Time: Fri Sep 26 18:55:57 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA23664;
Fri, 26 Sep 1997 18:44:54 -0700 (MST)
by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA02625;
Fri, 26 Sep 1997 18:32:36 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 18:32:11 -0700
To: butchaz@juno.com (Alfred R Martin)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: state Citizens are Sovereigns
This question is fully and forcefully detailed
in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF, now available in
the Supreme Law Library. See, in particular,
1:2:2, 1:3:3, 2:1:5, 3:2:1 and 4:2:1. Federal
citizenship, as such, was first created by the
1866 Civil Rights Act. Citizenship is a term
of municipal law. Congress cannot by legislation
alter the Constitution, from which alone it
derives its power to legislate, and within whose
limitations that power can be lawfully exercised.
Thus, the Qualifications Clauses refer to state
Citizens, and those clauses have never been
amended by three-fourths of the states, and
Congress can NOT ever amend them -- period --
and certainly not by legislation. See Eisner
v. Macomber.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
At 05:52 PM 9/26/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Congress is now imposing "an income tax on the income of every individual
>who is a citizen or resident of the united States," 26 CFR 1.1-1(a).
>Does this "citizen...of the United States" include the state citizen?
>
>Prior to the unratified fourteenth amendment, a "citizen of the United
>States" meant a "citizen of one of the several states,". However, after
>the unratified fourteenth amendment, American courts began making
>distinctions between "citizen of the United States" and "citizen of a
>state."
>
> Of the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States,
>and of the privileges
> and immunities of the citizen of the state.... it is only the former
>which are placed by this
> clause [of the unratified fourteenth amendment] under the protection
>of the Federal
> Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not
>intended to have any
> additional protection by this paragraph of the Amendment.
> Slaughterhouse Cases, (1872) 16 Wall 72, 83 U.S. 408.
>
> The purpose of the (unratified) Fourteenth Amendment to the
>Constitution of the United
> States was to confer the status of citizenship upon...persons (who)
>were not white
> persons, but in the main were of African blood, who had been held
>in slavery in this
> country, or having themselves never been held in slavery, were the
>native-born
> descendants of slaves.
> Van Valkenburg v. Brown, (1872) 43 Cal 43.
>
>The question of whether or not a "sovereign" can be named and made
>subject to a statute or law, under the term "person" or "any person" was
>the issue of several subsequent supreme court cases.
>
>In 1879, the court was addressing the issue of "sovereignty" in the case
>Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U.S. 483. At issue was a treaty between the
>United States and Switzerland, concerning land ownership in America by a
>Citizen of Switzerland. Hauenstein, a Citizen of Swetzerland held held
>title to property in the City of Richmond. He died and the state moved
>under the laws of escheat to seize the property, because Hauenstein,
>being an "alien" could not will his property to his heirs, because they
>were "aliens". The entire case rested on the treaty and the power of the
>people to make the treaty. The court stated:
> "There can be no limitation on the power of the people of the
>United States, by their
> authority the State Constitutions were made, and by their
>authority the Constitution
> of the United States was established; and they had the power to
>change or abolish
> the state constitution or to make them yield to the general
>government and to
> treaties made by their authority."
>
>In 1886, two more cases came before the supreme Court and both of these
>cases involved the term "sovereign". In the case Yick Wo v. Hopkins
>and Woo Lee v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, sheriff Hopkins had jailed Yick
>Wo and Woo Lee and deprived them of their personal liberty. As to what
>the court stated on the issue of "sovereignty": "Sovereignty itself is,
>of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law;
>but in our system, while the sovereign powers are delegated to the
>agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by
>whom and for whom all governments exist and act."
>
>The cases cited above are just a few of the rulings made by the supreme
>Court concerning the issue of "sovereignty" and those cases are based on
>Barron v. Baltimore, 6 Peters 243 and then later on by the case Fairbanks
>v. United States, 181 U.S. 283 and the court in all the cases said:
>
> "Powers denied are not to be implied; they are to be obtained,
>if at all, from and in
> the same manner provided by, those who originally granted the
>enumerated powers,
> but who at the same time denied powers."
>
>Does "person" include the sovereign - the state citizen? This very issue
>was before the court in the case United States v. Cooper Corp, 318 U.S.
>600 (1941). The case involved the term "person" as it was used in
>Section 76 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The court answered:
>
> "The precise question for decision, therefore is whether by the
>use of the
> phrase "any person," Congress intended to confer upon the United
>Sates
> the right to maintain an action for treble damages against a
>violator of the
> Act." "Since in common usage, the term "person" does not
>include the
> sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily
>construed to
> construed to exclude it." Citing from United States v. Fox, 94
>US 315.
>
>The above cited case was in 1941 and the Fox case was even earlier than
>that. Then in 1979, in the case Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 US
>653, the court again upheld the decision in Cooper.
>
>The federal government, as it was organized in 1789, had no authority to
>impose burdens upon state citizens in 1862 and it still doesn't. If the
>"federal government" is attempting to impose burdens upon state citizens
>today, we are not dealing with the federal government as it was organized
>in 1787, but with an impostor, a usurper, or a band of pirates and
>robbers.
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
:
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
_____________________________________:
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail