This just a drop in the bucket
regarding the distinction between United States and the States of the Union and citizen of the United States that is a federal citizen [see Black's Law Dict. 7th. Ed.] and a State Citizen.
You can have dual citizenship or you can have one without the other, you just have to know the difference and act accordingly.
LOOK UP THIS CASE VERY INTERESTING READ.
The US Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US 36, 1873; among other things, stated:
*72 It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States, except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing the Union. Those, therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the Territories, though within the United States, were not citizens. Whether *73 this proposition was sound or not had never been judicially decided. But it had been held by this court, in the celebrated Dred Scott case, only a few years before the
outbreak of the civil war, that a man of African descent, whether a slave or not, was not and could not be a citizen of a State or of the United States. This decision, while it met the condemnation of some of the ablest statesmen and constitutional lawyers of the country, had never been overruled; and if it was to be accepted as a constitutional limitation of the right of citizenship, then all the negro race who had recently been made freemen, were still, not only not citizens, but were
incapable of becoming so by anything short of an amendment to the Constitution.
To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States, and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed.
The next observation is more important … It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. *74 Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he
should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union.
It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.
We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section, … speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several States.
The language is, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It is a little remarkable, if this clause was intended as a protection to the citizen of a State against the legislative power of his own State, that the word citizen of the State should be left out when it is so carefully used, and used in contradistinction to citizens of the United States, in the very sentence which precedes it. It
is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and with a purpose.
Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen 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 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.
*75 If, then, there is a difference between the privileges and immunities belonging to a citizen of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizen of the State as such the latter must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested; for they are not embraced by this paragraph of the amendment.
*77 But with the exception of these and a few other restrictions, the entire domain of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the States, as above defined, lay within the constitutional and legislative power of the States, and without that of the Federal government. Was it the purpose of the fourteenth amendment, by the simple declaration that no State should make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and
immunities of citizens of the United States, to transfer the security and protection of all the civil rights which we have mentioned, from the States to the Federal government? And where it is declared that Congress shall have the power to enforce that article, was it intended to bring within the power of Congress the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging exclusively to the States? (emphasis added)
*78 We are convinced that no such results were intended by the Congress which proposed these amendments, nor by the legislatures of the States which ratified them.
Having shown that the privileges and immunities relied on in the argument are those which belong to citizens of the States as such, and that they are left to the State governments … we may hold ourselves excused from defining the privileges *79 and immunities of citizens of the United States which no State can abridge, until some case involving those privileges may make it necessary to do so.
The Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 679 among other things, stated:
Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship,) "reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance." "At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country, of 680*680 parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. ... " Minor
v. Happersett, (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.
*683 where there is no protection or allegiance or sovereignty, there can be no claim to obedience." 4 Wheat. 254.
*687 These considerations confirm the view, already expressed in this opinion, that the opening sentence of the Fourteenth *688 Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER dissenting stated:
*716 At that time the theory largely obtained, as stated by Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, "that every citizen of a State is ipso facto a citizen of the United States." § 1693.
TIMING IS PERFECT
The B-epic Business was founded in USA at the beginning of 2017.
This gas product just now came out this year!
Great two minute video that will save and/or could make you a lot of money if you share it
I calculated my savings.
My tank holds approximately 15 gallons. At 20 miles per gallon on an average provides me 300 miles.
If I can save 18% that will allow me 354 miles per tank.
54 miles is approximately 2.7 gallons at about $3.50 a gallon I save $9.45.
If I fill my tank up twice a month, I am saving $18.90 less the costs of the pill that is approximately $3.00 each; that would be a net savings of $12.90 a month ($154.80 a year).
This is affiliate marketing so I will make money when other people want to save anywhere from 5% to 18% or higher in some cases.
|
|
|
