|
|
Post by liquidmicro on Mar 8, 2024 5:30:20 GMT
There the board troll goes again. Were you born a smart ass? As it has been noted federal citizenship v. state citizenship but no state constitution granted citizenship. All we can do is allow the guy to flame and demand answers to the questions that have been asked and answered. I will make one final attempt to respond to the issues he brings up, but he is going to try and make a topic out of examples. America is a constitutional Republic. If something is not in the Constitution it is reserved to the states. Is there anybody that really doesn't understand that point? While none of the states created citizens at the state level during the founding period, they did grant some rights such as the privilege of voting which is characterized as a right. It is here that legalese fails the system. The words cannot be interpreted to give us consistent results. It is illegal for a non-citizen to vote in a federal election; however, states can allow non-citizens to vote in local and state elections. That begs the question: Is there such a thing as a state citizen? Well, if you want to argue that states have somehow made citizens without mentioning them in their state constitutions, then you must yield to the following argument and acknowledge their legal arguments, the 14th Amendment notwithstanding: constitutionalcommando.com/state-citizenship-vs-us-citizenship/" It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual." [Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)] www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htmThe United States is a Constitutional Republic, 100%. Your links are to Sovereign Citizen lunacy, they have no credibility. Invoking Slaughter House when it refers to the 14th Amendment and Louisiana Law in the fashion you are attempting to do doesn't work. I never stated that States created citizens at the State level. The State Constitutions in the time frame of 1781 - 1789 defined citizens. How do you think the US Constitution came up with the phrase: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Article 4 Section 2. Most States, 48 to be exact, can't allow non-citizens to vote due to the wording in their State Constitutions, and as of now only 2 are allowing it including Washington DC, which doesn't have a State Constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by liquidmicro on Mar 8, 2024 6:08:53 GMT
Immigration is legally defined as: " Immigration refers to the movement of persons into a new country with the intention to reside in that country. This includes state sanctioned immigration (sometimes referred to as “legal immigration”) and unlawful immigration (sometimes referred to as “illegal immigration”). It does not include persons traveling to the country for an explicitly temporary purpose, such as tourists, students on exchange programs, temporary workers, or travelers passing through a country only as means to get to their intended destination (for example, entering the country for the purpose of catching a connecting flight to the destination country)." www.law.cornell.edu/wex/immigrationToday, MILLIONS of people move through the United States with and without paperwork from the government. Strictly speaking those people are not " immigrants" as per the definition of the word. The problem there is that since the 1875 Chy Lung decision, everything to do with the movement of foreigners has been labeled immigration. Immigration, legally speaking, never applied to the movement of foreigners until the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over all things related to immigration AND THEN even the movement of foreigners became immigration. That has created a gray area of the law in which all sides try to exploit for their own advantage. Still, immigration is for purposes of permanent residence. Temporary workers require work permits and legal entry visas into the US. They are still classified as alien. www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alienHere is the list of Temporary Worker Visas, which are required. travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/employment/temporary-worker-visas.html |
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 411 
|
Post by professorx on Mar 8, 2024 13:20:32 GMT
All we can do is allow the guy to flame and demand answers to the questions that have been asked and answered. I will make one final attempt to respond to the issues he brings up, but he is going to try and make a topic out of examples. America is a constitutional Republic. If something is not in the Constitution it is reserved to the states. Is there anybody that really doesn't understand that point? While none of the states created citizens at the state level during the founding period, they did grant some rights such as the privilege of voting which is characterized as a right. It is here that legalese fails the system. The words cannot be interpreted to give us consistent results. It is illegal for a non-citizen to vote in a federal election; however, states can allow non-citizens to vote in local and state elections. That begs the question: Is there such a thing as a state citizen? Well, if you want to argue that states have somehow made citizens without mentioning them in their state constitutions, then you must yield to the following argument and acknowledge their legal arguments, the 14th Amendment notwithstanding: constitutionalcommando.com/state-citizenship-vs-us-citizenship/" It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual." [Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)] www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htmThe United States is a Constitutional Republic, 100%. Your links are to Sovereign Citizen lunacy, they have no credibility. Invoking Slaughter House when it refers to the 14th Amendment and Louisiana Law in the fashion you are attempting to do doesn't work. I never stated that States created citizens at the State level. The State Constitutions in the time frame of 1781 - 1789 defined citizens. How do you think the US Constitution came up with the phrase: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Article 4 Section 2. Most States, 48 to be exact, can't allow non-citizens to vote due to the wording in their State Constitutions, and as of now only 2 are allowing it including Washington DC, which doesn't have a State Constitution. You miss a big point. This is a think tank board. I am just as committed to that part of the goal as the people that built the board. Just because patriot arguments are being presented does not mean that anybody here endorses them. When you assume. You probably know the rest. When patriot arguments that have succeeded and are provable in court then I would say they have credibility. Whether those arguments are those made by Sovereign Citizens or not is irrelevant in determining the facts. You have been criticizing one man for so long that your life seems to revolve around him and proving him wrong. The truth is when I attended the many meetings sponsored by the Patriot Network nobody ever said Sovereign Citizen. Having read four state constitutions of the time period there was not a one of those that defined a citizen. You will have to list and quote those you claim that do if you want to have some credibility in this discussion. It appears that you do not want to get on a level playing field here. Just saying. Poking at a man that tried to straighten out where you might have gotten things wrong and trying to provoke people and going off on a tangent about other topics seems to be your way of trying to keep the truth from coming out. Just for the record. You seem to be admitting that there is such a thing as a state citizen. If you are admitting as much and if the links at least the one I read are supportive of that fact then they have credibility. Are you saying that the laws being quoted is not the law? If you were willing to read this stuff and educate yourself you might figure out one thing. I conspired with the Resister over at DTT and they could not win a single argument even when imaginethat used several different sockpuppets. They locked him out so I helped him and they had to shut down the messengers. Never has either of us presented our own view. All that has been done is to present the facts as we have been able to assemble them. Until all the differing views on the law are presented and how the laws are being interpreted today by those in power are on the table you will not understand the problem nor the solution. |
|
|
|
Post by liquidmicro on Mar 8, 2024 15:46:33 GMT
The United States is a Constitutional Republic, 100%. Your links are to Sovereign Citizen lunacy, they have no credibility. Invoking Slaughter House when it refers to the 14th Amendment and Louisiana Law in the fashion you are attempting to do doesn't work. I never stated that States created citizens at the State level. The State Constitutions in the time frame of 1781 - 1789 defined citizens. How do you think the US Constitution came up with the phrase: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Article 4 Section 2. Most States, 48 to be exact, can't allow non-citizens to vote due to the wording in their State Constitutions, and as of now only 2 are allowing it including Washington DC, which doesn't have a State Constitution. You miss a big point. This is a think tank board. I am just as committed to that part of the goal as the people that built the board. Just because patriot arguments are being presented does not mean that anybody here endorses them. When you assume. You probably know the rest. When patriot arguments that have succeeded and are provable in court then I would say they have credibility. Whether those arguments are those made by Sovereign Citizens or not is irrelevant in determining the facts. You have been criticizing one man for so long that your life seems to revolve around him and proving him wrong. The truth is when I attended the many meetings sponsored by the Patriot Network nobody ever said Sovereign Citizen. Having read four state constitutions of the time period there was not a one of those that defined a citizen. You will have to list and quote those you claim that do if you want to have some credibility in this discussion. It appears that you do not want to get on a level playing field here. Just saying. Poking at a man that tried to straighten out where you might have gotten things wrong and trying to provoke people and going off on a tangent about other topics seems to be your way of trying to keep the truth from coming out. Just for the record. You seem to be admitting that there is such a thing as a state citizen. If you are admitting as much and if the links at least the one I read are supportive of that fact then they have credibility. Are you saying that the laws being quoted is not the law? If you were willing to read this stuff and educate yourself you might figure out one thing. I conspired with the Resister over at DTT and they could not win a single argument even when imaginethat used several different sockpuppets. They locked him out so I helped him and they had to shut down the messengers. Never has either of us presented our own view. All that has been done is to present the facts as we have been able to assemble them. Until all the differing views on the law are presented and how the laws are being interpreted today by those in power are on the table you will not understand the problem nor the solution. You can call the board whatever you want, it's still a discussion board. If you are looking for the best arguments, then inept ones must be set aside and nullified. Are you claiming Sovereign Citizens are Patriots? Thus their arguments hold merit? Here's the issue with their arguments, they take everything out of context, misconstrue facts to fit their narrative, and have never prevailed in court with their arguments. I'll ask again, why do you think Article 4 Section 2 says what it says? Those Constitutions didn't define citizenship as we understand it today, there in lies your problem. They included provisions as to who could participate in the political process, which indirectly implied citizenship (known today as the body politic). One such provision was the establishment of qualifications for voting and holding office. To be eligible to vote or hold office, a person had to be: The Georgia Constitution of 1777 did not explicitly define citizenship as we understand it today. However, it did include provisions related to who could participate in the political process, which indirectly implied citizenship. One such provision was the establishment of qualifications for voting and holding office. According to the 1777 Georgia Constitution, to be eligible to vote or hold office, a person had to be: Male At least 21 years old A resident of the county where he intended to vote or hold office A freeholder, meaning a landowner with a certain amount of property or taxable property These requirements effectively limited political participation to a subset of the population, primarily land-owning males who met the specified age and residency criteria. While the language of the constitution did not explicitly use the term "citizen," these qualifications for participation in governance effectively delineated who was considered a member of the political community in Georgia at that time (1777). The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, often referred to as the "Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts," provided significant insights into citizenship within the state. It laid out qualifications for voting and holding public office, which indirectly implied citizenship. According to the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780: Voting Rights: Article III established the qualifications for voting, stating that "every male inhabitant of any town or district, being twenty-one years of age, and having a freehold estate within the same town or district of the value of three pounds per annum, or any estate of the value of sixty pounds" was entitled to vote. This requirement effectively limited voting rights to male landowners meeting the specified property ownership threshold. Office Holding: Article VII stipulated qualifications for holding public office, requiring candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, and other offices to be " natural-born subjects of the commonwealth, or naturalized citizens." This requirement implied that only individuals who were either born in Massachusetts or had gone through the naturalization process could hold these positions. While these provisions did not explicitly define citizenship, they established criteria for political participation and eligibility for public office that aligned with the concept of citizenship as understood during that time. Do you now see why Art4 Sec2 in the US Constitution says what it says? Do you now understand how those Constitutions defined citizenship as we know it today? The States, once they signed onto the US Constitution, they signed a Supremacy Clause (Article 6 Clause 2), which allowed the federal government to envelop the citizens of the confederated states (note: none of those Constitutions state you had to be white to vote or to be a member of the body politic, i.e. citizen) into one federal envelope, a Citizen of the United States, Natural Born or Naturalized. So, No, there are no states that confer/grant citizenship as recognized after 1789, the additional states fell under the umbrella of the Federal recognition of US Citizen. |
|
professorx
Global Moderator
Site Administrator
Posts: 411
|
Post by professorx on Mar 8, 2024 16:56:58 GMT
You miss a big point. This is a think tank board. I am just as committed to that part of the goal as the people that built the board. Just because patriot arguments are being presented does not mean that anybody here endorses them. When you assume. You probably know the rest. When patriot arguments that have succeeded and are provable in court then I would say they have credibility. Whether those arguments are those made by Sovereign Citizens or not is irrelevant in determining the facts. You have been criticizing one man for so long that your life seems to revolve around him and proving him wrong. The truth is when I attended the many meetings sponsored by the Patriot Network nobody ever said Sovereign Citizen. Having read four state constitutions of the time period there was not a one of those that defined a citizen. You will have to list and quote those you claim that do if you want to have some credibility in this discussion. It appears that you do not want to get on a level playing field here. Just saying. Poking at a man that tried to straighten out where you might have gotten things wrong and trying to provoke people and going off on a tangent about other topics seems to be your way of trying to keep the truth from coming out. Just for the record. You seem to be admitting that there is such a thing as a state citizen. If you are admitting as much and if the links at least the one I read are supportive of that fact then they have credibility. Are you saying that the laws being quoted is not the law? If you were willing to read this stuff and educate yourself you might figure out one thing. I conspired with the Resister over at DTT and they could not win a single argument even when imaginethat used several different sockpuppets. They locked him out so I helped him and they had to shut down the messengers. Never has either of us presented our own view. All that has been done is to present the facts as we have been able to assemble them. Until all the differing views on the law are presented and how the laws are being interpreted today by those in power are on the table you will not understand the problem nor the solution. You can call the board whatever you want, it's still a discussion board. If you are looking for the best arguments, then inept ones must be set aside and nullified. Are you claiming Sovereign Citizens are Patriots? Thus their arguments hold merit? Here's the issue with their arguments, they take everything out of context, misconstrue facts to fit their narrative, and have never prevailed in court with their arguments. I'll ask again, why do you think Article 4 Section 2 says what it says? Those Constitutions didn't define citizenship as we understand it today, there in lies your problem. They included provisions as to who could participate in the political process, which indirectly implied citizenship. One such provision was the establishment of qualifications for voting and holding office. To be eligible to vote or hold office, a person had to be: The Georgia Constitution of 1777 did not explicitly define citizenship as we understand it today. However, it did include provisions related to who could participate in the political process, which indirectly implied citizenship. One such provision was the establishment of qualifications for voting and holding office. According to the 1777 Georgia Constitution, to be eligible to vote or hold office, a person had to be: Male At least 21 years old A resident of the county where he intended to vote or hold office A freeholder, meaning a landowner with a certain amount of property or taxable property These requirements effectively limited political participation to a subset of the population, primarily land-owning males who met the specified age and residency criteria. While the language of the constitution did not explicitly use the term "citizen," these qualifications for participation in governance effectively delineated who was considered a member of the political community in Georgia at that time (1777). The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, often referred to as the "Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts," provided significant insights into citizenship within the state. It laid out qualifications for voting and holding public office, which indirectly implied citizenship. According to the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780: Voting Rights: Article III established the qualifications for voting, stating that "every male inhabitant of any town or district, being twenty-one years of age, and having a freehold estate within the same town or district of the value of three pounds per annum, or any estate of the value of sixty pounds" was entitled to vote. This requirement effectively limited voting rights to male landowners meeting the specified property ownership threshold. Office Holding: Article VII stipulated qualifications for holding public office, requiring candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, and other offices to be " natural-born subjects of the commonwealth, or naturalized citizens." This requirement implied that only individuals who were either born in Massachusetts or had gone through the naturalization process could hold these positions. While these provisions did not explicitly define citizenship, they established criteria for political participation and eligibility for public office that aligned with the concept of citizenship as understood during that time. Do you now see why Art4 Sec2 in the US Constitution says what it says? Do you now understand how those Constitutions defined citizenship as we know it today? The States, once they signed onto the US Constitution, they signed a Supremacy Clause (Article 6 Clause 2), which allowed the federal government to envelop the citizens of the confederated states into one federal envelope, a Citizen of the United States, Natural Born or Naturalized. So, No, there are no states that confer/grant citizenship as recognized after 1789, the additional states fell under the umbrella of the Federal recognition of US Citizen. As stated before I do not have anything specific on Sovereign Citizens. There are different groups espousing different beliefs. As long as they support the Constitution they can be patriots. You refer to the Georgia Constitution of 1777. Did you read this part of it? "Article IX - All male white inhabitants of the age of twenty one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this state ... shall have a right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large." This is just so you can understand some of the terminology of that era as well. The Colony of Virginia voting law of 1736 defined a Freeholder as a white male 21 years of age who owns at least 100 acres of unimproved land or 25 improved acres with a house and a "plantation". Any qualified Freeholder who failed to vote was subject to a fine of 200 pounds of tobacco. Any non–Freeholder who attempted to vote was subject to a fine of 500 pounds of tobacco. Just going on what you have advocated so far. If there were no state citizens after the ratification of the Constitution then the immigration law of 1790 limiting immigration to free white persons would be the law of the land and nothing could invalidate it. Not trying to get in a flame fest just making sure that I have your understanding down and do not misrepresent you. You have asked my opinion on Article 4 Section 2 of the Constitution. It starts out with these words The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. It would appear at first glance that the federal government is acknowledging state Citizens and entitles state Citizens Privileges and Immunities in the several states. I do notice that nothing is said about rights and in particular unalienable rights. A Citizen of a state can go into any other state and have the same Privileges and Immunities. This still does not address who may and come as guests within a state. You make this argument about only two states allowing noncitizens to vote. Would one not have to have the right to move about {liberty} in order to vote? The principle here would hold if even only one state were permitting noncitizens to vote. States today have a constitutional to regulate voting within their respective states. It only stands to follow that the states still have citizens. Something else to bring to your attention is that the SCOTUS has ruled that the word shall is not a command word. The word shall means may according to the SCOTUS. Again it looks like you have come here looking for a fight and a fight on any grounds. I do not know anyone who has ever specifically called themselves a Sovereign Citizen. What I can tell you is that those previous links do have legal arguments in them that have been used in court and the people successfully litigated them. Here is something that I see from a number of years of working with the Resister on this and reading your posts. He started out trying to help you understand his perspective. You have this bias that if you do not believe something you prefer false allegations, name calling, denials, and emotional - psychological games in order to get your points to be considered without a second opinion. What you say might not be true. If you start out saying that anybody that believes in one thing or another is inept you kill any chance of a civil discourse. I sought out John to help here and this is just FYI. Bullying is becoming unpopular. Your technique has about run its course. More and more people are ready to defend the Resister not necessarily because they believe what he is saying but because you are not debating in good faith. You should post your view and let other people post theirs and let the readers decide without the theatrics and emotional - psychological gamesmanship. On that note I have to go to work. |
|
|
|
Post by liquidmicro on Mar 8, 2024 20:32:21 GMT
As stated before I do not have anything specific on Sovereign Citizens. There are different groups espousing different beliefs. As long as they support the Constitution they can be patriots. You refer to the Georgia Constitution of 1777. Did you read this part of it? "Article IX - All male white inhabitants of the age of twenty one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this state ... shall have a right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large." This is just so you can understand some of the terminology of that era as well. The Colony of Virginia voting law of 1736 defined a Freeholder as a white male 21 years of age who owns at least 100 acres of unimproved land or 25 improved acres with a house and a "plantation". Any qualified Freeholder who failed to vote was subject to a fine of 200 pounds of tobacco. Any non–Freeholder who attempted to vote was subject to a fine of 500 pounds of tobacco. Just going on what you have advocated so far. If there were no state citizens after the ratification of the Constitution then the immigration law of 1790 limiting immigration to free white persons would be the law of the land and nothing could invalidate it. Not trying to get in a flame fest just making sure that I have your understanding down and do not misrepresent you. You have asked my opinion on Article 4 Section 2 of the Constitution. It starts out with these words The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. It would appear at first glance that the federal government is acknowledging state Citizens and entitles state Citizens Privileges and Immunities in the several states. I do notice that nothing is said about rights and in particular unalienable rights. A Citizen of a state can go into any other state and have the same Privileges and Immunities. This still does not address who may and come as guests within a state. You make this argument about only two states allowing noncitizens to vote. Would one not have to have the right to move about {liberty} in order to vote? The principle here would hold if even only one state were permitting noncitizens to vote. States today have a constitutional to regulate voting within their respective states. It only stands to follow that the states still have citizens. Something else to bring to your attention is that the SCOTUS has ruled that the word shall is not a command word. The word shall means may according to the SCOTUS. Again it looks like you have come here looking for a fight and a fight on any grounds. I do not know anyone who has ever specifically called themselves a Sovereign Citizen. What I can tell you is that those previous links do have legal arguments in them that have been used in court and the people successfully litigated them. Here is something that I see from a number of years of working with the Resister on this and reading your posts. He started out trying to help you understand his perspective. You have this bias that if you do not believe something you prefer false allegations, name calling, denials, and emotional - psychological games in order to get your points to be considered without a second opinion. What you say might not be true. If you start out saying that anybody that believes in one thing or another is inept you kill any chance of a civil discourse. I sought out John to help here and this is just FYI. Bullying is becoming unpopular. Your technique has about run its course. More and more people are ready to defend the Resister not necessarily because they believe what he is saying but because you are not debating in good faith. You should post your view and let other people post theirs and let the readers decide without the theatrics and emotional - psychological gamesmanship. On that note I have to go to work. You could go back even further than 1736. Other colonies such as Massachusetts stated in their 1780 Constitution. constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/massachusetts-constitutionChapter I, Section II The Senate Article I. [There shall be annually elected, by the freeholders and other inhabitants of this commonwealth, qualified as in this constitution is provided,... The 1790 Act naturalized only free white men from 1790 on, which were those that may be coming from other outside colonies, like the French or Spanish colonies of Florida and the areas of what are now Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, etc, who wished to move into the now formed United States or those coming from other countries. Those that were citizens already remained citizens, the Act had no bearing on that. Were there "guests" coming into states back in 1790? People were brought in as Indentured Servants, that required paperwork, people coming in from other countries were required to gain authorization to leave their country of origin from their government (1414 England called what are now considered passports, Safe Conduct Letters and in 1540 were known as Traveling Papers/Passports), and upon arrival here would have to be submitted via the ships logs to the local magistrate to include those arriving from other colonies/States . In order to then become a citizen, provided they applied for it, they had to reside here for 2 years minimum (later it became 5 years) and be of good moral character. You answered your own question regarding States, their Constitutions and voting. They have always held the ability to determine who votes in their States, that is why 48 States don't allow aliens to vote. The 2 that do to include DC, may simply be waiting on court cases challenging the state allowance. In order to move around to another State to vote, do you not have to establish residence to be legally domiciled in that State first? The word "shall" has many different meanings, it just doesn't automatically create a contractual agreement. It's all in how it is placed into the context of its usage as to its meaning. What is it with you guys and wanting to "fight". I simply came here to stand my ground and prevent who ever from using my likeness as they attempted to do. Those Sovereign Citizen links do link to "legal arguments" used in court cases, while removing any and all context from them and then attempting to use them to fit a narrative they want to push. They do not however show where a Sovereign Citizen litigated them nor do they show that a Sovereign Citizen prevailed in court with those arguments. Resister never started out trying to help me see his perspective, I saw it from the get go. What he did was try to argue from a position of authority and dismiss everything that showed his perspective to be incorrect. He would argue as if he were in front of a court, he still does that with... my critics. I haven't debated in good faith? On discussion boards are there not differing views? Are views not allowed to be challenged? Are claims not allowed to be critiqued? I understand it can be overwhelming for some. |
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Mar 8, 2024 23:29:49 GMT
As stated before I do not have anything specific on Sovereign Citizens. There are different groups espousing different beliefs. As long as they support the Constitution they can be patriots. You refer to the Georgia Constitution of 1777. Did you read this part of it? "Article IX - All male white inhabitants of the age of twenty one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this state ... shall have a right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large." This is just so you can understand some of the terminology of that era as well. The Colony of Virginia voting law of 1736 defined a Freeholder as a white male 21 years of age who owns at least 100 acres of unimproved land or 25 improved acres with a house and a "plantation". Any qualified Freeholder who failed to vote was subject to a fine of 200 pounds of tobacco. Any non–Freeholder who attempted to vote was subject to a fine of 500 pounds of tobacco. Just going on what you have advocated so far. If there were no state citizens after the ratification of the Constitution then the immigration law of 1790 limiting immigration to free white persons would be the law of the land and nothing could invalidate it. Not trying to get in a flame fest just making sure that I have your understanding down and do not misrepresent you. You have asked my opinion on Article 4 Section 2 of the Constitution. It starts out with these words The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. It would appear at first glance that the federal government is acknowledging state Citizens and entitles state Citizens Privileges and Immunities in the several states. I do notice that nothing is said about rights and in particular unalienable rights. A Citizen of a state can go into any other state and have the same Privileges and Immunities. This still does not address who may and come as guests within a state. You make this argument about only two states allowing noncitizens to vote. Would one not have to have the right to move about {liberty} in order to vote? The principle here would hold if even only one state were permitting noncitizens to vote. States today have a constitutional to regulate voting within their respective states. It only stands to follow that the states still have citizens. Something else to bring to your attention is that the SCOTUS has ruled that the word shall is not a command word. The word shall means may according to the SCOTUS. Again it looks like you have come here looking for a fight and a fight on any grounds. I do not know anyone who has ever specifically called themselves a Sovereign Citizen. What I can tell you is that those previous links do have legal arguments in them that have been used in court and the people successfully litigated them. Here is something that I see from a number of years of working with the Resister on this and reading your posts. He started out trying to help you understand his perspective. You have this bias that if you do not believe something you prefer false allegations, name calling, denials, and emotional - psychological games in order to get your points to be considered without a second opinion. What you say might not be true. If you start out saying that anybody that believes in one thing or another is inept you kill any chance of a civil discourse. I sought out John to help here and this is just FYI. Bullying is becoming unpopular. Your technique has about run its course. More and more people are ready to defend the Resister not necessarily because they believe what he is saying but because you are not debating in good faith. You should post your view and let other people post theirs and let the readers decide without the theatrics and emotional - psychological gamesmanship. On that note I have to go to work. You could go back even further than 1736. Other colonies such as Massachusetts stated in their 1780 Constitution. constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/massachusetts-constitutionChapter I, Section II The Senate Article I. [There shall be annually elected, by the freeholders and other inhabitants of this commonwealth, qualified as in this constitution is provided,... The 1790 Act naturalized only free white men from 1790 on, which were those that may be coming from other outside colonies, like the French or Spanish colonies of Florida and the areas of what are now Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, etc, who wished to move into the now formed United States or those coming from other countries. Those that were citizens already remained citizens, the Act had no bearing on that. Were there "guests" coming into states back in 1790? People were brought in as Indentured Servants, that required paperwork, people coming in from other countries were required to gain authorization to leave their country of origin from their government (1414 England called what are now considered passports, Safe Conduct Letters and in 1540 were known as Traveling Papers/Passports), and upon arrival here would have to be submitted via the ships logs to the local magistrate to include those arriving from other colonies/States . In order to then become a citizen, provided they applied for it, they had to reside here for 2 years minimum (later it became 5 years) and be of good moral character. You answered your own question regarding States, their Constitutions and voting. They have always held the ability to determine who votes in their States, that is why 48 States don't allow aliens to vote. The 2 that do to include DC, may simply be waiting on court cases challenging the state allowance. In order to move around to another State to vote, do you not have to establish residence to be legally domiciled in that State first? The word "shall" has many different meanings, it just doesn't automatically create a contractual agreement. It's all in how it is placed into the context of its usage as to its meaning. What is it with you guys and wanting to "fight". I simply came here to stand my ground and prevent who ever from using my likeness as they attempted to do. Those Sovereign Citizen links do link to "legal arguments" used in court cases, while removing any and all context from them and then attempting to use them to fit a narrative they want to push. They do not however show where a Sovereign Citizen litigated them nor do they show that a Sovereign Citizen prevailed in court with those arguments. Resister never started out trying to help me see his perspective, I saw it from the get go. What he did was try to argue from a position of authority and dismiss everything that showed his perspective to be incorrect. He would argue as if he were in front of a court, he still does that with... my critics. I haven't debated in good faith? On discussion boards are there not differing views? Are views not allowed to be challenged? Are claims not allowed to be critiqued? I understand it can be overwhelming for some. I’d like to quote you also from Reply # 33 : “ The States, once they signed onto the US Constitution, they signed a Supremacy Clause (Article 6 Clause 2), which allowed the federal government to envelop the citizens of the confederated states (note: none of those Constitutions state you had to be white to vote or to be a member of the body politic, i.e. citizen) into one federal envelope, a Citizen of the United States, Natural Born or Naturalized.
So, No, there are no states that confer/grant citizenship as recognized after 1789, the additional states fell under the umbrella of the Federal recognition of US Citizen.” You are on record as saying no states confer / grant citizenship as recognized after 1789. I can’t wait to see the weasel clause in your posts (since I don’t see it.) Let me quote from a case in what you claim is your own home state: “ Finally, respondents contend that the words "native citizens" as used in the treaty in article I thereof, whereby it is sought to confer upon subjects of one country residing within the territory of the other the right "generally to do anything incident to or necessary for trade upon the same terms as native citizens," are employed in a restrictive sense, and that this provision of the treaty deals only with native citizens and subjects of the United States and their privileges and immunities as such and not with the privileges and immunities of the citizens and subjects of the several states. That there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other is well established by the decisions of the courts of this country. The leading cases upon the subjects are those decided by the supreme court of the United States and reported in 16 Wall. 36, and known as the Slaughter-House cases. “ Tashiro v. Jordan 201 Cal. 236 (Cal. 1927) That case was taken up in the United States Supreme Court and they didn’t contradict or overturn the California decision. Professor quoted from the 1777 Georgia Constitution and showed you that only white males could vote. That poses a problem for your repeated denials and posting material that contradicts what you are saying. For example YOU posted: “You could go back even further than 1736. Other colonies such as Massachusetts stated in their Constitutions: malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution Chapter I, Section II
The Senate
Article I.
[There shall be annually elected, by the freeholders and other inhabitants of this commonwealth, qualified as in this constitution is provided,...”
That is what you posted. Those are your words. It was previously explained to you what freeholder was. I will copy and paste from reply # 34 by Professor X: “ The Colony of Virginia voting law of 1736 defined a Freeholder as a white male 21 years of age who owns at least 100 acres of unimproved land or 25 improved acres with a house and a "plantation". Any qualified Freeholder who failed to vote was subject to a fine of 200 pounds of tobacco. Any non–Freeholder who attempted to vote was subject to a fine of 500 pounds of tobacco.” I bolded it so you could read it. That puts us at three states having Whites as being those who are granted the privilege of voting. You lead us to believe that voting equals being a citizen. You can’t cite anything that would lead a rational person to believe differently. If that’s the case what were White non-land owners and White women? I want to give you another example so that you can’t hog tie us with endless debate over state constitutions. The 1776 Constitution of Maryland states: Article XIV – “That every free white male citizen of this State, above twenty one years of age, and no other … shall have a right of suffrage, and shall vote, by ballot…”I don’t know why you would want to go back to 1736. In 1736 the colonies were under the control of King George II as one of his subjects. The birth certificate for the United States begins with the Declaration of Independence. What happened prior to that relative to whether states had citizens or not would be wholly irrelevant. What matters is what was in state constitutions between 1776 and the ratification of the Constitution. Then, what matters next is what was in state constitutions AFTER the ratification of the Constitution and BEFORE the Dred Scott decision. What was the intent of the framers. I’m exceeding the limit for a posting so I’ll have to do a part II to this. |
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Mar 8, 2024 23:39:24 GMT
PART 2The takeaways for part 1 are simply this: While state constitutions didn’t create state citizens, they still came into being and they still exist, in legal parlance The framers of the Constitution intended that citizenship be limited to free white persons. In virtually all state constitutions that were in effect between 1776 and 1856 when the Dred Scott decision was being handed down, voting rights, holding office, etc. was limited to Whites. There doesn’t seem to be any official date when states began recognizing state citizenship and very little was written about state versus federal citizenship prior to 1873. I’m only pointing out that voting rights, contrary to what you say are not evidence of citizenship. If that were the case, non-landowners and women were never citizens. Freeholders were defined as White landowning males. Proving that non-Whites were citizens or ever intended to be isn’t provable and the 1790 law applying to federal citizenship stands. Even if / when states began making non-Whites citizens, it would not have been recognized with respect to their national citizenship aka a Citizen of the United States. “ The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision which ruled that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only protects the legal rights that are associated with federal U.S. citizenship, not those that pertain to state citizenship” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases“ The citizenship provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment may be seen as a repudiation of one of the more politically divisive cases of the nineteenth century. Under common law, free persons born within a state or nation were citizens thereof. In the Dred Scott case,2 however, Chief Justice Taney, writing for the Court, ruled that this rule did not apply to freed slaves. The Court held that United States citizenship was enjoyed by only two classes of people: (1) white persons born in the United States as descendants of “persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, [and who] became also citizens of this new political body,” the United States of America, and (2) those who, having been “born outside the dominions of the United States,” had migrated thereto and been naturalized therein.3 Freed slaves fell into neither of these categories.
The Court further held that, although a state could confer state citizenship upon whomever it chose, it could not make the recipient of such status a citizen of the United States. law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/02-citizens-of-the-united-states.htmlHaving crossed those bridges, I’m like the Professor when it comes to Sovereign Citizens. There are lots of groups that existed and still exist. I’ve never met anyone that claimed to be a Sovereign Citizen. OTOH, the links you claim are about people that never won in court is without basis. The primary reasons that I had a falling out with what used to be constitutional patriots is due to the fact that they jumped ship on a war we were winning. People were reclaiming their state citizenship and their Preamble status under the Constitution. The illegally ratified 14th Amendment was on the ropes. My own Congressman, after attending the Patriot Network meetings, introduced the FAIR Tax. We won a battle against forcing children to enroll in school with a Socialist Surveillance Number… ooops “Social Security Number” and I beat having to go to court over the so – called “ Patriot Act” by my own efforts and the support of former State Atty. Gen. Bob Barr. You can’t convince me we weren’t successful. I lived it.
|
|
|
|
Post by liquidmicro on Mar 9, 2024 1:33:04 GMT
I’d like to quote you also from Reply # 33 : “ The States, once they signed onto the US Constitution, they signed a Supremacy Clause (Article 6 Clause 2), which allowed the federal government to envelop the citizens of the confederated states (note: none of those Constitutions state you had to be white to vote or to be a member of the body politic, i.e. citizen) into one federal envelope, a Citizen of the United States, Natural Born or Naturalized.
So, No, there are no states that confer/grant citizenship as recognized after 1789, the additional states fell under the umbrella of the Federal recognition of US Citizen.” You are on record as saying no states confer / grant citizenship as recognized after 1789. I can’t wait to see the weasel clause in your posts (since I don’t see it.) Let me quote from a case in what you claim is your own home state: “ Finally, respondents contend that the words "native citizens" as used in the treaty in article I thereof, whereby it is sought to confer upon subjects of one country residing within the territory of the other the right "generally to do anything incident to or necessary for trade upon the same terms as native citizens," are employed in a restrictive sense, and that this provision of the treaty deals only with native citizens and subjects of the United States and their privileges and immunities as such and not with the privileges and immunities of the citizens and subjects of the several states. That there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other is well established by the decisions of the courts of this country. The leading cases upon the subjects are those decided by the supreme court of the United States and reported in 16 Wall. 36, and known as the Slaughter-House cases. “ Tashiro v. Jordan 201 Cal. 236 (Cal. 1927) That case was taken up in the United States Supreme Court and they didn’t contradict or overturn the California decision. Professor quoted from the 1777 Georgia Constitution and showed you that only white males could vote. That poses a problem for your repeated denials and posting material that contradicts what you are saying. For example YOU posted: “You could go back even further than 1736. Other colonies such as Massachusetts stated in their Constitutions: malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution Chapter I, Section II
The Senate
Article I.
[There shall be annually elected, by the freeholders and other inhabitants of this commonwealth, qualified as in this constitution is provided,...”
That is what you posted. Those are your words. It was previously explained to you what freeholder was. I will copy and paste from reply # 34 by Professor X: “ The Colony of Virginia voting law of 1736 defined a Freeholder as a white male 21 years of age who owns at least 100 acres of unimproved land or 25 improved acres with a house and a "plantation". Any qualified Freeholder who failed to vote was subject to a fine of 200 pounds of tobacco. Any non–Freeholder who attempted to vote was subject to a fine of 500 pounds of tobacco.” I bolded it so you could read it. That puts us at three states having Whites as being those who are granted the privilege of voting. You lead us to believe that voting equals being a citizen. You can’t cite anything that would lead a rational person to believe differently. If that’s the case what were White non-land owners and White women? I want to give you another example so that you can’t hog tie us with endless debate over state constitutions. The 1776 Constitution of Maryland states: Article XIV – “That every free white male citizen of this State, above twenty one years of age, and no other … shall have a right of suffrage, and shall vote, by ballot…”I don’t know why you would want to go back to 1736. In 1736 the colonies were under the control of King George II as one of his subjects. The birth certificate for the United States begins with the Declaration of Independence. What happened prior to that relative to whether states had citizens or not would be wholly irrelevant. What matters is what was in state constitutions between 1776 and the ratification of the Constitution. Then, what matters next is what was in state constitutions AFTER the ratification of the Constitution and BEFORE the Dred Scott decision. What was the intent of the framers. I’m exceeding the limit for a posting so I’ll have to do a part II to this. Trying to make any sense of your garbled mess. You do realize that Tashiro v Jordan is a case regarding Japanese foreigners starting a corporation in the US, right? The section you have quoted is from the respondents, I'll quote the whole section. This is a case regarding a treaty issue and establishment of a corporation. Where it refers to citizens of a state, it should read citizens in a state (Slaughterhouse) the court goes on to clarify a corporation is subject to the laws of the state in which its located. The case itself had Japanese foreigners that wanted all the rights and privileges' of full citizens simply because they created a corporation here (corporations are people to according to the IRS). What you highlighted was from the respondents and their interpretation of "native citizenship". Here is the conclusion: All you did was either google some key words or you used more Sovereign Citizen links. |
|
|
|
Post by liquidmicro on Mar 9, 2024 2:15:27 GMT
PART 2The takeaways for part 1 are simply this: While state constitutions didn’t create state citizens, they still came into being and they still exist, in legal parlance The framers of the Constitution intended that citizenship be limited to free white persons. In virtually all state constitutions that were in effect between 1776 and 1856 when the Dred Scott decision was being handed down, voting rights, holding office, etc. was limited to Whites. There doesn’t seem to be any official date when states began recognizing state citizenship and very little was written about state versus federal citizenship prior to 1873. I’m only pointing out that voting rights, contrary to what you say are not evidence of citizenship. If that were the case, non-landowners and women were never citizens. Freeholders were defined as White landowning males. Proving that non-Whites were citizens or ever intended to be isn’t provable and the 1790 law applying to federal citizenship stands. Even if / when states began making non-Whites citizens, it would not have been recognized with respect to their national citizenship aka a Citizen of the United States. “ The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision which ruled that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only protects the legal rights that are associated with federal U.S. citizenship, not those that pertain to state citizenship” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases“ The citizenship provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment may be seen as a repudiation of one of the more politically divisive cases of the nineteenth century. Under common law, free persons born within a state or nation were citizens thereof. In the Dred Scott case,2 however, Chief Justice Taney, writing for the Court, ruled that this rule did not apply to freed slaves. The Court held that United States citizenship was enjoyed by only two classes of people: (1) white persons born in the United States as descendants of “persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, [and who] became also citizens of this new political body,” the United States of America, and (2) those who, having been “born outside the dominions of the United States,” had migrated thereto and been naturalized therein.3 Freed slaves fell into neither of these categories.
The Court further held that, although a state could confer state citizenship upon whomever it chose, it could not make the recipient of such status a citizen of the United States. law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/02-citizens-of-the-united-states.htmlHaving crossed those bridges, I’m like the Professor when it comes to Sovereign Citizens. There are lots of groups that existed and still exist. I’ve never met anyone that claimed to be a Sovereign Citizen. OTOH, the links you claim are about people that never won in court is without basis. The primary reasons that I had a falling out with what used to be constitutional patriots is due to the fact that they jumped ship on a war we were winning. People were reclaiming their state citizenship and their Preamble status under the Constitution. The illegally ratified 14th Amendment was on the ropes. My own Congressman, after attending the Patriot Network meetings, introduced the FAIR Tax. We won a battle against forcing children to enroll in school with a Socialist Surveillance Number… ooops “Social Security Number” and I beat having to go to court over the so – called “ Patriot Act” by my own efforts and the support of former State Atty. Gen. Bob Barr. You can’t convince me we weren’t successful. I lived it. If the framers intended that then why did they have to create the 1790 Naturalization Act? The framers were very clear, The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.While some states made clear only white men where considered as the body politic, others simply said all the inhabitants of this commonwealth, having such qualifications as they shall establish by their frame of government, have an equal right to elect officers, and to be elected, for public employments.
As to Slaughterhouse, State citizenship refers to citizenship of our territories, i.e. Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, etc., as being distinguishable from citizens of the United States. This case is about corporations: The Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court held that the privileges and immunities protected by the clause were limited to those granted by federal citizenship, such as the right to travel between states, access to federal courts, protection on the high seas, and certain rights of international travelers. The Court concluded that the clause did not protect the rights of citizens within their own state against infringement by their states government. This ruling effectively limited the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment in protecting the rights of citizens against state action. It meant that most rights and privileges of citizens within a state were governed by state law rather than federal constitutional guarantees. Again you fail in comprehending the case and its opinion, Slaughterhouse nullified your claim. That is the problem with relying on Sovereign Citizen web sites, they pick and choose info to fit a narrative. |
|
|
|
Post by johndrake on Mar 9, 2024 5:15:53 GMT
PART 2The takeaways for part 1 are simply this: While state constitutions didn’t create state citizens, they still came into being and they still exist, in legal parlance The framers of the Constitution intended that citizenship be limited to free white persons. In virtually all state constitutions that were in effect between 1776 and 1856 when the Dred Scott decision was being handed down, voting rights, holding office, etc. was limited to Whites. There doesn’t seem to be any official date when states began recognizing state citizenship and very little was written about state versus federal citizenship prior to 1873. I’m only pointing out that voting rights, contrary to what you say are not evidence of citizenship. If that were the case, non-landowners and women were never citizens. Freeholders were defined as White landowning males. Proving that non-Whites were citizens or ever intended to be isn’t provable and the 1790 law applying to federal citizenship stands. Even if / when states began making non-Whites citizens, it would not have been recognized with respect to their national citizenship aka a Citizen of the United States. “ The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision which ruled that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only protects the legal rights that are associated with federal U.S. citizenship, not those that pertain to state citizenship” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases“ The citizenship provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment may be seen as a repudiation of one of the more politically divisive cases of the nineteenth century. Under common law, free persons born within a state or nation were citizens thereof. In the Dred Scott case,2 however, Chief Justice Taney, writing for the Court, ruled that this rule did not apply to freed slaves. The Court held that United States citizenship was enjoyed by only two classes of people: (1) white persons born in the United States as descendants of “persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, [and who] became also citizens of this new political body,” the United States of America, and (2) those who, having been “born outside the dominions of the United States,” had migrated thereto and been naturalized therein.3 Freed slaves fell into neither of these categories.
The Court further held that, although a state could confer state citizenship upon whomever it chose, it could not make the recipient of such status a citizen of the United States. law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/02-citizens-of-the-united-states.htmlHaving crossed those bridges, I’m like the Professor when it comes to Sovereign Citizens. There are lots of groups that existed and still exist. I’ve never met anyone that claimed to be a Sovereign Citizen. OTOH, the links you claim are about people that never won in court is without basis. The primary reasons that I had a falling out with what used to be constitutional patriots is due to the fact that they jumped ship on a war we were winning. People were reclaiming their state citizenship and their Preamble status under the Constitution. The illegally ratified 14th Amendment was on the ropes. My own Congressman, after attending the Patriot Network meetings, introduced the FAIR Tax. We won a battle against forcing children to enroll in school with a Socialist Surveillance Number… ooops “Social Security Number” and I beat having to go to court over the so – called “ Patriot Act” by my own efforts and the support of former State Atty. Gen. Bob Barr. You can’t convince me we weren’t successful. I lived it. If the framers intended that then why did they have to create the 1790 Naturalization Act? The framers were very clear, The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.While some states made clear only white men where considered as the body politic, others simply said all the inhabitants of this commonwealth, having such qualifications as they shall establish by their frame of government, have an equal right to elect officers, and to be elected, for public employments.
As to Slaughterhouse, state citizenship refers to state residence, nothing more: The Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court held that the privileges and immunities protected by the clause were limited to those granted by federal citizenship, such as the right to travel between states, access to federal courts, protection on the high seas, and certain rights of international travelers. The Court concluded that the clause did not protect the rights of citizens within their own state against infringement by their states government. This ruling effectively limited the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment in protecting the rights of citizens against state action. It meant that most rights and privileges of citizens within a state were governed by state law rather than federal constitutional guarantees. Again you fail in comprehending the case and its opinion, Slaughterhouse nullified your claim. That is the problem with relying on Sovereign Citizen web sites, they pick and choose info to fit a narrative. I have to tell you that I have read your posts and the Resisters. You run a good bluff but still operate on the fringes of the rules with accusations and insults. I am going to make the two of you stop hurling insults and you are the one initiating it. You obviously do not understand how to read and interpret legal literature. A case can be about anything. All of what you posted cannot detract from the mere fact that in all that dicta is that the court acknowledged state citizenship. You do not win a debate with insults and throwing your own opinions while implying others are stupid when you yourself do not understand what it is you are reading. Even what you put in large letters acknowledges citizens of a State. This is an instance from your own posting - "Having adopted this narrow interpretation, the Court ruled that the Privileges or Immunities Clause only protects rights that pertain to federal U.S. citizenship, not state citizenship." That is a quote by Stephen Guzman, Nowak, John E.; Rotunda, Ronald D. (2012). Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure (5th ed.). An amateur can debunk what you are saying. You are not qualified to go toe to toe with experienced researchers. You did not even fool me. Read the board rules and try again. |
|
|
|
Post by liquidmicro on Mar 9, 2024 5:33:29 GMT
If the framers intended that then why did they have to create the 1790 Naturalization Act? The framers were very clear, The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.While some states made clear only white men where considered as the body politic, others simply said all the inhabitants of this commonwealth, having such qualifications as they shall establish by their frame of government, have an equal right to elect officers, and to be elected, for public employments.
As to Slaughterhouse, state citizenship refers to state residence, nothing more: The Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court held that the privileges and immunities protected by the clause were limited to those granted by federal citizenship, such as the right to travel between states, access to federal courts, protection on the high seas, and certain rights of international travelers. The Court concluded that the clause did not protect the rights of citizens within their own state against infringement by their states government. This ruling effectively limited the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment in protecting the rights of citizens against state action. It meant that most rights and privileges of citizens within a state were governed by state law rather than federal constitutional guarantees. Again you fail in comprehending the case and its opinion, Slaughterhouse nullified your claim. That is the problem with relying on Sovereign Citizen web sites, they pick and choose info to fit a narrative. I have to tell you that I have read your posts and the Resisters. You run a good bluff but still operate on the fringes of the rules with accusations and insults. I am going to make the two of you stop hurling insults and you are the one initiating it. You obviously do not understand how to read and interpret legal literature. A case can be about anything. All of what you posted cannot detract from the mere fact that in all that dicta is that the court acknowledged state citizenship. You do not win a debate with insults and throwing your own opinions while implying others are stupid when you yourself do not understand what it is you are reading. Even what you put in large letters acknowledges citizens of a State. This is an instance from your own posting - "Having adopted this narrow interpretation, the Court ruled that the Privileges or Immunities Clause only protects rights that pertain to federal U.S. citizenship, not state citizenship." That is a quote by Stephen Guzman, Nowak, John E.; Rotunda, Ronald D. (2012). Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure (5th ed.). An amateur can debunk what you are saying. You are not qualified to go toe to toe with experienced researchers. You did not even fool me. Read the board rules and try again. Just because a court uses a phrase doesn't constitute anything, especially when the opinion goes on to clarify it. Slaughterhouse uses the phrase 2 times in its opinion. Here where State refers to annexed territories and those citizens. and here referring to Art4 Sec 2 of the USC and annexed citizens of a territory being distinguishable. Citizens of our territories are not and do not hold the same rights and privilege's of US Citizens. It was the respondents making the claim in Tashiro in: a Writ of Mandate to compel the Secretary of State to file certain articles of incorporation. It wasn't even a court case. State citizenship here refers to our territories as well. Quotes are great, the documents have those words in them, and they all refer to the 14th Amendment privilege's and immunities clause. Both cases refer to corporations, not people. An amateur can debunk what you are saying. You are not qualified to go toe to toe with experienced researchers. You did not even fool me. Read the board rules and try again.Looks like you're in violation of your own rules. Rule 1, insulting, and 6, baiting and attempting to troll. |
|
|
|
Post by The Resister on Mar 9, 2024 15:23:18 GMT
Due to the incessant trolling by liquidmicro has caused this thread to be closed. I have a PM from those above me ordering that I have the last word and close this out. I want to begin closing this out by saying that liquidmicro is either ignorant of the real world or he simply wants an ongoing pissing match that is unnecessary. But, it stops on this board. This is the last thread he gets to troll in. If we begin a thread with the word DEBATE in the title, then there will be no personality posts therein. The new admin said he will explain this later. So, what is a personality post? Let me quote a sentence so that you will know: " You do realize that Tashiro v Jordan is a case regarding Japanese foreigners starting a corporation in the US, right? The section you have quoted is from the respondents, I'll quote the whole section." Well duh... really? IF liquidmicro had legal research experience (and rest assured, he does not) it doesn't matter if the case is about Japanese and corporations or if had been about Indians on a reservation in Oklahoma. What matters are legal principles / questions of law and an acknowledgment by the courts of the point that is being made. Secondary to that, in a debate, those who are weighing the evidence do not need to be subjected to one person in the debate talking down to another. Whether a person is an inhabitant, freeholder, state citizen or if the subject pivots to corporations, there is a reference to state citizens. Are there state citizens? After all the arguing we did the answer was simple: the illegally ratified 14th Amendment alludes to citizens of a state. So, yeah, we have 'em. liquidmicro should be well aware that he is projecting by accusing me of simply Googling a few terms. Real legal research doesn't work that way. My basement has a large library in it. There are a LOT of law books in it. I start there then, when I find what I want, I look on Google to see if a credible source has quoted the same material. That way I'm assured that the interpretation in my law book is consistent with what practicing attorneys say. I did research state citizenship. For the benefit of readers, this is what I found: " 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) “... 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 an yet not a citizen of the United States”. McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883) The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship." Supreme Court: Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226 (Note: The United States Supreme Court has since attacked the Bill of Rights by ruling that those "rights" as they now call them are incorporated into the illegally ratified 14th Amendment. " There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state". Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909) And then I found this article: www.educatedinlaw.org/archive-welcome-to-the-state-citizens-service-center/I want to prove to the readers something once and for all. By way of an analogy, I worked (legal research) on a case that ultimately made its way to the United States Supreme Court and was won. In that case, sheriffs fought against the federal government over being forced to do background checks for gun purchasers. The sheriffs won. The United States Supreme Court held that state and local governments could not be compelled to enforce federal laws. Now, let's talk about Sanctuary cities. What do they or undocumented immigrants OR the power of the federal government to roust undocumented foreigners? Answer: not a damn thing. See, it doesn't matter what the case is about; it matters what the principle of law is. When the liberals won in the courts to protect Sanctuary cities, they used that aforementioned gun case as their primary source. liquid has been blowing smoke and creating straw men; trying his damn best to derail this thread; attempting to humiliate those who participated. The good news is, it isn't going to continue. AND it is going to be costly for him. As for Article IV Section 2 of the Constitution, somebody answered liquid in post #34. He got an answer. That is more than he is willing to give his fellow posters. So, we've proven that there ARE state citizens. The next time I do another thread (or add to an existing one related to this), I will link to this as an additional research resource. |
|
