Time: Mon Jul 07 21:37:27 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA19832;
Mon, 7 Jul 1997 21:17:26 -0700 (MST)
by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA03993;
Mon, 7 Jul 1997 21:17:14 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 21:17:08 -0700
To: snetnews@world.std.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: 2 classes of citizens: evidence in California (1849)
References: <3.0.3.16.19970707194512.31cf7002@pop.primenet.com>
See my comments infra:
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
At 11:34 PM 7/7/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
>-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
>
>Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:
>(snip)
>> Sec. 5. Every citizen of California, declared a
>> legal voter by this Constitution, and every
>> citizen of the United States, a resident of this
>> state on the day of election, shall be entitled
>> to vote at the first general election under this
>> Constitution, and on the question of the adoption
>> thereof.
>> [end excerpt]
>>
>> At first glance, this section appears to refer to
>> two (2) separate classes of citizens: citizens of
>> California, and citizens of the United States.
>>
>> However, having reviewed People v. De La Guerra,
>> we now understand that, prior to the Civil War and
>> its ugly aftermath, the term "Citizen of the United
>> States", as that term is used in the Qualifications
>> Clauses, means "Citizen of ONE OF the States united."
>
>That's great, but what exactly is a "citizen"? Is that
>someone born in a state? free? white? other? Can one
>be born in a state but not be a citizen? Being, perhaps,
>an inhabitant?
Born or naturalized. These are the two
most common ways. There is another way,
which is to choose the Citizenship of
your parents, even though you were born
overseas.
>
>Why did they have to say one must be a citizen of either
>California or one of the several states AND resident in
>California? Why not just resident?
My construction is this:
They are allowing California citizens
to vote by absentee ballot, when they are
temporarily "resident" in another Union state.
Your "domicile" is permanent, even though
you might exercise your Right to sojourn
(i.e. "travel").
>
>I'm asking because of language used in the Northwest Ordinance,
>where it uses the terms "inhabitant", "person", "citizen", and
>"elector". These terms are obviously used to distinguish;
>thus my question.
The Northwest Ordinance is a great example
to use when constructing these clauses,
because it contains the actual language
which Judge De La Guerra utilized, to wit:
"... Provided, That no person be eligible or
qualified to act as a representative, unless
he shall have been a citizen of one of the [ONE OF!!!!!]
United States three years, and be a resident
in the district, or unless he shall have
resided in the district three years; ...."
These are the qualifications for eligibility
to serve as a "representative" in the general
assembly for the Northwest Territory.
Author John S. Wise goes on to say:
"This is doubtless the intent of the convention
which framed the Constitution, for it cannot
have meant anything else."
This Northwest Ordinance has always been
regarded as a model of excellent legislation.
Wise explains that, if the Qualifications Clauses
had been literally obeyed, there could have been
no elections for Representatives to Congress
for at least seven years after the adoption
of the Constitution, and no one would have
been eligible as a Senator for nine years after
its adoption. Reductio ad absurdum.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
>
>Walter
>
>
>-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>-> Posted by: Walter Kenaston <kenaston@digital.net>
>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail