

US Territorial Authority in this site.] What th is meant was tha t as long as the

Southern states were held as a defeated foe Congress could pass legislation thatwould opera te with in the area kn own as th e Sout her n sta tes. However, in th e

futu re, when Congress would restored the Southern stat es to their former stat us a s

regular sta tes of th e Un ion, all such federa l legislat ion would cease t o opera te in the

Sout hern st at es. This meant t hat Congress needed a two-phase solution. The first

phase being the enactment of federal laws to operate within the occupied

territories and the second phase being a Constitutional amendment to secure the

principles of those laws even after the laws themselves lost authority in the

Southern states.

It should be noted at this point that although the slaves were now free, and had

been born in a st ate of th e Union, they still were not Citizens of th at stat e. In sh ort ,

th ey ha d no citizenship at a ll. Un der long established doctr ines of law, a person

who is not a citizen of a place in which he r esides is an a lien. The legal position of

the freed slaves was tenuous yes, they were free, but they were aliens in the land

of their birth and were thus not entitled to the same rights, privileges, and

immu nit ies as Citizens. Alth ough defeat ed in bat tle, the people of th e Sout h were

not yet ready to capitulate on the slavery issue and they moved quickly to use the

alien sta tu s of th e blacks against t hem. Almost imm ediately after th e sur ren der

of th e Confederacy, ma ny Sout her n sta tes sta rt ed enacting Black Codes. These

laws were int ended t o opera te only upon persons n ot citizens (a p hr ase r ight out of

Dred S cott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393), and thus effectively limit the new foundfreedom enjoyed by the former slaves by requiring them to apply for licenses to do

an yth ing from h olding a job, to hu nt ing for food.

Because the Southern states were under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of

Congress at this time, any state or local laws that conflicted with federal law would

immedia tely become void and u nen forceable. Congr ess moved quickly to qua sh t he

Black Codes. In ra pid succession Congress pass ed the Enforcement Act, the

Fr eedma ns Bur eau Act, an d th e Civil Rights Act of 1866. Collectively, these a cts

prevented the enforcement of the Black Codes and simultaneously imbued the freed

black slaves with federally granted privileges that are euphemistically called

right s. It is in th e Enforcement Act t ha t we first see th e phra se citizen of th eUnited States used as a legal term embracing only the recently freed black

slaves. This term is th en used again in th e both t he Freedma ns Bureau Act, and

th e Civil Rights Act of 1866 in the sa me limited ma nn er. It sh ould be noted at th is

point that the phrase citizen of the United States had been used for nearly 8

decades before the Civil War, but always to speak of persons within federal

terr itories. This was the first time th at Congress had u sed the phra se to denote a


4/12

4

person who had been born wit hin a st at e of th e Union. Congress could only apply

the term in this way, within federal law, at that specific point in history because the

South (where the freed blacks lived) was federal territory as long as it was being

held by the United St at es militar y as a defeat ed foe.

Ph ase t wo of Congress plan wa s pu t int o action with t he dr afting of the 14th Amendment . Here ar e its pertinent pa rt s to this discussion:

Sec t i on 1 . All persons born or n at ur alized in t he Un ited Sta tes, an d subject

to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State

wher ein they reside. No Sta te sha ll ma ke or enforce an y law which sha ll

abr idge th e pr ivileges or immu nities of citizens of th e United St at es; nor sha ll

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

th e laws.

Sec t i on 2 . Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States

according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons

in each Sta te, excluding Indian s not ta xed. But when t he right to vote at a ny

election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the

United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial

officers of a St at e, or th e mem bers of th e Legislatu re t her eof, is denied to an y

of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and

citizens of th e Un ited St at es, or in an y way abridged, except for pa rt icipat ion

in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be

reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear

to th e whole nu mber of ma le citizens t wenty -one year s of age in su ch Sta te.

In drafting the Amendment, Congress was looking to make its federal laws (the

En forcement Act, t he F reedm an s Bur eau Act, an d t he Civil Rights Act of 1866) a

par t of th e US Const itut ion. In doing so th ey int ended to ensur e th at the freed

blacks would have certain privileges and protections remain in place after the

United States pulled its army out of the South and restored the Southern states to

th eir previous sta tu s as sta tes of th e Union. The Amendmen t would also insu re

that Congress had the national authority to enforce the provisions of the

Amendmen t upon any stat e that at tempt ed to violate them.

Because the Congressional Acts were merely intended to hold the line until the14 th Amendment was r atified, their intent is significan t in determining t he int ent of

the 14th Amendment.

Th e Civi l Righ ts Act of 1866:


5/12

5

All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power,

excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United

States, and such citizen of every race and color shall have the same right in

every sta te a nd t erritory of the Un ited Stat es to the full and equa l benefit of

all laws a nd pr oceedings for t he securit y of persons a nd p roperty a s is enjoyed

by white citizens.

Please note that when the drafters of this bill meant to indicate a Citizen, they

clearly used the word citizen, however when defining who the Act applies to, the

dra fters used th e word person. As they used both words with in the same

par agr aph , it is obvious t ha t t he dra fter s were keenly awa re of th e distin ction.

Clearly Congressional intent was to provide non-citizens with the same

fundamental rights as de jure state Citizens (who in that day, were exclusively

white). This intent was furth er clar ified in President J ohn sons speech when he

vetoed tha t bill. President J ohnson made th is statement as par t of his speech:

It [the Civil Rights Bill of 1866] comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific

States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called gypsies, as well as the

entire race designated as blacks, persons of color, Negroes, mulattoes and

persons of African blood. Every individual of th ose ra ces born in th e Unit ed

Sta tes is ma de a citizen th ereof.

Once again, it can clearly be seen that the intent of the this Act was to embrace

persons (as defined in Dred S cott case), but in no way was intended to address or

alter th e relat ionsh ip of th e de jure whit e Citizen t o his st at e of birth or domicile.

In the case of United States v. Otherson , th e US Supr eme Cour t foun d it necessar y

to review the hist orical foun dat ions of th e Enforcement Act. The Cour t foun d th at

Senator Stewart, who had sponsored the Enforcement Act legislation, had made the

following rema rks r egarding the Acts int ent. Stewa rt n oted th at t he bill,

simply extends to foreigner s, not citizens, t he p rotections of our laws.

He also added tha t,

This bill extends [the equal protection of laws] to aliens, so that all persons

who are in th e Unit ed Sta tes sh all have th e equal protection of our laws.

These realities were not lost upon the various courts that were later called upon to

make determinations as to the intent of the various civil rights acts or the 14 th

Amendment. In Van Valkenburg v. Brown , 43 Cal Sup Ct . 43, th e Court ma de the

following statement:


6/12

6

No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to

their jurisdictionowes his status of Citizenship to the recent amendments

to the F ederal Const itut ion.

As we are now repeatedly drawing a distinction between blacks and whites, this is

probably a good point to stop and address the topic of racism as it relates to thisar ticle. This is a hist orical examina tion of th e law as it existed in th e var ious st at es

and the United States prior to, and after, the Civil War, and how the foundations

laid down in th ose laws an d court d ecisions may still affect our lives today. This

article is not intended to critique or pass judgment upon the moral correctness (or

lack t her eof) of th e laws which existed at tha t t ime, or u pon t he decisions of th e US

Supreme Court in reference to slavery, the Civil War, the various Civil Rights Acts,

or the 14 th Amendmen t. It is merely a history lesson with certa in inevita ble

conclusions dr awn a t t he end. Please do not imput e an y bias, in eith er direction, to

Origina l Intent . Ha ving said tha t, lets car ry on.

As we have examined, courts in the latter part of the 19 th century were quite clear

on th e intended purpose of the F reedman s Bur eau Act, t he E nforcement Act, t he

Civil Right s Act of 1866, an d t he 14 th Amendment. However, what h as the Supreme

Cour t sa id in th is centu ry?

In Hurd v. Hodge (1948), the cour t explained th at in order to un dersta nd t he Civil

Right s Act of 1866,

reference must be made to the scope and purpose of the 14 th Amendment;

for that statute and the Amendment were closely related both in inception

an d in objectives wh ich Congress sought to achieve.

The Cour t furth er sta ted th at t he pur pose of th e 14th Amendment,

was to incorporate the guaranties of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in the

organ ic law of th e lan d.

The original int ent link can also be foun d in several oth er cases as well. J ust ice

Harlan noted that privileges and immunities protected by the 14 Amendment

included [used in its rest rictive sense] those set fort h in th e first section of the Civil

Right s Act. J ust ice Thu rgood Marsha ll noted that ,

the Congress that passed the 14 th Amendment is the same Congress that

pas sed th e 1866 Fr eedma ns Bur eau Act,

an d he concluded th at th e r ight s set fort h in the Freedman s Bureau Act were

dispositive of Congr ess int ent in t he 14 th Amendment.


7/12

7

In 1987, Justice William Brennan traced the rights [actually congressionally

granted privileges] that are secured by the 14 th Amendm ent to the F reedman s

Bureau bill. He then went on to stat e that ,

The m ain t ar get of th e Civil Right s Act of 1866 were t he black codes

enacted in th e Sout hern St at es

As can be readily seen, even relatively recent Courts have acknowledged the fact

that the 14 th Amendment was simply intended to integrate elements of the Civil

Right s Act of 1866 and t he F reedman s Burea u Act int o the Const itut iona l stru ctu re

of the na t ion. Accordingly, th e 14th Amendm ent only a pplies to non-citizens (aliens)

who were the exclusive focus of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Freedmans

Burea u Act.

Now that the intent, meaning, and proper application of the 14 th Amendment have

been illustrated, it is clear that the Amendment made federal citizens out of

specific aliens who oth erwise would ha ve ha d no form of citizen sh ip at all. By

converting these aliens into federal citizens, they fell under the protection of the

federal government with regard to those rights that had been conferred upon them

by the 14 th Amendment.

In consideration of these facts, Blacks Law Dictionary (6th Ed.) defines the 14 th

Amendment th is way:

The Fourt eenth Amendmen t of the Const itut ion of th e United St at es, rat ified

in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the

Un ited Sta tes, as distinct from th at of th e stat es;

Note the vagueness in the definition creates or at least recognizes for the first

tim e. This vagueness is becau se Congress iona l int ent pu rport ed to embr ace only

the recently freed slaves, but at the same time, the bare language of the

Amendment, (without consideration of Congressional intent) seems to merely

recognize the long standing principle that the federal government has its own

citizens, who are not state Citizens; a legal reality that existed long before the 14th

Amendment.

We have covered a lot of ground in this piece and it is important to note that with

all of the evidence that is available, it has never once been asserted by any memberof Congress, or by the courts, that the 14 th Amendm ent , or t he legal ter m citizen of

the United States as used before the ratification of the 14 th Amendment , applies to

native born Citizens of a state of the Union (except when used in laws pertaining to

intern at iona l relations). It should also be noted th at th e origina l use an d

application of the phrase citizen of the United States still continues today,


8/12

8

unaffected by the 14 th Amendmen t, which embra ced only a very na rr ow an d specific

group of persons.

To summ ar ize the point s th at we have touched upon t hus far:

1) Ther e is an origina l Citizen of a st at e of th e Union.2) There is a citizen of th e United Sta tes as th at ph ra se has always been used.

3) There is a citizen of the United States as that term is used in the 14 th

Amendment.

At this juncture one might rightly ask what the practical distinctions are in the

th ree form s of citizensh ip. Before we move forwar d with tha t, we should observe

that the 14th Amendment merely constitutionalized the concepts by which the

United States had been operating for decades under the doctrine of international

law, defining th e derivat ion of citizenship. What m ade the 14th Amendment

necessary was that for the first time the federal government intended to grant

federa l citizenship to persons born within a sta te of a Union.

Rig h t s o f C it izen s o f t h e s t a t es o f t h e Un io n

The Declaration of Independence states that, all men are created equal, that they

ar e endowed by th eir Creat or with cert ain un aliena ble Right s This clearly lays

out th e founda tion of our right s we a r e all equal before God, an d the law; we

possess rights which are unalienable; those rights are given to us by God (our

Creat or). Alth ough th e men who wrote the Declara tion of Indepen dence said th at

all men are created equal, when it came time to create the legal framework of agovernment, they understood that they could not include all men in a

Const itut ion, bu t could only speak of those people who had form ed t he st at es, which

th en resulted in th e stat es creat ing a nat iona l governm ent of limited power. It is

the state Citizens to whom the phrase all men would have to be limited for

governmental purposes. Accordingly, as the form of our governments began to take

sha pe, th e people who would be a ble to claim t hese, un alienable r ight s, which th e

Crea tor gran ted, would only be th e Citizens of th e sta tes. While th is may seem

like a narrow restriction, one must remember that a government can only make

laws (including its Cons tit ut ion) for its own body politic, an d n o one else.

So wha t are th ese myster ious un aliena ble right s? The Declar at ion of

Independence says that, among these [rights] are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of

Ha ppiness. While Life, Libert y an d the pur suit of Ha ppiness is pret ty all

encompassing, the words of the F ram ers t ell us that th ere ar e more r ight s involved,

and that among them are found the rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of

Ha ppiness. In other words, th e lan guage of th e Fra mer s tells us th at Life, Libert y


9/12

9

an d th e pur suit of Happiness is a d esigna ted group of right s within a lar ger body of

right s referred to as our un aliena ble right s.

This lar ger body of un aliena ble rights is vast. In fact, it is so vast th at no one, not

even the judicial branch, has ever attempted to list the rights contained therein.

This is best illustrated by the old adage that, My right to swing my fist endssomewhere before it hits your n ose. In sh ort , a Citizen can do virt ua lly an yth ing

he or she wants, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of another Citizen, or

end an ger th e comm un ity. Also inclusive in th ese right s ar e your protections

against mistreatment by the government; the primary protections being expressly

sta ted in t he Bill of Right s in t he US Constitu tion.

"You ha ve rights a nt ecedent to all eart hly governmen ts; rights tha t can not be

repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great

Legislat or of the U niverse."

-- J ohn Adams, Second P resident of the Unit ed Sta tes. (1792-1801)

The US Supr eme Cour t h as st at ed tha t becau se these rights existed an tecedent

[prior to] the formation of either the states or the national government they are

outside the governmen ts power t o alt er, modify, or abolish. Hows th at for some

str ong protection!

With these powerful rights in our hands, one might wonder what sort of rights arepossessed by citizens of th e United St at es.

Th e Po o r St epc h il d c i t izen

If the Citizens of the sta tes of th e Un ion ha ve their un aliena ble right s, what th en

do citizens of th e Un ited Sta tes ha ve? Fr an kly, not mu ch of valu e. For th e

balance of this section, we will use the term federal citizen to denote a citizen of

the United Sta tes.

A federal citizen has only those rights that have been granted to him by Congress

by way of the n umer ous a nd various civil right s acts, and such right s as ma y have

been invested in him by an activist US Supreme Court that felt it could legislate

from t he bench.

Lets be clear t he right s of federa l citizens a re n ot given t o them by God, as ar e

our un alienable right s. Their rights ar e given to th em by Congress alone, an d the

most significant point to understand and keep in mind is that, What Congress


10/12

10

giveth, Congress ma y ta keth awa y. It ha s always been th is way an d it will always

be this way. The only thing th at may be sur prising in all of th is is th at th is is th e

first t ime youre hear ing it! Most Amer ican s have no idea tha t th ere are two

classes of citizenship, nor do they understand the vast distinction between the

two, an d what it m eans in th eir lives.

Lets look a t wh at th e cour ts ha ve said a bout federa l citizenship:

A civil right is cons idered a r ight given an d pr otected by law, a nd a persons

enjoyment th ereof is regulated entirely by the law t ha t creat es it.

82 CA 369. 373, 255, P 760.

The persons declared to be citizens are, All persons born or naturalized in

th e Un ited Stat es an d subject to th e jurisdiction ther eof. The evident

mea ning of th ese last words is n ot m erely subject in some respect or degree to

th e jurisdiction of the United St at es, but completely subject

E lk v. Wilk in s, 112 US 94, 101, 102 (1884)

While E lk v. Wilk in s is a 14th Amendment case, the concept is still true concerning

all federa l citizens. In other words, all federa l citizens must be, by th eir very

definition, a person who is completely subject to the jurisdiction of the federal

govern men t (such as a citizen of Wash ington DC). Virt ua lly an y legal concept

stated by the courts concerning a 14 th Amendment citizen is operative upon all

federal citizens.

The privileges and immunities clause of the 14 th Amendm ent protects very

few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects allright s of individual citizens. (See Slau ghter House cases, 83 U S (16 Wall.) 36,

21 L. Ed. 394 (1873)). Inst ead t his provision pr otects only those right s

peculiar to being a citizen of th e federa l governm ent ; it d oes not pr otect t hose

right s which r elate to sta te citizenship.

J ones v . T em m er, 839 F. Su pp. 1226

the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not to be protected

from state action by the privilege and immunities clause [of the 14 th

Amendment].

Hagu e v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520

The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7 th

Amendmentand the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2n d

Amendmenthave been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities

of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14 th Amendmentand in

effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against

prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5 th


11/12

11

Amendmentand in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses,

contained in the 6 th Amendmentit was held that the indictment, made

indispensable by th e 5th Amendment, a nd t rial by jury guar ant eed by the 6 th

Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United

States, as those words were used in the 14 th Amendm ent . We conclude,

therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not apr ivilege or im mu nit y of Na tional citizensh ip guar an teed by th is clause of th e

14 th Amendment.

Tw ining v. New J ersey, 211 US 78, 98-99

"Ther e ar e, then , und er our r epublican form of governm ent , two classes

of citizens, one of th e Un ited Sta tes a nd one of th e sta te".

Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County , 160 Ala. 155; 48

So. 788 (1909)

"The governments of the United States and of each state of the several

sta tes a re distinct from one a nother. The r ight s of a citizen u nder onema y be quite different from t hose which he ha s un der th e oth er".

Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct . 252 (1935)

"...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or

na tu ra l rights inherent in stat e citizenship".

Madden v. Ken tucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

"There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to

the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the

citizens of each st at e as such".

R uhst ra t v. People, 57 N.E . 41 (1900)

"We have in our political system a government of the United States

an d a govern men t of each of th e severa l Stat es. Ea ch one of th ese

governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it's

own..."

United S tates v. Cruiksh ank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

"It is quite clear , then, t ha t t here is a citizenship of the Un ited Stat es,

and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and

which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the

individual".S lau ght er-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36; 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)

It sh ould be noted th at ma ny of th e rights not at tr ibut ed to federal citizens

in th e cases a bove have since been gran ted t o them eith er by Congress or by

th e cour ts. These ear ly decisions simply clar ify and solidify the rea lity th at

federa l citizens ar e not t he sa me class of citizen as sta te Citizens.


12/12

12

Like so many areas in which the federal government has tread, it has

un balanced the equat ion. Where at one time there was no real problem with

there being different classes of citizenship, with the ratification of the 14 th

Amendm ent , Congress went int o overdrive with civil right s legislat ion. The

result wa s a labyrint h of righ ts an d protections for federa l citizens . Some ofth ese have even foun d th eir way into additiona l Const itut iona l amendm ents.

Because the state Citizen is a member ofT h e P e o p le; the people in whom

the sovereignty of the states, and by association, the national government

resides, such a Citizen is left to protect his own rights, with no special process

to help him accomplish tha t end. In sh ort , he must defend his rights with all

his will, his energy, his money, and passion in the courts for as long as it

ta kes to rea ch a final outcome.

Conversely, the federal citizen need only lodge a complaint with the

appropriate federal agency and the power of the federal government moves to

pun ish th e person who has allegedly violat ed tha t federa l citizens rights. Of

course this is legally appropriate since a federal citizen is little more than a

war d of th e na tional governm ent . Such second-class citizens mu st be car ed

for by the government as they are not the masters of their government, but

mer e servan ts t o it, an d it is th e ma ster s responsibility to car e for h is

servants.

citizenship page

Documents