Time: Tue Jul 15 11:28:28 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA08039
for [address in tool bar]; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 11:23:17 -0700 (MST)
by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA20160;
Tue, 15 Jul 1997 11:17:49 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 11:17:26 -0700
To: fwolist@sportsmen.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311 (1870)
The Northwest Ordinance also uses the
nomenclature "citizen of _one of_ the
United States". Author John S. Wise
explains how this could have meant
one and only one thing. Pablo De La
Guerra was a judge who signed the
1849 California Constitution. See:
"Studies in Constitutional Law:
A Treatise on American Citzenship,"
by John S. Wise, Edward Thompson Co. (1906)
[_emphasis_ added above]
The California Supreme Court held as follows:
"[Federal citizens] have not the political rights
which are vested in citizens of the States. ...
"[Federal citizens] are not constituents
of any community in which is vested any
sovereign power of government. Their
position partakes more of the character
of subjects than of citizens. ...
"... [T]he political rights of citizens
they cannot enjoy until they are organized
into a State, and admitted into the Union."
De La Guerra supra, at 342
This case is quoted in "The Federal Zone,"
in Chapter 11.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
At 11:00 AM 7/15/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Paul Mitchell repeatedly cites the case of "people v. De La Guerra" What I
>find in this case is much more than Mr. Mitchell reports. Here's the case
>as Mitchell reports it:
>
>
>From: fwolist@sportsmen.net
>Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 19:46:54 -0700
>Subject: SLS: 2 classes of citizens: evidence in California
>To: behold@teleport.com
>
>================[ Distributed Message ]================
> ListServer: fwolist (Free World Order)
> Type: Not Moderated
> Distributed on: 07-JUL-97, 19:46:18
>Original Written by: IN:pmitch@primenet.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
>
> I find this a very shallow report. Mitchell is confining his report to
>just one issue in this case "who is a citizen of the United States and who
>is a citizen of a State" The year of this case is 1870 and the 14th
>Amendment was well in place as an amendment to the Federal Constitution in
>the year 1886. What I find interesting is the 14th Amendment played no part
>in this case. A more detailed report I believe is neccessary to understand
>the Citizenry established by this case.
>
>Mitchell:
>
>"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:"
>
>Wangrud:
>
>The above statement is correct as to section. 5. found under the title
>"SCHEDUAL" In the 1849 California Constitution.
>
>>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.
>
>But there is more of the 1859 California Constitution that needs to be
>reported to properly establish who section. 5. is referring too. Such as:
>
> ARTICLE II
> RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE
>
>Section 1."Every white male citizen of the United States and every white
>male citizen of Mexico who shall have elected to become a citizen of the
>United States, under the treaty of peace exchanged and ratified at
>Queretaro...'
>
>This leaves no doubt as to who section. 5. under the title "SCHEDUAL" is
>referring to in 1849. In the opening statement of facts Temple, J. who
>delivered the opinion of the court states:
>
>"The respondent was born at Santa Barbara, in 1819 and has ever since
>resided at that place, and is admitted to have been a white male citizen of
>Mexico at the date of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo."
>
>With out this information anyone who reads just section. 5. under the title
>"SCHEDUAL" could be deceived as to the true facts behind the opinion of the
> Supreme Court of California in 1870.
>
>Mitchell:
>
>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."
>
>Wangrud:
> The above statement is true, but in 1849 the Federal Constitution only
>recognized white people to be citizens of one of the States and therefore
>citizens of the United States. Citizens of a State being the controlling
>citizenry. This fact is recognized by the Court.
>
>Mitchell:
>
>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 ...."
>
>Wangrud:
>Yes, a full report of the People v. De La Guerra case does clear up the
>confusion. What confuses me is Mitchell denounces the 14th Amendment, but
>refuses to acknowledge without the 14th Amendment America would restore the
>original citizenry as acknowledge in Guerra. Mitchell's statement has a
>flaw in it "on day of election" is he referring to the admission day of
>California into the Union of States [1849] or just election day of each
>year via the 14th Amendment??
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
========================================================================
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