14th Amendment Citizenship: Citizen or citizen?

Prior to the alleged ratification of the 14th Amendment, there was no legal definition of a "citizen of the United States", as everyone had primary citizensh...

Views: 49

Comment

You need to be a member of 12160 Social Network to add comments!

Join 12160 Social Network

Comment by suzie on February 28, 2012 at 11:58pm

Comment by suzie on February 28, 2012 at 11:56pm

Prior to the alleged ratification of the 14th Amendment, there was no legal definition of a "citizen of the United States", as everyone had primary citizenship in one of the several states. The Constitution referred to the sovereign state citizen, and no one else. Those who went to Washington, D.C. or outside the several states were commonly called "citizens of the United States." In the Constitution for the United States, the term was used to identify state citizens who were eligible under the suffrage laws to hold office, and they were required under the Constitution to have primary allegiance to one of the several states.

Since that term was not specifically defined in the U.S. Constitution, Congress in 1868 took advantage of this term and utilized it in the so-called 14th Amendment to describe a NEW type of "citizen" whose primary allegiance was to the federal government, i.e. Washington, D.C. and not to one of the several states of the union. Thus, using the term as used in the U.S. Constitution to mislead and confuse the people as to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution.

Many people have mistaken the citizen as denominated in the 14th Amendment to mean the same one in the original constitution, this is in error. The "citizen of the united states" as used in the constitution is not the same as the citizen of the United States used after the 14th Amendment. So all the elected officials are NOT sitting in the office constitutionally, they are merely impostors created by the 14th Amendment. The current President Clinton, is a U.S. citizen, and therefore not the "citizen of the united states" defined in the Constitution for the United States, neither the federal senators nor any congressmen are seated constitutionally. These facts being true, then all the federal laws are invalid for want of constitutionality.

The 14th Amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States. It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state. United States v. Anthony (1874), 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830.

We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several states. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a state, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).

In other words, you do not have to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a state citizen. This was held to be true by the Maryland Supreme Court in 1966 wherein the state:

Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state. Crosse v. Bd. of Supvr,s of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966)

The federal government was never given any authority to encroach upon the private affairs of the citizens in the several states of the union, unless they were involved in import or export activity, neither were they given authority to reach a citizen of Germany living in Germany. In fact, the states could refuse to enforce any act of congress, that they felt was outside the intent of the granting of limited powers to the federal government. This is called interposition or nullification. Several state supreme courts have in the past refused to uphold federal laws within their states.  

"Destroying the New World Order"

THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!

mobile page

12160.info/m

12160 Administrators

 

TOP CONTENT THIS WEEK

Latest Activity

Central Scrutinizer commented on Bob Renner's photo
4 hours ago
Central Scrutinizer favorited Bob Renner's photo
4 hours ago
Burbia commented on TommyD's group The Chuckle Hut
"Federal Judge Rules That Jewish Baker Must Make 'Death To Israel' Cake For Arab…"
5 hours ago
Central Scrutinizer commented on Central Scrutinizer's blog post CLAIM: CHINA’S CHIEF SPY CATCHER IS SHARING TERABYTES OF TREASON WITH DIA
"If true, best keep Chickity China, the Chinese chicken in a bullet proof, bomb proof,…"
6 hours ago
Central Scrutinizer posted blog posts
6 hours ago
Chris of the family Masters favorited MAC's video
6 hours ago
Patrick C Conway favorited Chris of the family Masters's photo
7 hours ago
Patrick C Conway favorited Chris of the family Masters's blog post Finally MSM Disclosing the Dangers of the Hard Pushed “Vaccine”
7 hours ago
Patrick C Conway favorited Chris of the family Masters's blog post 2013 ruling. you can’t patent DNA unless the mRNA is changed… then you are not human, you are owned, and you don’t have human rights.
7 hours ago
MAC posted a video

Late Night Fleming RV Report June 19, 2021

Late Night Fleming RV Report June 19, 2021
10 hours ago
Chris of the family Masters commented on Chris of the family Masters's blog post 2013 ruling. you can’t patent DNA unless the mRNA is changed… then you are not human, you are owned, and you don’t have human rights.
"Although we are owned already, this is a final nail in the coffin...."
11 hours ago
Central Scrutinizer commented on Chris of the family Masters's blog post 2013 ruling. you can’t patent DNA unless the mRNA is changed… then you are not human, you are owned, and you don’t have human rights.
"lol...see the catch-22 here?? ...Vaxed,... Non-vaxed, ...6 of one, ....half dozen of the…"
11 hours ago
Central Scrutinizer favorited Chris of the family Masters's blog post 2013 ruling. you can’t patent DNA unless the mRNA is changed… then you are not human, you are owned, and you don’t have human rights.
11 hours ago
Kim Moore favorited Bob Renner's photo
13 hours ago
Chris of the family Masters posted photos
13 hours ago
Chris of the family Masters posted blog posts
13 hours ago
Doc Vega commented on Bob Renner's photo
17 hours ago
Doc Vega favorited Bob Renner's photo
17 hours ago
Doc Vega favorited Bob Renner's photo
17 hours ago
Patrick C Conway favorited Central Scrutinizer's photo
20 hours ago

© 2021   Created by truth.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

content and site copyright 12160.info 2007-2019 - all rights reserved. unless otherwise noted