Hi Chris: Thanks for all the recent stuff on citizenship and
nationality. It is an area of great interest to
me.
As you could gather from all of that, a citizen is a member of a political community. That membership involves reciprocal duties on the part of that society and it's members.
Citizenship in the original Union of States didn't amount to much in the way of protection from the federal government. It appears to have been largely an organization created by the states, exercising those particular functions of each states sovereignty that had been agreed to by the compact of the constitution. Plutarch is credited with the phrase "protection draws to it subjection" and to my mind all governments no matter how crafted are protection rackets. Americans
are the sovereigns of the government but that sovereignty is wielded by the institutions and officers of government. You're still subject to the law but it is said to be "your law" rather that the "kings law". Since the sovereignty is collective no individual can summarily change or refuse to obey said law.
The law itself is truly the
sovereign. The law governs, or it should. The most paramount feature of that law in America is the unimpaired right to contract.
The 14th amendment as stated is binding on the states. It extends further federal compact protections to state citizens which increases the citizens duties to federal law in many cases overturning state legislative
enactments. This citizenship is only different that I can see in this area. States were forced to accept blacks as citizens. A right to vote came later as did many other amendments all taking additional power from de-jure states.
Do those de-jure states still exist? I think that's a fair question. In form, or on paper I suppose so but what power would they actually have to wield? For there is still a further citizenship
in America and indeed around the world that gets overlooked. A supposedly voluntary society that in America is called Social Security. A society that uses credit instruments rather than money to affect it's affairs. This society is expressly forbidden within the states of the union to the federal government under the Bill of rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Bouvier's law dictionary's definition of religion, "real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to god and our fellow-men". Under the original government here in America taking care of the young and old was done by family's and churches. Today that's done by Social Security. When my grandmother could no longer care for herself and went into a nursing home without means to pay, the state paid that bill.
That would not be a de-jure state. Something like 40% of my states' (washington) budget is direct funding from the federal government.
Whether Social Security is a political or religious society is not necessarily what's most important. That the society carries with it burdens that can't be
imposed on non members is plain. That the constitution allows this contract is plain and that the courts are bound to enforce the provisions of the contract should be equally plain.
I had thought this was territorial jurisdiction under the constitution. It may also be simply private international law simply administered by the federal government or more likely by the government for the district of columbia under it's
constitution. There stands the citizenship that binds you in my opinion.
