Nature's Law: Inalienable Rights vs Civil Rights; Constitutional Republic vs Democracy

a reply to: Gryphon66

By all means. I will do my best.

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 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."

On what basis do you draw the two distinctions of the particular "color of law" that we might choose to live under?

My basis is derived from statute, federal rules of civil procedure, and supreme court cases [both majority opinions and dissents]. Sometime I may go lower in the hierarchy and cite the code of federal regulations, the federal register, executive orders and so on down the chain if it is pertinent or nothing can be found in the top three. It is never a good idea to cite departmental policy. Great for information, but one cannot sustain a position with anything less than the top three I mentioned.

In regard to Statute: My primary tool is terminology. The first things to be read before any foray into the Statues themselves MUST be the definitions for that title, section, or subsection. If a term is not defined in the title or elsewhere, I default to Black’s 6th ed law dictionary. For comparison, especially if ‘the era’ the term was defined matters, I will use Bouvier’s 3rd (1914).

Being familiar with the rules of civil procedure help to navigate how public offices are created, filled, domiciled, compensated, officer’s public rights v. privileges, and so on.

As an auxiliary, maxims of law that have SCOTUS affirmation are also very useful.

That is the ‘method‘, and now to the ‘madness’. Where to start?

With the ‘United States’.

'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)

In most cases, anytime ‘United States’ is used in statute it is in the second (2) context. In the constitution, ‘United States’ is the 1st and or 3rd (1/3) context.

The statutory v. constitutional context can also be derived from the following [to name a few]:

The ‘citizen’ dichotomy.

Men and Women born in the United States (1) and are domiciled in the exclusive jurisdiction of any of the 50 states of the Union [United States (3)] are: 'nationals’ [but not citizens] under 8 USC §1101(a)(21). These are constitutional [14th] citizens.

Statutory Citizens are men and women born in the United States (1) and domiciled on federal territory within United States (2) and have any of the following status' attached to them [not a complete list]:
A) 'U.S. Citizen' per 8 USC §1401
B) 'U.S. Person' per 26 USC §7701(a)(30)
C) 'Residents' (aliens) per 26 USC §7701(b)(1)(A)
D) 'National of the United States' per 28 USC §1101(a)(22)(A)

The ‘Rights’ of ‘public officers’.

The Supreme Court has noted that Constitutional [private] rights do not apply to "public officers" but they do protect private conduct'. Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990).

Likewise, the ability to regulate ‘private conduct’ [and by extension exercise of private rights] is repugnant to the constitution. City of Boerne v. Florez, Archbishop of San Antionio, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) and Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, 500 U.S. 614 (1991).

Downes v. Bidwell conferred that the only place in the country were Constitutional [private] rights do not exist and everything is a privilege [or public right] is on federal territory

‘Domicile’ a primer.

Our government can only regulate what it creates, and it creates 'public offices' that can only be domiciled in the District of Columbia as mandated by 4 USC §72. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 17(b) outlines how, in the [voluntary] occupation of a ‘public office’ a national under the constitutional color of law, effectively transfers their ‘domicile’ to federal territory, and becomes a US Citizen under the statutory color of law, even if they are not physically present on said territory. ‘Domicile’ in and of itself is a monster, and could be a discussion all on its own.

The two ‘color of law’ distinctions, Constitutional or Statutory in the judicial sense are conferred within the constitution itself through the establishment of the judiciary. Article III established the courts of original jurisprudence, the constitutional courts. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 established federal jurisdiction over [ALL] federal property, I.e. contracts, franchises [public offices] revocable privileges, civil and political rights etc. By extension, in order to prevent prejudicing any claims of the United States (2) it also created private law or franchise courts. Black’s 6th page 1196 defines ‘private law’.

Asides to help fill out the whole picture.

The United States (2) is a federal corporation as it is defined in 28 USC §3002(15)(a) and is synonymous with the District of Columbia as defined in 26 USC §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10)

The term ‘State’ means a federal State and is a ‘territory’ or ‘possession’ of the United States (2) 4 U.S.C. §110(d). Federal Lands and enclaves within states of the Union are ’possessions’ of the United States (2) and fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. Ref Art IV, Sec 3, Cl 2.

States of the Union are not ‘territory’ or ‘possessions’ of the United States (2).

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."

My understanding is it would not. I am not using anything other than the statutes/laws of the United States (1/2). This is where positive law and prima facie evidence of law come into play. Of the 52 USC Titles, I believe only 26 have been fully codified into positive law. Other titles may have sections codified but as a whole are not positive law. For a title to be positive law, it must have implementing regulations published in the federal register. This publication qualifies as ‘official notice’ for the public to read and address the laws. In many cases the implementing regulation is simply the statute verbatim. However, this step is imperative and the effect of a failure to publish can be found in both 26 CFR §601.702 and 5 USC §502(a)(1). Only positive law is enforceable on those under the constitutional color of law. A good example of positive law is Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

As for the titles that are only prima facie evidence of law, the federal enforcement authority of these statutes can only be applied to those specifically exempted from the federal register publication requirement - this is the statutory color of law. Please note that these groups are only in the Executive branch of government and are a military or foreign affairs function of the United States (2) - 5 USC §553(a)(1). A matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property - 5 USC §553(a)(2). And lastly, Federal agencies or persons in their capacities as officers, agents, or employees - 44 USC §1505(a)(1).

Continued:

Why are these groups and only these groups exempted? The Executive branch is a servant of congress, and congress commands the executive branch through statutes. It is a check on the executive, because if enforcement on the exec branch required implementing regulations before a statute could be enforced, the exec branch could uses its authority to write implementing regulations that undermine enforcement, or simply choose not to write them period.

I think this is a good place to start.

a reply to: J.B. Aloha

I see that you've given your idea a bit of thought ...

Seriously, if you're not an attorney, you should be.

Excellent argument. I will take time to review your points in the fine detail they deserve.

In the meantime, for you to think about, how does the SCOTUS findings in Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130, 136–137 (1836). Haywood v. Drown 556 U.S. 729 (2009) which both seem to set (at least the judiciaries of) the Federal state and the several States at unity and [ed- in Haywood] finds that the Supremacy Clause does indeed prevail in the respective concern addressed?

Thank you for taking the time to share this. I haven't been quite this intrigued in some time. Nor as challenged.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I am sure many others have come to the same conclusions I have, but am glad my sharing has piqued your interest, and hope it spurs other to strive to be champions of the law and not simply look for loopholes or easy ways out of obligations. Honor your contracts today and be well informed for next time.

"Every man is suppose to know the law. A party who makes a contract with an officer without having it reduced to writing is knowingly accessory to a violation of duty on his part. Such a party aids in the violation of the law." Clark v. United States, 95 U.S. 539 (1877)

I will pull those cases and chew on your question for a bit.

As with all things; a disclaimer. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advise. It is imperative for anyone interested in the topics covered to do their own research and reach their own conclusions.

ETA: And should anyone's conclusion differ from mine, friendly discussion will at least privy us to each others thought processes, even if at the end we still have no accord.

a reply to: J.B. Aloha

You stated this above:

'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)

Your comment is taken almost verbatim from Hooven, so, bravo. Pretty solid place to start.

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?

If so, what do you make of the significance (if not the legal standing) of "E Pluribus Unum" on the Great Seal of the United States?

"Out of many one."

That which is the United States (unum) is composed out of (ex) or comprised by the several States (pluribus).

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.).

Given the fact that our US Citizenship survives changing State Citizenship (usually by mere registration or residency) it would seem that the US Citizenship would legally be superior.


Your comment is that there are two versions of citizenship available, 1) Constitutional or 2) Statutory.

Can you show what the connection is between these categories?

Doublwe

Let me rephrase that last question.

I outlined the general understanding of how one becomes a "US Citizen."

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.

I'm looking mainly back to this quote of yours:

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.

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?

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?

Yes, I am asserting that they are distinct and mutually exclusive. When we drill down into 86 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Territories §1 (2003) we can see the distinctions made between ‘territory’ ‘State’, ‘states of the Union’ and ‘the several States’. To Wit:

“ The word ‘territory’ when used to designate a political organization has a distinctive, fixed and legal meaning under the political institutions of the United States [2], and does not necessarily include all the territorial possessions of the United States [2], but may include only the portions thereof which are organized and exercise governmental functions under acts of congress.”
Likewise, we see that “Territories’ to ‘territory’ as including ‘state’ or ‘states’. While the term ‘territories of the United States’ [2] may under certain circumstances include the states of the Unions, as is used in the federal Constitution and in ordinary acts of congress ’terrotory’ does not include a foreign state.”

And, “As used in this title, the term territories’ generally refers to the political subdivision created by congress and not within the boundaries of any of the ‘several states’.”

The statements I would like to focus on initially are “…which are organized and exercise governmental functions under acts of congress” and “generally refers to the political subdivision created by congress and not within the boundaries of any of the ‘several states”. As I believe these are central to the premise that ‘states of the Union’ are not ‘territory’ and are legislatively foreign and sovereign with respect to the United States [2].

I contend that the term ‘the several states’ while in the constitutional context is synonymous with the term ‘states of the Union’ but, when in the statutory context ‘the several states’ means only the territories and possession of the United States[2] as was previously established.

To illustrate:

“We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. See U.S. Const., Art. I, 8. As James Madison wrote, "[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). This constitutionally mandated division of authority "was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties." Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." US v. Lopes (1995)

The Constitution delegates to Congress the power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 3.

In the constitutional context above, the several sates [states of the Union] are equivalent to foreign nations and foreign and alien inhabitants.

Continuing on the commercial line, I believe this [United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)] to effectively distinguish and summarize how [legislatively] foreign and alien men and women domiciled in a foreign and sovereign state of the Union must be treated as having an ‘implied license’ to do business in the United States [2]; a foreign jurisdiction.

When private individuals of one nation spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. Nor can the foreign sovereign have any motive for wishing such exemption. His subjects thus passing into foreign counties are not employed by him, nor are they engaged in national pursuits. Consequently there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this description from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found, and no one motive for requiring it. The implied license, therefore, under which they enter can never be construed to grant such exemption.
7 Cranch 144.

In short, the judgment in the case of The Exchange declared, as incontrovertible principles, that the jurisdiction of every nation within its own territory is exclusive and absolute, and is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by the nation itself; that all exceptions to its full and absolute territorial jurisdiction must be traced up to its own consent, express or implied; that, upon its consent to cede, or to waive the exercise of, a part of its territorial jurisdiction rest the exemptions from that jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns or their armies entering its territory with its permission, and of their foreign ministers and public ships of war, and that the implied license under which private individuals of another nation enter the territory and mingle indiscriminately with its inhabitants for purposes of business or pleasure can never be construed to grant to them an exemption from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found. See also Carlisle v. United States (1872), 16 Wall. 147, 155; Radich v. Hutchins (1877), 95 U.S. 210; Wildenhus' Case (1887), 120 U.S. 1; Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889), 130 U.S. 581, 603, 604.

The above was also stated similarly in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act codified at 28 USC §1605(a), (a)(2).

I will do my best to address all your points in turn and in a timely manner. Enjoying the challenge

what do you make of the significance (if not the legal standing) of "E Pluribus Unum" on the Great Seal of the United States?

I contend that it has no legal standing in and of itself and is simply a representation of the 'United States' (1) and (3).

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.).

Yes, I have no argument against this point. Prior to 1868 when the 14th amendment was ratified, the term 'citizen' in my understanding, referred to the inhabitants of the states of the Union as part of the United States [1]. The 14th amendment did not change this designation or the process of naturalization. If we look back at the definition of 'national' one can see the only stipulation is 'allegiance' to a state, and in this case it is allegiance to a state of the Union. This is another area that could be discussed on it own; how nationality, allegiance and domicile all work together to confuse what context and status one is actually operating in. So please, forgive my brevity in this regard.

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.

Yes, that is my main contention. Will address your rephrased questions here shortly.

The free life lived in colonial America was unique in history. People from the most advanced culture in the world found themselves far from their political master. Everyday a problem had to be solved without the normal supervision and support of their fellow Europeans. Independence naturally developed from the situation.

Natural rights were discovered in the course of independent living and found to be the best morality for an independent life. No polity has philosophized a culture of freedom and then successfully fought to gain it. Only people who lived in freedom by some happy accident have fought to keep it.

Civil rights were developed in response to the controlled social environment in Europe. Civil rights assume a different economy and culture than individual rights.

The disharmony between negative rights and positive rights has mostly to do with the preferred way of life of the right's proponents.

An individualist would naturally plan for his retirement, preferably by paying off his house and business capital faster than he can do now with social security payments, mandatory health insurance and the 15 working years completely consumed in paying taxes.

Civil rights assumes that working 15 years of your life to pay taxes and nothing else is normal and various benefits gained back from that expenditure are deserved.

Ever since the first time my class in school was punished for the behavior of one student, I have been against collectivism as unjust and unable to handle details. Civil rights are based on the assumption of control by all powerful superiors and the permanence of a debt based economy, so civil rights cannot be guaranteed -- they can be lost by the political system or the economic system. And since civil rights are not based on how things are (natural) but rather on ideas about how things should be (ideological), they cannot be depended on to solve whatever problem they are meant to address.

Individuals do things, groups of individuals qua group do nothing except the sum of what each individual has done. A social system that makes planning and doing easier for the individual will be a more productive and flexible and ergonomic culture than a culture firmly requesting benefits from power.

Should this be a new thread?

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.

a reply to: J.B. Aloha

I think we may be able to shorten the path somewhat at least from my perspective (although I do appreciate the support you provide for your contentions! This blows like a fresh breeze compared with much of the standard rhetoric here).

You seem to be taking the three senses of United States that SCOTUS mentioned in Hooven as three separate categories ... or even different legal entities. I would argue that the Court makes plain in Hooven several times that these three senses are rather different aspects of the same unified thing, to wit:

Let's look to the very next paragraph in the decision -

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 boundary that framed the 'United States' required the scale of the North American Continent to encompass itself. Obviously, as well the Court is not referring to the Federal District or any of the later acquired territories. SCOTUS here envisions a United States which is indeed 'states united' or 'states made one thing' "by and under the Constitution." The individual States that have been joined (formed into union) comprise the singular entity 'United States" and each individual State is made so "under" that same Constitution.

A bit later in the decision, we find basically the same concept restated:

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.

Again, this makes clear that the same Court that spoke of three "senses" for use of the term 'United States' also considered both the 'Union of states' and the 'United States' to a singular quality by as simple a matter as pronoun reference:

... the Union of states or to make them a part of the United States, as distinguished from merely belonging to it.

Just as the Constitution is also one quality under which the states are united by (also referred to in the singular.)

... 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.

Three senses of one thing or three aspects of one thing do not compose three different things.

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?

Good questions. Allow me to present the SCOTUS Cite that really got me thinking on the matter, initially and I will tie it back into these two questions.

“The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. Together they make one whole, and furnish the people of the United States with a complete government, ample for the protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may sometimes happen that a person is amenable to both jurisdictions for one and the same act. Thus, if a marshal of the United States is unlawfully resisted while executing the process of the courts within a State, and the resistance is accompanied by an assault on the officer, the sovereignty of the United States is violated by the resistance, and that of the State by the breach of peace, in the assault. So, too, if one passes counterfeited coin of the United States within a State, it may be an offence against the United States and the State: the United States, because it discredits the coin; and the State, because of the fraud upon him to whom it is passed. This does not, however, necessarily imply that the two governments possess powers in common, or bring them into conflict with each other. It is the natural consequence of a citizenship [92 U.S. 542, 551] which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.” [United States v. Curikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]

This: “The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.”

Is what really got me thinking. Aside from this portion of the cite all but defining what a franchise is; the larger question became: What if I do not want the benefits, privileges and immunities provided herein under the term ’protection’? Is allegiance truly ‘permanent’? We see that it is not and requires consent in 8 USC §1101(a)(31). IF ‘domicile’ is what imparts the ‘force of law” of statutes per Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 17 and I am not domiciled within the jurisdiction of the United States [2] how could I in turn have any civil status [to include ‘US Citizen‘] under the legislative authority of congress?

Considering being a United States [2] Citizen at birth per 8 USC §1401 involves two aspects, first being a national, and then being a citizen [statutory context] couldn’t one simply drop the [Statutory] citizen portion? I refer back to Black’s law dictionary 6th page 244 for the legal definition of ‘citizen’ to point out that all a citizen is [statutory context] is a member of a political community and entitled to the enjoyment of full civil [statutory] rights. I have found no reference to any mandatory nature of participating in this political community, only that one can voluntarily do so, or not. So, how could there be any claim of obligation if one chooses not to receive benefit under civil [statutory] law?

I submit a few maxims of law to illustrate:

“No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. But, if he does not dissent he will be considered assenting.”

I have found this one played out in U.S. v. Slater 545 Fed.Supp. 179,182 (1982) where “Unless the defendant can prove that he is not a citizen of the United States [2], the IRS has the right to inquire and determine a tax liability.” [My addition for clarity]. Not to detract to taxes, but to illustrate applicability of the maxim.

“A man may relinquish, for himself and his heirs, a right which was introduced for his own benefit.:

“Anyone may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit. To this rule there are some exceptions.” For the exceptions see I Bounv. Inst. N. 83.

[Taken from Bouvier’s Maxims of Law 1856]

An excerpt from Downes v. Bidwell continues on this track and shows how the application of the constitution differs between the states of the Union and territories, and by extension, in my opinion, supports my contention that there are two jurisdictions: Constitutional v. Statutory.

“Indeed, the practical interpretation put by Congress upon the Constitution has been long continued and uniform to the effect [182 U.S. 244, 279] that the Constitution is applicable to territories acquired by purchase or conquest, only when and so far as Congress shall so direct. Notwithstanding its duty to 'guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government' (art. 4, 4), by which we understand, according to the definition of Webster, 'a government in which the supreme power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them,' Congress did not hesitate, in the original organization of the territories of Louisiana, Florida, the Northwest Territory, and its subdivisions of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin and still more recently in the case of Alaska, to establish a form of government bearing a much greater analogy to a British Crown colony than a republican state of America, and to vest the legislative power either in a governor and council, or a governor and judges, to be appointed by the President. It was not until they had attained a certain population that power was given them to organize a legislature by vote of the people. In all these cases, as well as in territories subsequently organized west of the Mississippi, Congress thought it necessary either to extend to Constitution and laws of the United States over them, or to declare that the inhabitants should be entitled to enjoy the right of trial by jury, of bail, and of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, as well as other privileges of the bill of rights.”

To tie this all back into your questions.

The generic dual nature most people understand to be citizenship is the Constitutional context. They owe allegiance to the particular state of the Union in which they are domiciled and are Constitutional citizen of the United States [1] which is also a ‘national’ as previously defined/cited in 8 USC §1101(a)(21).

Continued:

A Statutory US Citizen has their domicile on federal territory; which is shown to be distinct and separate, and treated differently under the constitution. I have also tried to illustrate the voluntary nature of being a statutory Citizen and choosing to owe allegiance to the United States [2]. As cited, allegiance is not permanent and is consensual, but a man or woman may have more than one. Domicile however, is singular. One cannot occupy more than one domicile at any given time.

No, I haven’t found anything linking the 14th amendment as being the source of Statutory Status (2). It is my belief, based on my study of the information available to me, that the statutory context is derived from the corporate nature of the United States [2], the distinct difference between the legislative and political jurisdictions of congress, and the separation of powers between the foreign and sovereign states of the Union and the United States [2].

Three senses of one thing or three aspects of one thing do not compose three different things.

I agree that at face value this is a viable and arguable position. Please keep this in mind as I try to flesh out how they are different entities in my answers to your other questions. Proposing 3 'United States' and 2 legal contexts, and keeping them straight through all the rabbit holes is quite the challenge.

Again, well attributed arguments.

First, let us look back to Black's for another moment. The entry for CITIZEN shows on page 202 in my edition.

Second sentence:

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.

Black's goes on to attribute this directly back to US v. Cruikshank, so I believe we are on sound legal footing here, in general.

However, in Hooven, Cruikshank, and Black's entries we continually see the phrase "under the constitution and laws of the United States" which seems to establish, pro forma, the idea that citizenship exists DEPENDENT on the US Constitution itself.

This, to my way of thinking, is why we so often refer to COTUS as "the highest law of the land."

Everything else depends on that document. Everything else is SUBJECT to that document (literally "under").

State laws have their own purview and indeed are meant to. However, the authority of each State as well is SUBJECT to the Supremacy of the United States.

I think that latter is the real bone of contention.

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.

Only the Americans fought for individual rights and tried to design a new form of government to keep individual rights.

And the Americans were keeping what they already had, rather than trying to invent something new, is what I tried to put in context.

No major nation or people has fought and won for freedom unless they already had it.

Civil rights are a honey trap.

Everything else depends on that document. Everything else is SUBJECT to that document (literally "under").

Agreed. I will address the term 'the laws of the United States' using United States [2]. Please use my post referencing positive law and prima facie evidence of law, and 1 USC §204 as my basis for statute applicability and federal enforcement authority.

There are two classes of statutes: Statutes at Large and United States Code. I have established that not all Titles within the USC are enacted into positive law.

Statutes are distinctly different from 'regulations'. Regulations serve to implement or administer statutes. We can see this in the Federal Register publication requirement for a statute to be come positive law. Regulations also assign agency for investigation and enforcement of statutes. Lastly, regulations inform the public on how statutes are interpreted and applied (and if they are applicable at all).

There are 3 types of regulations: Legislative, Interpretive, and Procedural. The first two do have the 'force and effect' of law. Procedural regulations do not.

Going back to the Federal register publication requirement: My understanding is first, 'reasonable notice' must be given to the public of laws to be enforced against them. Cite 44 USC §1508. Notice of enforcement must be given to the target of enforcement. Second, publication must be in line with the Administrative Procedures Act - 5 USC §551-559. And, lastly if publication is not required then the statue only applies to federal employees, agencies, or instrumentalities - Cite 44 USC §1505(a) and 5 USC §553(a).

The above, I believe illustrates how statutes, not enacted as positive law, are unenforceable against the general public who is domiciled in states of the Union (constitutional citizens) IF no implementing regulations are published, and are only enforceable against those exempt from the publication requirement, who I propose are statutory US Citizen.

As an aside, and to illustrate the constraints inherent in the publication requirements, the [federal] agencies charged with enforcement, may not use regulations written by other agencies. Cite - 1 CFR §21.21(c).

ETA: It is my understanding that if a violation of the 'law' occurs the courts must apply both the statute and implementing regulation associated with the statute and thereby determine the rights and status of the parties involved. Absent implementing regulations, then constitutional or statutory status would determine jurisdiction and enforcement. The sum being, a statute lacking implementing regulations could not be enforced on the constitutional citizen [national but not a statutory US Citizen] and therefore the court does not have jurisdiction as no violation was committed. If the status was determined to be statutory, then the court does have jurisdiction and can proceed with enforcement.