... [T]he international independence of a state, combined
with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs
without foreign dictation.
On a similar theme, Black's defines "sovereign states" to be
those which are not under the control of any foreign power:
No foreign power or law can have control except by
convention. This power of independent action in external
and internal relations constitutes complete sovereignty.
It is a well established principle of law that the 50 States
are "foreign" with respect to each other, just as the federal
zone is "foreign" with respect to each of them (In re Merriam's
Estate, 36 NE 505 (1894)). The status of being foreign is the
same as "belonging to" or being "attached to" another state or
another jurisdiction. The proper legal distinction between the
terms "foreign" and "domestic" is best seen in Black's
definitions of foreign and domestic corporations, as follows:
Foreign corporation. A corporation doing business in one
state though chartered or incorporated in another state is a
foreign corporation as to the first state, and, as such, is
required to consent to certain conditions and restrictions
in order to do business in such first state.
Domestic corporation. When a corporation is organized and
chartered in a particular state, it is considered a domestic
corporation of that state.
The federal zone is an area over which Congress exercises
exclusive legislative jurisdiction. It is the area over which
the federal government exercises its sovereignty. Despite its
obvious importance, the subject of federal jurisdiction had been
almost entirely ignored outside the courts until the year 1954.
In that year, a detailed study of federal jurisdiction was
undertaken. The occasion for the study arose from a school
playground, of all places. The children of federal employees
residing on the grounds of a Veterans' Administration hospital
were not allowed to attend public schools in the town where the
hospital was located. An administrative decision against the
children was affirmed by local courts, and finally affirmed by
the State supreme court. The residents of the area on which the
hospital was located were not "residents" of the State, since
"exclusive legislative jurisdiction" over this area had been
ceded by the State to the federal government.
A committee was assembled by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr. Their detailed study was reported in a publication entitled Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States, April 1956 (Volume I) and June 1957 (Volume II). The committee's report demonstrates, beyond any doubt, that the sovereign States and their laws are outside the legislative and territorial jurisdiction of the United States** federal government. They are totally outside the federal zone. A plethora of evidence is found in the myriad of cited court cases (700+) which prove that the United States** cannot exercise exclusive legislative jurisdiction outside territories or places purchased from, or ceded by, the 50 States of the Union. Attorney General Brownell described the committee's report as an "exhaustive and analytical exposition of the law in this hitherto little explored field". In his letter of transmittal to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Brownell summarized the two volumes as follows:
Together, the two parts of this Committee's report and the
full implementation of its recommendations will provide a
basis for reversing in many areas the swing of "the pendulum
of power * * * from our states to the central government" to
which you referred in your address to the Conference of
State Governors on June 25, 1957.
[Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
[Letter of Transmittal, page V, emphasis added]
Once a State is admitted into the Union, its sovereign
jurisdiction is firmly established over a predefined territory.
The federal government is thereby prevented from acquiring
legislative jurisdiction, by means of unilateral action, over any
area within the exterior boundaries of this predefined territory.
State assent is necessary to transfer jurisdiction to Congress:
The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its
part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within
the exterior boundaries of a State. Article 1, Section 8,
Clause 17, of the Constitution, provides that legislative
jurisdiction may be transferred pursuant to its terms only
with the consent of the legislature of the State in which is
located the area subject to the jurisdictional transfer.
[Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
[Volume II, page 46, emphasis added]
Under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution,
States of the Union have enacted statutes consenting to the
federal acquisition of any land, or of specific tracts of land,
within those States. Secondly, the federal government has also
made "reservations" of jurisdiction over certain areas in
connection with the admission of a State into the Union. A third
means for transfer of legislative jurisdiction has also come into
considerable use over time, namely, a general or special statute
whereby a State makes a cession of specific functional
jurisdiction to the federal government. Nevertheless, the
Committee report explained that "... the characteristics of a
legislative jurisdiction status are the same no matter by which
of the three means the Federal Government acquired such status"
[Volume II, page 3]. There is simply no federal legislative
jurisdiction without consent by a State, cession by a State, or
reservation by the federal government:
It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a
transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a
Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by
cession from the State to the Federal Government, or unless
the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the
admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no
legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such
jurisdiction being for exercise entirely by the State ....
[Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
[Volume II, page 45, emphasis added]
The areas which the 50 States have properly ceded to the
federal government are called federal "enclaves":
By this means some thousands of areas have become Federal
islands, sometimes called "enclaves," in many respects
foreign to the States in which they are situated. In
general, not State but Federal law is applicable in an area
under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United
States**, for enforcement not by State but Federal
authorities, and in many instances not in State but in
Federal courts.
[Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
[Volume II, page 4, emphasis added]
These federal enclaves are considered foreign with respect to the
States which surround them, just as the 50 States are considered
foreign with respect to each other and to the federal zone:
"...[T]he several states of the Union are to be considered as in
this respect foreign to each other ...." Hanley vs Donoghue, 116
U.S. 1 (1885). Once a State surrenders its sovereignty over a
specific area of land, it is powerless over that land; it is
without authority; it cannot recapture any of its transferred
jurisdiction by unilateral action, just as the federal government
cannot acquire jurisdiction over State area by its unilateral
action. The State has transferred its sovereign authority to a
foreign power:
Once a State has, by one means or another, transferred
jurisdiction to the United States**, it is, of course,
powerless to control many of the consequences; without
jurisdiction, it is without the authority to deal with many
of the problems, and having transferred jurisdiction to the
United States**, it cannot unilaterally capture any of the
transferred jurisdiction.
[Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
[Volume II, page 7, emphasis added]
Once sovereignty has been relinquished, a State no longer
has the authority to enforce criminal laws in areas under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the United States**. Privately owned
property in such areas is beyond the taxing authority of the
State. Residents of such areas are not "residents" of the State,
and hence are not subject to the obligations of residents of the
State, and are not entitled to any of the benefits and privileges
conferred by the State upon its residents. Residents of federal
enclaves usually cannot vote, serve on juries, or run for office.
They do not, as matter of right, have access to State schools,
hospitals, mental institutions, or similar establishments.
The acquisition of exclusive jurisdiction by the Federal Government renders unavailable to the residents of the affected areas the benefits of the laws and judicial and administrative processes of the State relating to adoption, the probate of wills and administration of estates, divorce, and many other matters. Police, fire-fighting, notaries, coroners, and similar services performed by, or under, the authority of a State may result in legal sanction within a federal enclave. The "old" State laws which apply are only those which are consistent with the laws of the "new" sovereign authority, using the following principle from international law:
The vacuum which would exist because of the absence of State
law or Federal legislation with respect to civil matters in
areas under Federal exclusive legislative jurisdiction has
been partially filled by the courts, through extension to
these areas of a rule of international law that[,] when one
sovereign takes over territory of another[,] the laws of the
original sovereign in effect at the time of the taking[,]
which are not inconsistent with the laws or policies of the
second[,] continue in effect, as laws of the succeeding
sovereign, until changed by that sovereign.
[Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States]
[Volume II, page 6, commas added for clarity]
[emphasis added]
It is clear, then, that only one "state" can be sovereign at
any given moment in time, whether that "state" be one of the 50
Union States, or the federal government of the United States**.
Before ceding a tract of land to Congress, a State of the Union
exercises its sovereign authority over any land within its
borders:
Save only as they are subject to the prohibitions of the
Constitution, or as their action in some measure conflicts
with the powers delegated to the national government or with
congressional legislation enacted in the exercise of those
powers, the governments of the states are sovereign within
their territorial limits and have exclusive jurisdiction
over persons and property located therein.
[72 American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 4]
[emphasis added]
After a State has ceded a tract of land to Congress, the
situation is completely different. The United States**, as the
"succeeding sovereign", then exercises its sovereign authority
over that land. In this sense, sovereignty is indivisible, even
though the Committee's report documented numerous situations in
which jurisdiction was actually shared between the federal
government and one of the 50 States. Even in this situation,
however, sovereignty rests either in the State, or in the federal
government, but never both. Sovereignty is the authority to
which there is politically no superior. Outside the federal
zone, the States of the Union remain sovereign, and their laws
are completely outside the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of
the federal government of the United States**.
Now, if a State of the Union is sovereign, is it correct to say that the State exercises an authority to which there is absolutely no superior? No, this is not a correct statement. There is no other political body which is superior to the political body which retains sovereignty. The sovereignty of governments is an authority to which there is politically no superior, but there is absolutely a superior body. The source of all sovereignty in a constitutional Republic like the 50 States, united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America, is the people themselves. Remember, the States, and the federal government acting inside those States, are both bound by the terms of a contract known as the U. S. Constitution. That Constitution is a contract of delegated powers which ultimately originate in the sovereignty of the Creator, who endowed creation, individual people like you and me, with sovereignty in that Creator's image and likeness. Nothing stands between us and the Creator. I think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court of the United States was never more eloquent when it described the source of sovereignty as follows:
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it
is the author and source of law; but in our system, while
sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of
government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by
whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the
law is the definition and limitation of power. It is
indeed, quite true, that there must always be lodged
somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of
final decision; and in many cases of mere administration
the responsibility is purely political, no appeal except to
the ultimate tribunal of the public judgement, exercised
either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the
suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual
possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional
law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress
of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization
under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the
famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the
government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws
and not of men." For, the very idea that one man may be
compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any
material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the
mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country
where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery
itself.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]
[emphasis added]
More recently, the Supreme Court reiterated the fundamental
importance of US the people as the source of sovereignty, and the
subordinate status which Congress occupies in relation to the
sovereignty of the people. The following language is terse and
right on point:
In the United States***, sovereignty resides in the people
who act through the organs established by the Constitution.
[cites omitted] The Congress as the instrumentality of
sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on
behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the
Constitution ordains. The Congress cannot invoke the
sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus
declared.
[Perry vs United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)]
[emphasis added]
No discussion of sovereignty would be complete, therefore,
without considering the sovereignty that resides in US, the
people. The Supreme Court has often identified the people as the
source of sovereignty in our republican form of government.
Indeed, the federal Constitution guarantees to each and every
State in the Union a "Republican Form" of government, in so many
words:
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State
in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall
protect each of them against Invasion; ....
[United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4]
[emphasis added]
What exactly is a "Republican Form" of government? It is one in
which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and
exercised by the people. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition,
makes this very clear:
Republican government. One in which the powers of
sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by
the people, either directly, or through representatives
chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially
delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35
L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22
L.Ed. 627.
The Supreme Court has clearly distinguished between the operation
of governments in Europe, and government in these United
States*** of America, as follows:
In Europe, the executive is almost synonymous with the
sovereign power of a State; and generally includes
legislative and judicial authority. When, therefore,
writers speak of the sovereign, it is not necessarily in
exclusion of the judiciary; and it will often be found that
when the executive affords a remedy for any wrong, it is
nothing more than by an exercise of its judicial authority.
Such is the condition of power in that quarter of the world,
where it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud, or
both, and seldom by compact. In America, however, the case
is widely different. Our government is founded upon
compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]
[emphasis added]
The federal Constitution makes a careful distinction between
natural born Citizens and citizens of the United States**
(compare 2:1:5 with
Section 1 of the so-called 14th Amendment).
One is an unconditional Sovereign by natural birth, who is
endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights; the
other has been granted the revocable privileges of U.S.**
citizenship, endowed by the Congress of the United States**. One
is a Citizen, the other is a subject. One is a Sovereign, the
other is a subordinate. One is a Citizen of our constitutional
Republic; the other is a citizen of a legislative democracy (the
federal zone). Notice the superior/subordinate relationship
between these two statuses. I am forever indebted to M. J. "Red"
Beckman, co-author of The Law That Never Was with Bill Benson,
for clearly illustrating the important difference between the
two. Red Beckman has delivered many eloquent lectures based on
the profound simplicity of the following table:
Chain of command and authority in a:
Majority Rule Constitutional
Democracy Republic
X Creator
Majority Individual
Government Constitution
Public Servants Government
Case & Statute Law Public Servants
Corporations Statute Law
individual Corporations
In this illustration, a democracy ruled by the majority
places the individual at the bottom, and an unknown elite, Mr.
"X" at the top. The majority (or mob) elects a government to
hire public "servants" who write laws primarily for the benefit
of corporations. These corporations are either owned or
controlled by Mr. X, a clique of the ultra-wealthy who seek to
restore a two-class "feudal" society. They exercise their vast
economic power so as to turn all of America into a "feudal zone".
The rights of individuals occupy the lowest priority in this
chain of command. Those rights often vanish over time, because
democracies eventually self-destruct. The enforcement of laws
within this scheme is the responsibility of administrative
tribunals, who specialize in holding individuals to the letter of
all rules and regulations of the corporate state, no matter how
arbitrary and with little if any regard for fundamental human
rights:
A democracy that recognizes only manmade laws perforce
obliterates the concept of Liberty as a divine right.
[A Ticket to Liberty, November 1990 edition, page 146]
[emphasis added]
In the constitutional Republic, however, the rights of
individuals are supreme. Individuals delegate their sovereignty
to a written contract, called a constitution, which empowers
government to hire public servants to write laws primarily for
the benefit of individuals. The corporations occupy the lowest
priority in this chain of command, since their primary objectives
are to maximize the enjoyment of individual rights, and to
facilitate the fulfillment of individual responsibilities. The
enforcement of laws within this scheme is the responsibility of
sovereign individuals, who exercise their power in three arenas:
the voting booth, the trial jury, and the grand jury. Without a
jury verdict of "guilty", for example, no law can be enforced and
no penalty exacted. The behavior of public servants is tightly
restrained by contractual terms, as found in the written
Constitution. Statutes and case law are created primarily to
limit and define the scope and extent of public servant power.
Sovereign individuals are subject only to a common law, whose primary purposes are to protect and defend individual rights, and to prevent anyone, whether public official or private person, from violating the rights of other individuals. Within this scheme, Sovereigns are never subject to their own creations, and the constitutional contract is such a creation. To quote the Supreme Court, "No fiction can make a natural born subject." Milvaine vs Coxe's Lessee, 8 U.S. 598 (1808). That is to say, no fiction, be it a corporation, a statute law, or an administrative regulation, can mutate a natural born Sovereign into someone who is subject to his own creations. Author and scholar Lori Jacques has put it succinctly as follows:
As each state is sovereign and not a territory of the United
States**, the meaning is clear that state citizens are not
subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the United
States**. Furthermore, there is not the slightest
intimation in the Constitution which created the "United
States" as a political entity that the "United States" is
sovereign over its creators.
[A Ticket to Liberty, November 1990 edition, page 32]
[emphasis added]
Accordingly, if you choose to investigate the matter, you
will find a very large body of legal literature which cites
another fiction, the so-called 14th Amendment, from which the
federal government presumes to derive general authority to treat
everyone in America as subjects and not as Sovereigns:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
States**, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States** and of the State wherein
they reside.
[United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment [sic]]
[emphasis added]
A careful reading of this amendment reveals an important subtlety
which is lost on many people who read it for the first time. The
citizens it defines are second class citizens because the "c" is
lower-case, even in the case of the State citizens it defines.
Note how the amendment defines "citizens of the United States**"
and "citizens of the State wherein they reside"! It is just
uncanny how the wording of this amendment closely parallels the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which promulgates Section 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Can it be that this amendment
had something to do with subjugation, by way of taxes and other
means? Section 1 of the IRC is the section which imposes income
taxes. The corresponding section of the CFR defines who is a
"citizen" as follows:
Every person born or naturalized in the United States** and
subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.
[26 CFR 1.1-1(c), emphasis addded]
Notice the use of the term "its jurisdiction". This leaves no
doubt that the "United States**" is a singular entity in this
context. In other words, it is the federal zone. Do we dare to
speculate why the so-called 14th Amendment was written instead
with the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? Is this
another case of deliberate ambiguity? You be the judge.
Not only did this so-called "amendment" fail to specify which meaning of the term "United States" was being used; like the 16th Amendment, it also failed to be ratified, this time by 15 of the 37 States which existed in 1868. The House Congressional Record for June 13, 1967, contains all the documentation you need to prove that the so-called 14th Amendment was never ratified into law (see page 15641 et seq.). For example, it itemizes all States which voted against the proposed amendment, and the precise dates when their Legislatures did so. "I cannot believe that any court, in full possession of its faculties, could honestly hold that the amendment was properly approved and adopted." State vs Phillips, 540 P.2d. 936, 941 (1975). The Utah Supreme Court has detailed the shocking and sordid history of the 14th Amendment's "adoption" in the case of Dyett vs Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 272 (1968).
A great deal of written material on the 14th Amendment has been assembled on computer files by Richard McDonald, whose mailing address is 585-D Box Canyon Road, Canoga Park, California Republic (not "CA"). He requests that ZIP codes not be used on his incoming mail. If you must use a ZIP code when you write to him, show it on a separate line, preceded by the words "POSTAL ZONE" and followed by "/TDC" or "without prejudice U.C.C. 1-207". McDonald has done a mountain of legal research and writing on the origins and effects of the so-called 14th Amendment. He documents how key court decisions like the Slaughter House Cases, among many others, all found that there is a clear distinction between a Citizen of a State and a citizen of the United States** (e.g., see 16 Wall. 36, 74). A State Citizen is a Sovereign, whereas a citizen of the United States** is subject to Congress. The exercise of federal citizenship is a statutory privilege which can be taxed with excises. The exercise of State Citizenship is a Common Law Right which cannot be taxed because governments simply cannot tax the exercise of a Right, ever.
The case of U.S. vs Cruikshank is famous, not only for confirming this distinction between State Citizens and U.S.** citizens, but also for establishing a key precedent in the area of due process. This precedent underlies the "void for vagueness" doctrine which can and should be applied to nullify the IRC. On the issue of citizenship, the Cruikshank court ruled as follows:
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. Slaughter-House Cases
[United States vs Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]
[emphasis added]
The leading authorities for this pivotal distinction are, indeed,
a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions known as the Slaughter
House Cases, which examined the so-called 14th Amendment in
depth. An exemplary paragraph from these cases is the following:
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.
[Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (page 408)]
[16 Wall. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)]
[emphasis added]
A similar authority is found in the case of K. Tashiro vs Jordan,
decided by the Supreme Court of the State of California almost
fifty years later. Notice, in particular, how the California
Supreme Court again cites the Slaughter House Cases:
That there is a citizenship of the United States** and a
citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of
one are not the same as the other is well established by the
decisions of the courts of this country. The leading cases
upon the subjects are those decided by the Supreme Court of
the United States and reported in 16 Wall. 36, 21 L. Ed.
394, and known as the Slaughter House Cases.
[K. Tashiro vs Jordan, 256 P. 545, 549 (1927)]
[emphasis added]
This case was subsequently appealed on a writ of certiorari to
the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was affirmed in the case of
Jordan vs K. Tashiro, 278 U.S. 123 (1928).
In the fundamental law, the notion of a "citizen of the United States" simply did not exist before the 14th Amendment; at best, this notion is a fiction within a fiction. In discussing the power of the States to naturalize, the California State Supreme Court put it rather bluntly when it ruled that there was no such thing as a "citizen of the United States":
A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to
be, and called a citizen of the United States, although
technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To
conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen
of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea,
and inconsistent with the proper construction and common
understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,
which must be deduced from its various other provisions.
The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power
of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective
States.
[Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]
[emphasis added]
This decision has never been overturned!
What is the proper construction and common understanding of the term "Citizen of the United States" as used in the original Constitution, before the so-called 14th Amendment? This is an important question, because this status is still a qualification for the offices of Senator, Representative and President. No Person can be a Representative unless he has been a Citizen of the United States for seven years (1:2:2); no Person can be a Senator unless he has been a Citizen of the United States for nine years (1:3:3); no Person can be President unless he is a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States (2:1:5). If these requirements had been literally obeyed, there could have been no elections for Representatives to Congress for at least seven years after the adoption of the Constitution, and no one would have been eligible as a Senator for nine years after its adoption. Author John S. Wise, in a rare book now available on Richard McDonald's electronic bulletin board system (BBS), explains away the problem very simply as follows:
The language employed by the convention was less careful
than that which had been used by Congress in July of the
same year, in framing the ordinance for the government of
the Northwest Territory. Congress had made the
qualification rest upon citizenship of "one of the United
States***," and this is doubtless the intent of the
convention which framed the Constitution, for it cannot have
meant anything else.
[Studies in Constitutional Law:
[A Treatise on American Citizenship]
[by John S. Wise, Edward Thompson Co. (1906)]
[emphasis added]
This quote from the Northwest Ordinance is faithful to the letter
and to the spirit of that law. In describing the eligibility for
"representatives" to serve in the general assembly for the
Northwest Territory, the critical passage from that Ordinance
reads as follows:
... Provided, That no person be eligible or qualified to act
as a representative, unless he shall have been a citizen of
one of the United States*** three years, and be a resident
in the district, or unless he shall have resided in the
district three years; ....
[Northwest Ordinance, Section 9, July 13, 1787]
[The Confederate Congress, emphasis added]
Without citing the case as such, the words of author John S.
Wise sound a close, if not identical parallel to the argument for
the Respondent filed in the case of People vs De La Guerra,
decided by the California Supreme Court in 1870. The following
long passage elaborates the true meaning of the Constitutional
qualifications for President and Representative:
As it was the adoption of the Constitution by the
Conventions of nine States that established and created the
United States***, it is obvious there could not then have
existed any person who had been seven years a citizen of the
United States***, or who possessed the Presidential
qualifications of being thirty-five years of age, a natural
born citizen, and fourteen years a resident of the United
States***. The United States*** in these provisions, means
the States united. To be twenty-five years of age, and for
seven years to have been a citizen of one of the States
which ratifies the Constitution, is the qualification of a
representative. To be a natural born citizen of one of the
States which shall ratify the Constitution, or to be a
citizen of one of said States at the time of such
ratification, and to have attained the age of thirty-five
years, and to have been fourteen years a resident within one
of the said States, are the Presidential qualifications,
according to the true meaning of the Constitution.
[People vs De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870)]
[emphasis added]
Thus, the phrase "Citizen of the United States" as found in
the original Constitution is synonymous with the phrase "Citizen
of one of the United States***", i.e., a Union State Citizen.
This simple explanation will help cut through the mountain of
propaganda and deception which have been foisted on all Americans
by government bureaucrats and their high-paid lawyers. With this
understanding firmly in place, it is very revealing to discover
that many reprints of the Constitution now utilize a lower-case
"c" in the sections which describe the qualifications for the
offices of Senator, Representative and President. This is
definitely wrong, and it is probably deliberate, so as to confuse
everyone into equating Citizens of the United States with
citizens of the United States, courtesy of the so-called 14th
Amendment. There is a very big difference between the two
statuses.
Moreover, it is quite clear that one may be a State Citizen without also being a "citizen of the United States", whether or not the 14th Amendment was properly ratified! In a book to which this writer has returned time and time again, author Alan Stang faithfully cites the relevant court authorities as follows:
Indeed, just as one may be a "citizen of the United States"
and not a citizen of a State; so one apparently may be a
citizen of a State but not of the United States. On July
21, 1966, the Court of Appeal of Maryland ruled in Crosse v.
Board of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A.2d 431; a headnote
in which tells us: "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 ...." At page 434,
Judge Oppenheimer cites a Wisconsin ruling in which the
court said this: "Under our complex system of government,
there may be a citizen of a state, who is not a citizen of
the United States in the full sense of the term ...."
[Tax Scam, 1988 edition, pages 138-139, emphasis added]
Conversely, there may be a citizen of the United States** who is
not a Citizen of any of the 50 States. In People vs De La Guerra
quoted above, the published decision of the California Supreme
Court clearly maintained this crucial distinction between the two
classes of citizenship, and did so only two years after the
alleged ratification of the so-called 14th Amendment:
I have no doubt that those born in the Territories, or in
the District of Columbia, are so far citizens as to entitle
them to the protection guaranteed to citizens of the United
States** in the Constitution, and to the shield of
nationality abroad; but it is evident that they have not
the political rights which are vested in citizens of the
States. They are not constituents of any community in which
is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position
partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens.
They are subject to the laws of the United States**, but
have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to
make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the
sanction of a Government in which they are not represented.
Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of
citizens they cannot enjoy until they are organized into a
State, and admitted into the Union.
[People vs De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 342 (1870]
[emphasis added]
In one of the brilliant text files on his electronic
bulletin board system (BBS), Richard McDonald utilized his
voluminous research into the so-called 14th Amendment when he
made the following pleading in opposition to a traffic citation:
17. The Accused Common-Law Citizen [defendant] hereby
places all parties and the court on NOTICE, that he is not a
"citizen of the United States**" under the so-called 14th
Amendment, a juristic person or a franchised person who can
be compelled to perform to the regulatory Vehicle Codes
which are civil in nature, and challenges the In Personam
jurisdiction of the Court with this contrary conclusion of
law. This Court is now mandated to seat on the law side of
its capacity to hear evidence of the status of the Accused
Citizen.
[see MEMOLAW.ZIP on McDonald's electronic BBS]
[see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y]
[emphasis added]
You might be wondering why someone would go to so much
trouble to oppose a traffic citation. Why not pay the fine and
get on with your life? The answer lies, once again, in the
fundamental law of our land, the
Constitution for the United States of America.
Sovereigns have learned to assert their
rights, because rights belong to the belligerent claimant in
person. The Constitution is the last bastion of the Common Law
in our country. Were it not for the Constitution, the Common Law
would have been history a long time ago:
There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that
there is no national common law. The interpretation of the
constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced
by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language
of the English common law, and are to be read in the light
of its history.
[United States vs Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 891, 893 (1898)]
[emphasis added]
Under the Common Law, we are endowed by our Creator with the
right to travel. "Driving", on the other hand, is defined in
State Vehicle Codes to mean the act of chauffeuring passengers
for hire. "Passengers" are those who pay a "driver" to be
chauffeured. Guests, on the other hand, are those who accompany
travelers without paying for the transportation. Driving, under
this definition, is a privilege for which a State can require a
license. Similarly, if you are a citizen of the United States**,
you are subject to its jurisdiction, and a State government can
prove that you are obligated thereby to obey all administrative
statutes and regulations to the letter of the law. These
regulations include, of course, the requirement that all subjects
apply and pay for licenses to use the State and federal highways,
even though the highways belong to the people. The land on which
they were built, and the materials and labor expended in their
construction, were all paid for with taxes obtained from the
people. Provided that you are not engaged in any "privileged" or
regulated activity, you are free to travel anywhere you wish
within the 50 States. Those States are parties to the
Constitution and are therefore bound by all its terms.
Another one of your Common Law rights is the right to own property free and clear of any liens. ("Unalienable" rights are rights against which no lien can be established precisely because they are un-lien-able.) You enjoy the right to own your vehicle outright, without any lawful requirement that you "register" it with the State Department of Motor Vehicles. The State governments violated your fundamental rights when they concealed the legal "interest" which they obtained in your vehicle, by making it appear as if you were required to register the vehicle when you purchased it, as a condition of purchase. This is fraud. If you don't believe me, then try to obtain the manufacturer's statement of origin (MSO) the next time you buy a new car or truck. The implications and ramifications of driving around without a license, and/or without registration, are far beyond the scope of this book. Suffice it to say that effective methods have already been developed to deal with law enforcement officers and courts, if and when you are pulled over and cited for driving without a license or tags. Richard McDonald is second to none when it comes to preparing a successful defense to the civil charges that might result. A Sovereign is someone who enjoys fundamental, Common Law rights, and owning property free and clear is one of those fundamental rights.
If you have a DOS-compatible personal computer and a 2400- baud modem, Richard McDonald can provide you with instructions for accessing his electronic bulletin board system (BBS). There is a mountain of information, and some of his computer files were rather large when he began his BBS. Users were complaining of long transmission times to "download" text files over phone lines from his BBS to their own personal computers. So, McDonald used a fancy text "compression" program on all the text files available on his BBS. As a consequence, BBS users must first download a DOS program which "decompresses" the compressed files. Once this program is running on your personal computer, you are then free to download all other text files and to decompress them at your end. For example, the compressed file "14AMREC.ZIP" contains the documentation which proves that the so-called 14th Amendment was never ratified. If you have any problems or questions, Richard McDonald is a very patient and generous man. And please tell him where you read about him and his computer bulletin board (voice: 818-703-5037, BBS: 818-888-9882).
As you peruse through McDonald's numerous court briefs and other documents, you will encounter many gems to be remembered and shared with your family, friends and associates. His work has confirmed an attribute of sovereignty that is of paramount importance. Sovereignty is never diminished in delegation. Thus, as sovereign individuals, we do not diminish our sovereignty in any way by delegating our powers to State governments, to perform services which are difficult, if not impossible for us to perform as individuals. Similarly, States do not diminish their sovereignty by delegating powers to the federal government, via the Constitution. As McDonald puts it, powers delegated do not equate to powers surrendered:
17. Under the Constitutions, "... we the People" did not
surrender our individual sovereignty to either the State or
Federal Government. Powers "delegated" do not equate to
powers surrendered. This is a Republic, not a democracy,
and the majority cannot impose its will upon the minority
because the "LAW" is already set forth. Any individual can
do anything he or she wishes to do so long as it does not
damage, injure, or impair the same Right of another
individual. This is where the concept of a corpus delicti
comes from to prove a "crime" or a civil damage.
[see MEMOLAW.ZIP on Richard McDonald's electronic BBS]
[see also FMEMOLAW.ZIP and Appendix Y]
[mphasis added]
Indeed, to be a Citizen of the United States*** of America
is to be one of the Sovereign people, "a constituent member of
the sovereignty, synonymous with the people" [see 19 How. 404].
According to the 1870 edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary, the
people are the fountain of sovereignty. It is extremely
revealing that there is no definition of "United States" as such
in this dictionary. However, there is an important discussion of
the "United States of America", where the delegation of
sovereignty clearly originates in the people and nowhere else:
The great men who formed it did not undertake to solve a
question that in its own nature is insoluble. Between
equals it made neither superior, but trusted to the mutual
forbearance of both parties. A larger confidence was placed
in an enlightened public opinion as the final umpire. The
people parcelled out the rights of sovereignty between the
states and the United States**, and they have a natural
right to determine what was given to one party and what to
the other. ...
It is a maxim consecrated in public law as well as common
sense and the necessity of the case, that a sovereign is
answerable for his acts only to his God and to his own
conscience.
[Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 14th Edition, 1870]
[in definition of "United States of America"]
[emphasis added]
We don't need to reach far back into another century to find
proof that the people of America are sovereign. In a Department
of Justice booklet revised on October 12, 1988 (M-76), the
meaning of American Citizenship was described with these eloquent
and moving words by the Commissioner of Immigration and
Naturalization:
The Meaning of American Citizenship
Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization
Today you have become a citizen of the United States of
America. You are no longer an Englishman, a Frenchman, an
Italian, a Pole. Neither are you a hyphenated-American -- a
Polish-American, an Italian-American. You are no longer a
subject of a government. Henceforth, you are an integral
part of this Government -- a freeman -- a Citizen of the
United States of America.
This citizenship, which has been solemnly conferred on
you, is a thing of the spirit -- not of the flesh. When you
took the oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the
United States you claimed for yourself the God-given
unalienable rights which that sacred document sets forth as
the natural right of all men.
You have made sacrifices to reach this desired goal.
We, your fellow citizens, realize this, and the warmth of
our welcome to you is increased proportionately. However,
we would tincture it with friendly caution.
As you have learned during these years of preparation,
this great honor carries with it the duty to work for and
make secure this longed-for and eagerly-sought status.
Government under our Constitution makes American citizenship
the highest privilege and at the same time the greatest
responsibility of any citizenship in the world.
The important rights that are now yours and the duties
and responsibilities attendant thereon are set forth
elsewhere in this souvenir booklet. It is hoped that they
will serve as a constant reminder that only by continuing to
study and learn about your new Country, its ideals,
achievements, and goals, and by everlastingly working at
your citizenship can you enjoy its fruits and assure their
preservation for generations to follow.
May you find in this Nation the fulfillment of your
dreams of peace and security, and may America, in turn,
never find you wanting in your new and proud role of Citizen
of the United States.
[A Welcome to U.S.A. Citizenship, page 3]
[U.S. Department of Justice]
[Immigration and Naturalization Service]
[emphasis added]
[ Next | Prev | Contents ]