Time: Thu Jun 19 20:47:31 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA27492;
	Thu, 19 Jun 1997 20:44:53 -0700 (MST)
	by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA28765;
	Thu, 19 Jun 1997 20:44:41 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 20:43:10 -0700
To: fwolist@sportsmen.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: citizenship is a term of municipal law

>>In the final analysis, citizenship, strictly
>>speaking, is a term of municipal law.  Congress
>>cannot legislate a "national" citizenship into
>>existence, because to do so would violate the
>>Tenth Amendment.  Each Union state has a sovereign
>>right to define who are its own Citizens.  And Congress
>>has a sovereign right to define who are its citizens;
>>Congress did so in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, and
>>the so-called 14th amendment was a futile attempt
>>to elevate that declaration into constitutional
>>status (aka "supreme Law"). 
>Upon what do you base this assertion?

Roa v. Collector of Customs, 23 Philippine 315, 332
(Philippine Supreme Court, 1912), and all the supporting
citations in "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of
Internal Revenue," electronic seventh edition, 
in particular Chapter 11, and Appendices "A" and "Y".

Appendix "A" is a winning brief, based on this legal
theory, written by the late John Knox, and edited
to perfection by me.  Appendix "Y" has just about
every cite to citizenship that you can find anywhere
in American law (with a few rare exceptions).

  I do not believe that the States
>themselves have the ability to designate 
>who is one of their citizens.  To
>do so would violate the 10th amendment.

"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 (Louisiana Supreme Court, 1889)

Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail