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,
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.