Aha, a fellow thinker.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on August 27, 1998 at 22:08:35:

In Reply to: Re: Aha, a fellow thinker. posted by Tom on August 12, 1998 at 07:17:03:

: : I assume by 'federal' citizen you mean one who lives within Mr. Mitchell's "federal zone", comprising DC or a federal possession or territory, whereas your National Citizen might also live within a State of the Union. (I believe a federal citizen would also be a national citizen, wouldn't he/she?) If those definitions hold, then there were federal citizens before 1801 in the territories and possessions. The 'federal' government derived its power from the Constitution (AI, S8, C17 and AIV, S3, C2) long before the 14th Amendment showed up. I sort of view this situation in this manner. The federal government fulfills two roles, a 'national' government over all the people, and a 'federal' government (to use your terms) which substitutes for a State government in DC and the territories/possessions. In its role as a 'federal' government, it cannot reach State Citizens outside its territorial jurisdiction, in its 'national' role, it reaches all Citizens, everywhere in the United States.

No. Confer at "Federal citizenship"
in Black's Law Dictionary. This second
class was first created by the 1866
Civil Rights Act, and the so-called
14th amendment was an attempt to
elevate existing law to constitutional
status. As such, the 14th amendment [sic]
was only declaratory of existing law,
namely, the 1866 Civil Rights Act;
it did not "create" this second class
of citizens. The lawyers edition ("L.Ed.")
of Colgate v. Harvey spelled "create"
in italics, thus proving that this second
class already existed before 1868.

Roa v. Collector proves that this second
class was merely municipal in scope,
thus limiting federal citizenship to
the federal zone. Confer also at
"Jus soli" in Black's Law Dictionary.

The other cases cited in "The Federal Zone"
(the book) prove that federal citizenship
is a municipal franchise, thus rendering
it a privilege the exercise of which can
be taxed.

BTW, the Northwest Ordinance was written
at approximately the same time as the
organic U.S. Constitution. One qualification
for serving in the legislature of the Northwest
Territory was that a candidate had to be a
"citizen of one of the United States" [sic].
The term "one of" is definitive proof of
the meaning of "Citizen" as found in the
organic U.S. Constitution.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Counselor at Law, Private Attorney General

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]