Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on August 28, 1998 at 22:08:25:
In Reply to: Does our government still represent and serve State Citizens??? posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on August 19, 1998 at 15:32:31:
You will note, with some interest (I hope),
that not a single federal court has ever
admitted that we have two (2) classes of
citizenship in America, even though state
courts have done so, in so many words.
If I am wrong here, please correct me
immediately (and I do WANT to be wrong
about this!) Despite its obvious importance,
I do not recall that Alla v. Kornfeld actually
issued this key holding ("two classes" [sic]),
even though the existence of two classes can
be inferred easily from that correct case.
I hope, by now, that the far-reaching
implications of two classes are beginning
to be understood, and appreciated, by everyone
who participates in this forum. Take, for
example, the fundamental principle of equal
protection. Are the two classes receiving
equal protection today? My answer: NO!
One class can vote, the other cannot vote!
One can make law, the other cannot make law!
Moreover, the notion of a "national citizen"
is simply not supported by the relevant
history and pertinent cases. For the same
reason, we have a "federal" government and
not a "national" government. The term
"national of the United States" is the product
of federal statutes (which Congress CAN change)
and not a term found in the Constitution
(which Congress can NOT change).
The term "United States" in the Qualifications
Clauses means "States United". See People v.
De La Guerra for authority. It does NOT refer
to the "nation" [sic] (i.e. one of the other
meanings for that term, as defined in Black's,
which cites Hooven & Allison v. Evatt).
Pablo De La Guerra was a California judge who
signed the original California Constitution
of 1849. He would know!
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law, Private Attorney General
Post a Followup