Posted by Man of Reason on September 03, 1998 at 16:46:21:
In Reply to: Empty Generalizations posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.S., M.S. on September 01, 1998 at 15:01:15:
: If you are citing the 14th amendment for
: constitutional authority that Americans
: MUST (be?) in both classes, or none at all,
: please refute ALL the evidence published
: in Dyett v. Turner.
: Please refute the holding in Alla v. Kornfeld,
: if you believe that it was wrong.
The evidence I have found to date leads me to believe the following about 'classes' of citizenship (these presume either naturalized or birthright citizenship to some part of the country):
1) Those who reside in D.C. or a territory/possession are 'federal' citizens, subject to each and every whim of Congress.
2) Those who reside within the bounds of one of the 50 States of the Union are both State Citizens and National Citizens (to borrow Tom's designation).
3) Those living without the previous areas are National citizens as well (provided that they were a member of one of the previous two categories at some time in the past).
I prefer to use Tom's nomenclature to differentiate between the limits of federal power over the different classes of citizens. Congress' power over 'Federal' citizens extends to all areas, their power over 'National' citizens is limited to subject matter deriving from Constitutionally enumerated powers. Congress' power over 'State' citizens is the same as that they employ over 'National' citizens.
The entirety of the group of 'National' citizens consists of the union (set theory here) of 'Federal' citizens, 'State' citizens, and members of those two groups residing out of the country.
i.e. A 'Federal' citizen is also a 'National' citizen.
A 'State' citizen is also a 'National' citizen.
One can either be a 'Federal' citizen or a 'State' citizen, but not both simultaneously. The difference being determined by your residence.
If the above cites rebut these statements, I'd appreciate your putting the cases online to study. Perhaps you could provide links to them so that the world may be awash in your fount of knowledge. I see that one case is a Utah Supreme Court case from your postings, but have missed any hints for Alla v. Kornfeld. I'd be quite interested in seeing them online, if only in an attempt to uncover the rationale behind your thought process.
: If you cannot do any of these things,
: I believe you are a charlatan and
: should be ignored.
Well La-Dee-Dah. Who's resorting to name calling now? And utilizing such lengthy multisyllabic words too, I'm SO impressed. What'sa matter, can't stand when someone questions your claims? Most websites such as this one usually put a disclaimer in plain view to warn the casual reader to verify all claims. You obviously are so certain of your material that such a warning isn't needed. It must be nice to know all the answers to 'the problem'. Why then do all your cases look like a lawyer's worst nightmare come true? I don't think I'd repeatedly poke a beehive in the manner you treat the judges sitting in your cases, over and over again.
A wise man learns from his errors...