It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: J.B. Aloha
Respecting that there is in fact [and in law] two separate, distinct, and mutually exclusive contexts for men and women to be part of: (1) Constitutional/Republic [inherent, private, and unalienable] and (2) Statutory/Federal Corporate State [voluntary, public, and revocable].
On what basis do you draw the two distinctions of the particular "color of law" that we might choose to live under?
Follow up: If one chooses option (1) doesn't COTUS, Article Six, Clause 2 also invoke (2)?
Vis-a-vis: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
'United States' may be used in three distinct and separate senses: (1) Describes our sovereign country comparable to all other earthly nations. (2) Designates the [federal] territory over which the federal government is sovereign. (3) Pertaining to the sovereign states of the Union united by and under the Constitution. These 'contexts' were affirmed by the Supreme Court in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, (1945)
Respecting that there is in fact [and in law] two separate, distinct, and mutually exclusive contexts for men and women to be part of: (1) Constitutional/Republic [inherent, private, and unalienable] and (2) Statutory/Federal Corporate State [voluntary, public, and revocable]. Simply, making it known to ALL that most of what people complain about are usually voluntary and self inflicted. Taxes: Voluntary. Maintaining one civil status over another, or no civil status at all: Voluntary. Participating in government social insurances or other social franchises: Voluntary. Participating in government protection franchises like business incorporation, military, federal employment: Voluntary.
You seem to be making a distinction, however, between "the territory over which the federal government is sovereign" (captured territories at the time from war, et. al.) and the territories of the several sovereign States, or do I miss your meaning?
what do you make of the significance (if not the legal standing) of "E Pluribus Unum" on the Great Seal of the United States?
Thus every American citizen is actually a dual-citizen of his or her State and the United States (Fourteenth Amendment) at any given time, said US citizenship established either by jus soli (British Common Law), jus sanguinis ( Naturalization Act of 1790), by both, or by naturalization (COTUS Article I, section 8, clause 4, et. al.).
Your main contention, which you have been providing support for, is that there are two types/levels/etc. of citizenship that are mutually exclusive of each other.
When Brown v. Maryland, supra, was decided, the United States was without dependencies or territories outside its then territorial boundaries on the North American continent, and the Court had before it only the question whether foreign articles brought into the State of Maryland could be subjected to state taxation. It seems plain that Chief Justice Marshall, in his reference to imports as articles brought into the country, could have had reference only to articles brought into a state which is one of the states united by and under the Constitution, and in which alone the constitutional prohibition here involved is applicable.
The United States acquired the Philippines by cession without obligation to admit them to statehood or incorporate them in the Union of states or to make them a part of the United States, as distinguished from merely belonging to it. As we have seen, they are not a part of the United States in the sense that they are subject to and enjoy the benefits or protection of the Constitution, as do the states which are united by and under it.
... the Union of states or to make them a part of the United States, as distinguished from merely belonging to it.
... they are not a part of the United States in the sense that they are subject to and enjoy the benefits or protection of the Constitution, as do the states which are united by and under it.
My current question is ... how do your two "citizenship categories" relate to the generic picture of citizenship (dual citizenship in the US and the State resided in) I provided?
My next question would be ... does your (2) derive primarily from the Fourteenth Amendment?
Three senses of one thing or three aspects of one thing do not compose three different things.
In American law. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United States, or of a particular state, and by virtue of birth or naturalization within the jurisdiction, is a member of the political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate
I'll admit, I heard the peaceful strains of Grieg's "Morgenstemning" from Peer Gynt playing in my head during your first paragraph.
Source - Morning Mood
Then you succumbed to what seems to be more related to evangelizing than enumerating facts.
"Natural rights" as a concept hardly evolved in the American British colonies ... I can cast you toward the writings of various Roman Stoics for a prime example of pre-American "natural rights." Fast forward through the Reformation (which I would argue is a much more reasonable "source" for these concepts, if we must establish a pedigree) and Martin Luther, through the Enlightenment with Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau et. al. which IN TURN provided inspiration for many of the political leaders in the Colonies. But John Locke was dead by 1704.
First Principles are important.
Everything else depends on that document. Everything else is SUBJECT to that document (literally "under").