Questions, requests for information
from "Citizenship for Dummies”:
1. Define
"citizen", and derivative terms like "citizen-ship", both
as perceived by the general public and the actual meaning(s) construed from
original documents and legal application i.e.
– US citizen?
Whenever terms are used in the
Constitution, the best place to begin a search for their correct legal meaning
is Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, because it
was published closest in time to the ratification of the organic
Constitution; and, it is a principle of
American constitutional law that the meanings of these terms do not and cannot
change without a proper constitutional amendment.
CITIZEN, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of
the
United States, has a right to vote for representatives in
congress,
and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill
offices
in the gift of the people. In a more
extended sense,
under
the word citizen, are included all white persons born in
the
United States, and naturalized persons born out of the same,
who
have not lost their right as such. This
includes men, women,
and
children.
Now compare the definition of
“Citizen” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition:
Citizen. One who, under the
Constitution and laws of
the United States, or of a
particular state, is a member
of the political community, owing
allegiance and being
entitled to the enjoyment of full
civil rights.
All persons born or naturalized in
the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the
United States and of the state
wherein they reside.
U.S.Const.,
14th Amend. See Citizenship.
Citizenship. The status of being a citizen. ...
See ... Federal citizenship.
2. Why is the Dred Scott Decison both
misunderstood, and central to the issue of the definition of citizen?
We believe it was misunderstood for
many reasons, primary among which is the widespread belief – then and now –
that the U.S. Supreme Court should have ruled in Dred
Scott’s favor.
The Supreme Court tried to explain
that a constitutional amendment was required to make Dred
Scott a Citizen of Missouri, but lots of people – notably luminaries like
Abraham Lincoln – either overlooked or chose to ignore that key element of the
Supreme Court’s decision.
That decision is central to the
definition of “Citizen” because the Supreme Court spent a lot of time going
over the history of that term throughout numerous American laws; and, when that decision was issued, there was
only one (1) class of State Citizens recognized by the U.S. Constitution.
3. Relate Dred Scott to the 13th and 14th Amendments, and creation of
the status of "federal citizens"?
Because the Supreme Court found that
Dred Scott was a slave, his status prevented Dred Scott from claiming any of the Rights, Privileges and
Immunities that belonged to State Citizens from the dawn of the Republic.
The 13th Amendment was
ratified almost immediately after the South surrendered to the Union Army to
end the Civil War: it clearly prohibits
slavery and involuntary servitude, and it was ratified with the consent of the
Legislatures of Southern States which had attempted to secede from the Union.
The ratification of the 13th
Amendment was a monumentally significant historical event, for lots of reasons.
Rather than interpreting the 13th
Amendment as freedom for former slaves to become State Citizens, a group of
Radical Republicans convinced Congress that a Federal statute was needed to
confer a different class of “federal
citizenship” upon such former black slaves.
That Federal statute was the 1866
Civil Rights Act, which was enacted by Congress soon after the 13th
Amendment was ratified.
By enacting that Federal statute,
however, Congress attempted to circumvent the key holding in the Dred Scott decision – chiefly by neglecting
to propose the correct constitutional amendment instead.
Then, after Congress enacted that
statute, the Radical Republicans also persuaded Congress to propose another constitutional
amendment, in order to elevate that statute to the status of constitutional
law.
That was the ostensible reason which
Congress publicized for proposing the so-called 14th Amendment. But, Congress had another, hidden agenda
which motivated the proposal it eventually forwarded to the several States for
ratification by their Legislatures.
4. How is a federal
citizen different from a State Citizen?
When the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are
properly interpreted, the Federal government is authorized to exercise a very
limited set of powers that apply inside the States of the Union.
State Citizens are “subject to”
those laws, and NOT to any laws which Congress might enact for places like D.C.,
Federal Possessions or Federal Territories like Puerto Rico – unless State
Citizens decide to live or work inside those other geographic areas.
Congress can also exercise many more
powers in the limited geographic areas where Congress has exclusive legislative
jurisdiction – chiefly because those areas are either NOT States of the Union,
or they are Federal enclaves like military bases.
The main reason why Congress
attempted to create a second class of federal citizenship was to impose its
exclusive legislative jurisdiction upon all such federal citizens, regardless
of where on planet Earth they might choose to live and work.
This has resulted in a situation in
which all local Federal municipal laws are made to appear AS IF they
apply to all federal citizens EVEN IF federal citizens inhabit a State of the
Union.
This has been done fraudulently
whenever Congress attempts to re-define “State” even though that term, and the
plural form “States”, have a very well defined meaning throughout the U.S. Constitution.
5. Is the original
intent of the Founders clear on meaning(s) for these terms? Is/was there a form of "legal"
re-definition that obfuscates the meaning of the term(s), their
privileges/rights and obligations?
In certain Clauses, the original intent
of the Framers can not be clearly observed – without any ambiguities –
in the language they chose to draft those Clauses in the organic Constitution.
Courts and constitutional experts
have been required to apply known historical facts and to be sensitive to the
context and flow of the Constitution that was drafted by those Framers.
One of the major grammatical
problems that was introduced by the organic Constitution was the ways in which
the term “United States” does vary from one Clause to the next.
Thus, in all of the Qualifications
Clauses, the term “United States” means “States united” and this we know on
authority of Judge Pablo De La Guerra and many other recognized authorities.
In several other Clauses, that term
means the Federal government, as when the “United States” must guarantee a
Republican Form of Government to each of the States that are united by and
under that Constitution.
The Guarantee Clause clearly
distinguishes “United States” from “every State in this Union”.
You are correct when you observe
that key “re-definitions” have worked their way into American law: the term “United States” in the
Qualifications Clauses is recognized to mean the States of the Union, whereas
“United States” in the 1866 Civil Rights Act can only mean the Federal
government domiciled in Washington, D.C.
As such, federal citizens are really
citizens of the Federal government. They
owe their primary political allegiance to the Federal government.
6. What is the
difference between "Citizens of the United States" and "citizens
of the United States"?
As found in all 3 Qualifications
Clauses, “Citizens of the United States” are Citizens of ONE OF the
States that are united by and under the Constitution. The qualifier “one of” is very clarifying, in
this context.
As found in the 1866 Civil Rights
Act, in the so-called 14th Amendment, and in literally TONS of
Federal laws that have been enacted by Congress after 1866, the term “citizens
of the United States” means federal citizens only.
After extensive research and much
litigation, it is now painfully obvious that only State Citizens are eligible
to serve in the House of Representatives, in the U.S. Senate and in the White
House, but they are NOT eligible to vote or serve on juries of any kind due to
State and Federal laws which now exclude State Citizens from voting and
from jury service.
On the other hand, because the
Qualifications Clauses have never been amended, federal citizens are NOT
eligible to serve in the House, Senate or White House, but federal citizens are
eligible to vote and serve on juries because the same State and Federal laws
require federal citizenship as a condition for voting and jury service.
7. Even more: the meaning of "Citizens of the UNITED
STATES"– how many forms of this term exist and do they mean different things?
You must be very very careful when
you resort to text that is spelled in ALL CAPS.
There is a body of evidence which identifies such usage as indicating a nom de guerre, or name of war in
French.
Under International Law,
all parties to a cause must appear by nom
de guerre, because an "alien
enemy cannot maintain an action during the war in his own name".
Because warring upon the
States of the Union is defined as treason in the U.S. Constitution, a nom de guerre necessarily implies a
state of war, or a state of mixed war.
And, one of the penalties for treason is death.
8. How does the
creation of a second class of citizen (federal citizen) play into the discovery
of the "Federal Zone", i.e. the
10 miles squared District of Columbia?
It’s quite simple, when you study
and follow the reasoning in the essay entitled “Citizenship for Dummies”.
The term “United States” in “citizen
of the United States” can ONLY refer to the Federal government domiciled
in the District of Columbia; it cannot
mean anything else.
Congress enjoys exclusive
jurisdiction over D.C. and over all other Federal enclaves. D.C. was the first such Federal enclave.
Congress also enjoys exclusive
jurisdiction over all Federal Territories and Possessions, like Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands.
When these 2 groups of geography are
combined logically, that combination identifies all geographic areas over which
Congress enjoys exclusive legislative jurisdiction, read “NOT States of
the Union”, NOT stars on the American flag.
The federal zone is the name we have
applied to that exclusive geographic jurisdiction, and this concept is fully
elaborated in the book entitled “The
Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue” – first published in
March of 1992.
The federal zone is analogous to the
blue field on the American flag.
9. What is the
jurisdiction of the "United States"?
There are fundamentally 2
jurisdictions which the “United States” enjoys, when “United States” refers to
the Federal government domiciled in Washington, D.C.:
It has limited NATIONAL jurisdiction
to enact certain laws by exercising the authorities granted to Congress at
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 thru 16 and Clause 18.
It has almost unlimited MUNICIPAL
jurisdiction to enact laws by exercising the authorities granted to Congress at
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and at Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (also
known as the Territory Clause).
10. Is the Federal
Zone/Washington, D.C., a fiefdom established/run by the feudal lords of the
Congress?
Almost. Technically, it is an absolute legislative
democracy.
The Guarantee Clause requires the
Federal government to guarantee a Republican Form of Government to all 50
States.
Strictly construed, as it should be,
that Guarantee Clause does NOT require Congress to guarantee a Republican Form
of Government to the federal zone, however.
Congress was free to establish a different
form of government for the federal zone, and so it has.
11. How do we
differentiate between all these similar, but clearly not equal definitions and
titles?
Whenever you encounter the term “citizen
of the United States” (small “c”), change that in your mind to “federal
citizen”. That one change will solve a
myriad of problems for you, until such time as all such deliberate vagueness is
removed from all affected, “infected” Federal laws.
Knowing which is the correct meaning
of “United States” in any given context is a lot more difficult, and it may be
impossible in some situations, due to all of the deliberate vagueness which
attorneys and lawmakers are accustomed to impose upon all of us, for their own
selfish purposes.
[END]