On the face. this
discussion might seem to be a matter of semantics, but upon closer inspection
of the law, the distinction is quite clear. The term "citizen of the united
states" was not defined in the original U.S. constitution, as that term was
commonly understood to mean a "citizen of one of the several states of the
union.. See Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 wherein
it states:
By metaphysical refinement, in examining our form of government, it might
be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United
States. But constant usage - arising from convenience, and perhaps
necessity, and dating from the formation of the Confederacy - has given
substantial existence to the idea which the term conveys. A citizen of any
one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the
United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing.
To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one
of the states, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the
proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in
the constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions.
The object then to be obtained, by the exercise of the power of
naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective states.
Ex parte Knowles, 5 Ca. 300, 302 (1855)
Therefore, prior to the alleged ratification of the 14th Amendment, there
was no legal definition of a "citizen of the United States", as everyone had
primary citizenship in one of the several states. The Constitution referred to
the sovereign state citizen, and no one else. Those who went to Washington,
D.C. or outside the several states were commonly called "citizens of the
United States." In the Constitution for the United States, the term was used
to identify state citizens who were eligible under the suffrage laws to hold
office, and they were required under the Constitution to have primary
allegiance to one of the several states.
Since that term was not specifically defined in the U.S. Constitution,
Congress in 1868 took advantage of this term and utilized it in the so-called
14th Amendment to describe a NEW type of "citizen" whose primary
allegiance was to the federal government, i.e. Washington, D.C. and not to one
of the several states of the union. Thus, using the term as used in the U.S.
Constitution to mislead and confuse the people as to the true intent and
meaning of the Constitution.
Many people have mistaken the citizen as denominated in the 14th Amendment
to mean the same one in the original constitution, this is in error. The
"citizen of the united states" as used in the constitution is not the same as
the citizen of the United States used after the 14th Amendment. So all the
elected officials are NOT sitting in the office constitutionally, they
are merely impostors created by the 14th Amendment. The current President
Clinton, is a U.S. citizen, and therefore not the "citizen of the united
states" defined in the Constitution for the United States, neither the federal
senators nor any congressmen are seated constitutionally. These facts being
true, then all the federal laws are invalid for want of constitutionality.
The 14th Amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States.
It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities,
and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no
such thing as a citizen of the United States, except by first becoming a
citizen of some state.
United States v. Anthony (1874), 24 Fed. Cas. 829
(No. 14,459), 830.
We have in our political system a government of the United States and a
government of each of the several states. Each one of these governments is
distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it
allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The
same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a
citizen of a state, but his rights of citizenship under one of these
governments will be different from those he has under the other.
U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
In other words, you do not have to be a citizen of the United States in
order to be a state citizen. This was held to be true by the Maryland Supreme
Court in 1966 wherein the state:
Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal
Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the
United States in order to be a citizen of his state.
Crosse v. Bd. of Supvr,s of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431
(1966)
The federal government was never given any authority to encroach upon the
private affairs of the citizens in the several states of the union, unless
they were involved in import or export activity, neither were they given
authority to reach a citizen of Germany living in Germany. In fact, the states
could refuse to enforce any act of congress, that they felt was outside the
intent of the granting of limited powers to the federal government. This is
called interposition or nullification. Several state supreme courts have in
the past refused to uphold federal laws within their states.
In fact, in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 54 (c) shows us
that Congress knows and understands that federal laws do not apply within
anyone of the several states of the union, but do apply in the Federal State
(federal enclave) created by the
Buck Act.
(c) Application of Terms. As used in these rules the following terms have
the designated meanings.
"Act of Congress" includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and
in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in
an insular possession.
"State" includes District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, territory and insular
possession"
The Buck Act Title 4 U.S.C.S. § 110 (d) and (e) created this federal State
within the boundaries of any state. IF Congress wanted to apply the Acts to
all the sovereign states, they would only have to include the statement "the
50 sovereign states of the union of several states." But, this they did not
do, as to do so would be in clear violation of the intended restrictions of
the Constitution for the United States of America.
by,
Richard McDonald,
-- Richard McDonald's state Citizen
BBS --
