Posted by Man of Reason on August 29, 1998 at 19:22:30:
In Reply to: Aha, a fellow thinker. posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on August 27, 1998 at 22:08:35:
: : : 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
Just what's your point? My definitions were given in an attempt to clarify their use in previous discussions. If we choose to use different meanings for words than you do, does that make our point invalid? I fail to see how your statements have anything to do with our discussions.
It appears to me that you are implying (for you have a wonderful knack of not making any hard statements) that one who is a 'State Citizen' and is not a 'Federal Citizen' (to use your definitions) is incapable of being taxed by the Federal Government, as though the 'State Citizenship' is a shield which one can carry around with which to protect yourself. Is this what you wish to say? Let's see if you can make some simple answers to simple questions.
Yes or No:
1) Are the Feds authorized to impose a tax on a State Citizen within the District of Columbia, or a Territory/Possession?
2) Are the Feds authorized to impose a tax on a State Citizen outside the District of Columbia, or a Territory/Possession?
3) Are the Feds authorized to impose a tax on a Federal Citizen within the District of Columbia, or a Territory/Possession?
4) Are the Feds authorized to impose a tax on a Federal Citizen outside the District of Columbia, or a Territory/Possession?
Post a Followup