Time: Tue Jul 08 08:56:17 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA18047; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 08:55:43 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 11:55:15 -0400 Originator: heritage-l@gate.net From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] To: pmitch@primenet.com Subject: SLS: 2 classes of citizens: evidence in Arizona Constitution Here is a comparable analysis from the Constitution of the State of Arizona. Under the section entitled "Eligibility to state offices" we find another passage which also appears to acknowledge two separate classes of citizenship, but only if a faulty construction is again placed upon the language. Here's the pertinent section: [begin excerpt] Section 2. No person shall be eligible to any of the offices mentioned in section 1 of this article except a person of the age of not less than twenty-five years, who shall have been for ten years next preceding his election a citizen of the United States, and for five years next preceding his election a citizen of Arizona. [end excerpt] Clearly, this section makes a very obvious distinction between being a citizen of the United States for at least ten years, and a citizen of Arizona for at least five years. It is very tempting to conclude from this section that there are two separate classes of citizenship. However, using the construction which was so well established by the California Supreme Court in Ex parte Knowles, we are again justified in making the following proper construction of this section from the Arizona state Constitution: "No person shall be eligible to any of the offices mentioned ... except a person who shall have been a Citizen of ONE OF the Union states for at least 10 years, and who shall have been a Citizen of Arizona state for at least five years." This construction conforms perfectly to the construction established in California state at least by 1855, if not before. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com ------------------------------------------------------- I am quoting here from the California Constitution of 1849, signed by Judge Pablo De La Guerra, who later identified the proper construction of the Qualifications Clauses, in his case as a Respondent in People v. De La Guerra. Here is a pertinent paragraph from that Constitution: [begin excerpt] 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." We also have the construction of the California Supreme Court, soon after that 1849 Constitution was ratified. In 1855, that Court ruled that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States, if the latter term refers to a class of citizens different from Citizens of ONE OF the States united. De La Guerra's profound construction is worthy of very close scrutiny and study, because it provides a way out of the confusion and controversy that swirls about this subject, even now. In light of De La Guerra's pivotal insight, we are justified in constructing the 1849 California Constitution as follows: "Every Citizen of California state declared a legal voter by this Constitution, and every Citizen of ONE OF the other Union states who is a resident of California state on the day of election, shall be entitled ...." In other words, in 1849, the lower-case "c" in "citizen" appears to have been the preferred convention. Nevertheless, this lower-case "c" did not render that term a legal franchise which was subject to the municipal authority of Congress, as is now the case with federal citizenship. On the contrary, in the year 1855, the California Supreme Court in Ex parte Knowles made it very clear that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, if by that term is meant a second class of citizens, different from the primary class of state Citizens, i.e. Citizens of ONE OF the States united. The 1849 California Constitution is merely trying to establish who would be entitled to vote in general elections, and to vote on the question of adopting that Constitution. Those People would be either Citizens of California state, or Citizens of ONE OF the other states of the Union, as long as the latter Citizens were resident in California state on the day of the election. This logic appears to explain the apparent anomaly that is found in Section 5 of the 1849 California Constitution as quoted above. Despite appearances of two classes of citizens, which appearances arise from a faulty construction, the proper construction yields only a single class of state Citizens. This proper construction conforms to the decisions of the California Supreme Court in Ex parte Knowles and People v. De La Guerra. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com ======================================================================== 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