A Collection of Court Authorities in re Two Classes of Citizens

This has been reposted with a great many thanks to Pauls excellent works: The URL can be found here: http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm

A Collection of Court Authorities in

Two Classes of Citizens

by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

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 eachState," and "Citizen of the United States***," are convertibleterms; they mean the same thing; for "the Citizens of eachState are entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizensin 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 theUnited States** and a citizenship of a State, which are distinctfrom each other and which depend upon different characteristicsor circumstances in the individual.

[Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36]

[(1873) emphasis added]

The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made negroescitizens of the United States**, and citizens of the State inwhich 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 UnitedStates** and a government of each of the several States. Eachone of these governments is distinct from the others, and eachhas 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 theUnited 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 aperson may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizenof the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny tothe state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, -- the rightto 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 federalConstitution made negroes citizens of the United States**, andcitizens of the state in which they reside, and thereby createdtwo classes of citizens, one of the United States** and the otherof the state.

[4 Dec. Dig. '06, p. 1197, sec. 11]

["Citizens" (1906), emphasis added]

There are, then, under our republican form of government, twoclasses of citizens, one of the United States** and one of thestate. One class of citizenship may exist in a person, withoutthe other, as in the case of a resident of the District ofColumbia; 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 theformer 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 notidentified 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 theprivilege of litigating in the federal courts on the ground ofdiversity of citizenship. Possibly no better reason for thisfact exists than such citizens were not thought of when thejudiciary 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 acitizen of any state, is not within the language of the

[federal]Constitution.

[Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914]

[emphasis added]

That there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenshipof a state, and the privileges and immunities of one are not thesame as the other is well established by the decisions of thecourts of this country.

[Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)]

No fortifying authority is necessary to sustain the propositionthat in the United States a double citizenship exists. A citizenof the United States is a citizen of the Federal Government andat the same time a citizen of the State in which he resides.Determination of what is qualified residence within a State isnot here necessary. Suffice it to say that one possessing suchdouble citizenship owes allegiance and is entitled to protectionfrom each sovereign to whose jurisdiction he is subject.

[Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp. 383 (USDC/WDMO 1953)]

The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendmentprotects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of theBill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. SeeSlaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873).Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to beinga citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rightswhich relate to state citizenship.

[Jones v. Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (USDC/DCO 1993)]

# # #

UNITED STATES Corp. (IMPOSTER) >>

A Collection of Court Authorities in re Two Classes of Citizens