Posted by djf on September 19, 1998 at 00:22:47:
In Reply to: Political rights of federal citizens are franchises, held as privileges posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 18, 1998 at 23:41:21:
: Murphy v. Ramsey, as quoted in "The Federal Zone":
: The people of the United States***, as sovereign owners of
: the national territories, have supreme power over them and
: their inhabitants. ... The personal and civil rights of the
: inhabitants of the territories are secured to them, as to
: other citizens, by the principles of constitutional
: liberty, which restrain all the agencies of government,
: state and national; their political rights are franchises
: which they hold as privileges in the legislative discretion
: of the congress of the United States**. This doctrine was
: fully and forcibly declared by the chief justice,
: delivering the opinion of the court in National Bank v.
: County of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129.
: [Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885)]
: [italics in original, emphasis added]
: Paul Mitchell comments:
: Here is the crucial sentence, in case you missed it:
: "Their political rights are franchises which they hold
: as privileges in the legislative discretion of the
: Congress of the United States."
: Federal citizenship, therefore, is a privilege,
: not a Right.
: Think of it as a McDonald's hamburger franchise.
: If you want to benefit from that franchise,
: you must pay your dues to the owner of the
: franchise -- the Congress!
: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
The entire citizenship issue is very muddy and somewhat ill-defined. There are many who maintain there is no longer any distinction between state and federal (C)citizens, and all are now subject.
Yet there is a growing body of evidence that the distinction still exists, as indeed it must, in order for the united States of America to truly exist in Law. One fact is the original Treaty of Peace, still archived in the library of congresses set of recognized, valid international treaties. The acknowledgement in it that the people were Citizens of the several States (Nations) is clear. Some claim that acceptance of any federal benefit (SS, etc) make one a federal citizen. This is probably true, and under any case, makes one liable for appearance in a USDC if they so demand. Others claim that acceptance of a (S)tate voters registration is sufficient. This is arguable, yet many state constitutions talk not of "voters", but "ELECTORS". Some claim that a marriage license issued by a (S)tate also is evidence. One can, if he wishes, expatriate the corporate "United States" and vow allegience to a (S)tate, state, or republic, but the question would always be "Which one did I swear to?" While I have taken certain measures in this direction, I cannot recommend any particular action to anyone. It may be as simple a Legal notice publiched in the newspaper demanding any persons, governments, or corporations claiming any sovereign power over you respond within 30 days to present the nature and cause of your wardship, with the subsequent estoppel. A big part of the deception is that they cannot really reveal it to you. In all cases, I have not signed ANYTHING in the last 3 years, without UCC 1-207, and have seen the looks on the faces of those that know what it means that tells me it is the right thing to do.
Post a Followup