Time: Tue Jul 08 09:00:01 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA19900;
	Tue, 8 Jul 1997 08:59:34 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 11:59:08 -0400
Originator: heritage-l@gate.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: pmitch@primenet.com
Subject: SLS: 2 classes of citizens: evidence in California (1849)

I am quoting here from the California Constitution
of 1849, signed by Judge Pablo De La Guerra, who 
later identified the proper construction of the
Qualifications Clauses, in his case as a Respondent
in People v. De La Guerra.  Here is a pertinent
paragraph from that Constitution:


[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 ...."


In other words, in 1849, the lower-case "c" in 
"citizen" appears to have been the preferred 
convention.  Nevertheless, this lower-case "c"
did not render that term a legal franchise which
was subject to the municipal authority of Congress,
as is now the case with federal citizenship.

On the contrary, in the year 1855, the California 
Supreme Court in Ex parte Knowles made it very clear 
that there was no such thing as a citizen of
the United States, if by that term is meant a
second class of citizens, different from the
primary class of state Citizens, i.e. Citizens
of ONE OF the States united.

The 1849 California Constitution is merely
trying to establish who would be entitled 
to vote in general elections, and to vote
on the question of adopting that Constitution.
Those People would be either Citizens of California
state, or Citizens of ONE OF the other states of
the Union, as long as the latter Citizens were resident
in California state on the day of the election.

This logic appears to explain the apparent anomaly
that is found in Section 5 of the 1849 California
Constitution as quoted above.  Despite appearances
of two classes of citizens, which appearances arise
from a faulty construction, the proper construction
yields only a single class of state Citizens.  This
proper construction conforms to the decisions of
the California Supreme Court in Ex parte Knowles
and People v. De La Guerra.

/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.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