Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 18, 1998 at 23:30:37:
I have no doubt that those born in the Territories, or in
the District of Columbia, are so far citizens as to entitle
them to the protection guaranteed to citizens of the United
States** in the Constitution, and to the shield of
nationality abroad; but it is evident that they have not
the political rights which are vested in citizens of the
States. They 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. They are subject to the laws of the United
States**, but have no voice in its management. If they are
allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived
from the sanction of a Government in which they are not
represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the
political rights of citizens they cannot enjoy until they
are organized into a State, and admitted into the Union.
[People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 342 (1870]
Paul Mitchell comments:
Note that federal citizens are subject
to the laws of the United States,
but they have no voice in its management.
They have no voting representatives in the
Congress, because there are no Representatives,
or Senators, from anywhere in the federal zone
(i.e. territories, possessions, and enclaves).
"They are not constituents of any community in which
is vested any sovereign power of government."
"The political rights of [state] citizens they cannot enjoy
until they are organized into a State, and admitted into
Federal citizens do not have the political rights
which are vested in Citizens of the 50 states.
This holding was issued by the California
Supreme Court in 1870, two years after the
alleged ratification of the 14th amendment
(in 1868). See Dyett v. Turner for details.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Counselor at Law, Private Attorney General
Post a Followup