Time: Tue Jul 08 07:53:13 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA03991;
	Tue, 8 Jul 1997 04:11:07 -0700 (MST)
	by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA02811;
	Tue, 8 Jul 1997 04:10:58 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 04:10:52 -0700
To: snetnews@world.std.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: 2 classes of citizens: evidence in California (1849)

Yes, and check out the lengthy and authoritative
opinions which the Maine Supreme Court provided
to the Maine Legislature, when the latter formally
asked for their opinions on the matter of voting
rights for blacks:  begin around 44 Maine 518 (1859).
If you haven't received my latest research on the
subject, please inquire via private email.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

At 03:07 AM 7/8/97 -0400, you wrote:
>->  SearchNet's   SNETNEWS   Mailing List
><< [begin excerpt]
> Sec. 5.  Every citizen of California, declared a
> legal voter by this Constitution, and every
> citizen of the United States, a resident of this
> state on the day of election, shall be entitled
> to vote at the first general election under this
> Constitution, and on the question of the adoption
> thereof.
> [end excerpt]
> At first glance, this section appears to refer to 
> two (2) separate classes of citizens:  citizens of
> California, and citizens of the United States.
> However, having reviewed People v. De La Guerra,
> we now understand that, prior to the Civil War and 
> its ugly aftermath, the term "Citizen of the United
> States", as that term is used in the Qualifications
> Clauses, means "Citizen of ONE OF the States united."
> We also have the construction of the California
> Supreme Court, soon after that 1849 Constitution 
> was ratified.  In 1855, that Court ruled that there 
> is no such thing as a citizen of the United States,
> if the latter term refers to a class of citizens
> different from Citizens of ONE OF the States united.
> De La Guerra's profound construction is worthy of
> very close scrutiny and study, because it provides
> a way out of the confusion and controversy that
> swirls about this subject, even now.  In light of
> De La Guerra's pivotal insight, we are justified in
> constructing the 1849 California Constitution as 
> follows:
> "Every Citizen of California state declared a legal voter
> by this Constitution, and every Citizen of ONE OF the
> other Union states who is a resident of California state
> on the day of election, shall be entitled ...."
>  >>
>Hopefully the supremeegotist is the only one who has trouble understanding
>that this language doesn't mean that there are multiple classes of citizens
>but that a citizen of one of the states is also a citizen of the United
>States automatically.  And no, a decision of some Jim Crow state supreme
>court from the 1890s or thereabouts making up things as it went along in
>order to discriminate against black people doesn't disprove this.
>For freedom,
>-> Send "subscribe   snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>->  Posted by: NMMJR@aol.com

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 3.0.3 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