Evidence of THE Controversy at Law

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

Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 08, 1998 at 23:40:21:

I hope by now that frequent visitors to
the Supreme Law Forum, and the Supreme Law
Library, have learned enough to appreciate
why the following statement is simply wrong:

"Since it is by the terms of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution that a U.S. citizen
is automatically made a citizen of the state
in which he is a legal resident, U.S. citizenship
is primary and state citizenship is derivative;
by the ratification of that amendment in 1868,
it became impossible for a person to be a citizen
of a state who is not a U.S. citizen."

Confer at "Citizenship" in "Dictionary of
American History," Revised Edition, Volume II,
New York, Charles Scribner's Sons (1976),
page 42, written by Paul C. Bartholomew,
Library of Congress Catalog Card #76-6735.

Author Bartholomew cites no authorities for
his proposition, however.

For authorities to the contrary, read Topic "A"
in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF here in the
Supreme Law Library; also, Dyett v. Turner,
with key excerpts reproduced in USA v. Knudson,
also here in the Supreme Law Library; also,
Alla v. Kornfeld, discussed here under the
topic of the Diversity Clause in the
U.S. Constitution: federal citizenship
was not contemplated by the Framers, whereas
state Citizenship is embodied in all the
Qualifications Clause, in the Diversity
Clause, and in the Privileges and Immunities
Clause. See Eisner v. Macomber in re:
Congress cannot by legislation alter the
Constitution. None of these clauses has
ever been amended.

In case you haven't already noticed, this is
the level to which we wish to elevate the
current debates about Citizenship in America.
This objective was clearly expressed in
"The Federal Zone," all editions.

I doubt very much that name-calling, innuendo,
and vain attempts at ad hominem argumentation,
are going to do very much to dissuade us from
this important objective. I trust that most
readers will come to recognize specious logic,
whenever and wherever they encounter it.

If the Civil War happened again in this country,
I doubt very much whether the federal government
could resist the temptation to explode nuclear
weapons over the southern states, so hateful and
vicious is their criminal lust for absolute power
and unlawful dominion. Let's hope and pray
it never comes to that.

I have chosen the pen as our primary weapon
in this epic struggle. And I am proud to argue,
with proof, that the Law is definitely on our

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

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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