A Collection of Court Authorities
                            in re
                     Two Classes of Citizens
 
 
                             by
 
                Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
            (All Rights Reserved without Prejudice)
 
 
Before the 14th amendment [sic] in 1868:
 
   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)]
                                          [bold emphasis added]
 
 
   It is true, every person, and every class and description of
   persons, who  were at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the
   Constitution recognized  as  citizens in the several States,
   became also  citizens of  this new political body;  but none
   other;   it was  formed by  them,   and for  them and  their
   posterity, but for no one else.  And the personal rights and
   privileges  guarantied   [sic]  to   citizens  of  this  new
   sovereignty  were intended to  embrace  those only  who were
   then members of the several state communities, or who should
   afterwards, by  birthright  or  otherwise,  become  members,
   according to  the provisions  of the  Constitution  and  the
   principles on which it was founded.
 
              [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404 (1856)]
                                               [emphasis added]
 
 
... [F]or  it is  certain, that  in the  sense in  which the word
"Citizen" is  used in  the federal Constitution, "Citizen of each
State," and  "Citizen of  the United  States***," are convertible
terms;   they mean  the same  thing;   for "the  Citizens of each
State are  entitled to  all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens
in the  several States,"  and "Citizens  of the United States***"
are, of course, Citizens of all the United States***.
 
                   [44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting]
                    [italics in original, underlines & C's added]
 

   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 v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870)]
                            [bold and underline emphasis added]
 
 
After the 14th amendment [sic] in 1868:
 
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]
                                          [(1873) emphasis added]
 
 
The  first  clause  of  the  fourteenth  amendment  made  negroes
citizens of  the United  States**, and  citizens of  the State in
which they  reside, and  thereby created two classes of citizens,
one of the United States** and the other of the state.
 
                             [Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327]
                              [(1874) headnote 8, emphasis added]
 
 
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 ....
                                [U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542]
                                          [(1875) emphasis added]
 
 
One may  be a  citizen of  a State  and yet  not a citizen of the
United States.  Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449;  Cory v. Carter,
48 Ind.  327 (17  Am. R. 738);  McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507;
In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443.
                             [McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320, 323]
                                        [(1883) underlines added]

A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a

citizen of  the particular  state in  which he  resides.   But  a
person may  be a  citizen of a particular state and not a citizen
of the  United States**.   To  hold otherwise would be to deny to
the state  the highest  exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right
to declare who are its citizens.
                               [State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380]
                                [6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]
 
 
The first  clause of  the fourteenth  amendment  of  the  federal
Constitution made  negroes citizens  of the  United States**, and
citizens of  the state  in which they reside, and thereby created
two classes of citizens, one of the United States** and the other
of the state.
                              [4 Dec. Dig. '06, p. 1197, sec. 11]
                              ["Citizens" (1906), emphasis added]
 
 
There are,  then, under  our republican  form of  government, two
classes of  citizens, one  of the  United States** and one of the
state.  One class of  citizenship may  exist in a person, without
the other,  as in  the case  of a  resident of  the  District  of
Columbia;  but both classes usually exist in the same person.
 
                   [Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155]
                          [48 S. 788, 791 (1909), emphasis added]
 
 
There is a distinction between citizenship of the United States**
and citizenship  of a  particular state,  and a person may be the
former without being the latter.
                               [Alla v. Kornfeld, 84 F.Supp. 823]
                              [(1949) headnote 5, emphasis added]
 
 
A person  may be  a citizen of the United States** and yet be not
identified or identifiable as a citizen of any particular state.
 
                                         [Du Vernay v. Ledbetter]
                                   [61 So.2d 573, emphasis added]
 
 
... citizens  of the  District of  Columbia were  not granted the
privilege of  litigating in  the federal  courts on the ground of
diversity of  citizenship.   Possibly no  better reason  for this
fact exists  than  such citizens were  not  thought of  when  the
judiciary article  [III] of the federal Constitution was drafted.
... citizens of the United States** ... were also not thought of;
but in  any event  a citizen of the United States**, who is not a
citizen of any state, is not within the language of the [federal]
Constitution.
                            [Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914]
                                                 [emphasis added]
 
                             #  #  #

Related documents:

 
Citizenship for Dummies
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm
 
Author’s Comments Clarifying “Citizenship for Dummies”
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/comments.on.citizenship.for.dummies.htm
 
Supreme Law Firm Launches Campaign to Amend the U.S. Constitution
http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/correct.amendment.htm
 
"Before and After the Civil War"
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/before.and.after.htm
 
"BOHICA, Berg and Obama et al.: What are the Feds REALLY Hiding?"
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/bohica.htm
 
APPLICATION FOR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF A PROHIBITION
Berg v. Obama et al. (September 15, 2008 A.D.)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/intervention.prohibition.htm
 
APPLICATION FOR A PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Berg v. Obama et al. (October 14, 2008 A.D.)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/mandamus.htm
 
PERSONAL PLEA FOR YOUR COOPERATION
to Consul General of Kenya in Los Angeles (October 18, 2009 A.D.)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/subpoena/letter.to.consul.general.htm
 
Chapter 11 in "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue"
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr11.htm
 
Appendix Y in "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue"
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/append-y.htm
 
More citations in re: two classes of citizens
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/nordbrok/jurychal.htm#two.classes
 
"State Citizens Stop Voting:  An Outline of Legal Reasons"
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/jetruman/twoclass.htm
 
"State Citizens Cannot Vote"
http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/votingaz.htm
 
"Juries in Check Around the Nation"
http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/jurychal.htm
 
"Citizenship is a Term of Municipal: A Collection of Research Findings"
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/privilaw.htm
 
George W. Bush v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/palmbeach/index.htm
 
"Sedition by Syntax," by Ralph Schwan, The Upright Ostrich (Dec/Jan 1985-86)
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/schwan/sedition.htm
 
 

Return to Table of Contents for

General Resources