U.S. citizen

« Back to Glossary Index

United States citizen”/citizen of the United States/U.S. citizen: A legal person/fiction/ens legis/franchise/trust which is not a living breathing man or woman. Instead a “U.S. citizen” is a jurisdictional creation of law, which is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the UNITED STATES (a company). U.S. citizen do not have unalienable rights protected by the Constitution. U.S. citizen are considered chattel/possessions of the United States/UNITED STATES.  U.S. citizens are treated as second class or lower citizens without rights. Instead U.S. citizens are given “benefits” in exchange for their rights and exemptions.  U.S. citizens, their 3rd party nine digital banking numbers known as Social Security Number (a Social Security Number is not required), and their assets are considered pledged to the United States/UNITED STATES, and U.S. citizens are merely allowed to “use” and “possess” their assets however, they true allodial ownership remains with the UNITED STATES and its Agents, Trustees, Executors, and Fiduciaries. The fourteenth amendment creates and defines citizenship of the “United States” (ie. the UNITED STATES is a corporation like Subway, McDonald’s, Best Buy, etc..).

” The fourteenth amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States. It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except as that condition arose from citizenship of some state. No mode existed, it was said, of obtaining a citizenship of the United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state. This question is now at rest. The fourteenth amendment defines and declares who shall be citizens of the United States, to wit, “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The latter qualification was intended to exclude the children of foreign representatives and the like. With this qualification, every person born in the United States or naturalized is declared to be a citizen of the United States and of the state wherein he resides.

After creating and defining citizenship of the United States, the fourteenth amendment provides, that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” This clause is intended to be a protection, not to all our rights, but to our rights as citizens of the United States only; that is to rights existing or belonging to that condition or capacity. The expression, citizen of a state, used in the previous paragraph, is carefully omitted here. In article 4. § 2, subd. 1. of the constitution of the United States, it had been already provided, that “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” The rights of citizens of the states and of citizens of the United States are each guarded by these different provisions. That these rights are separate and distinct, was held in the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 “Wall. [83 U. S.] 36, recently decided by the supreme court. The rights of citizens of the state, as such, are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions. The rights of citizens of the states have been the subject of judicial decision on more than one occasion. “-[UNITED STATES V. ANTHONY (1873)]

 

See Article: the 1940 Buck Act: Citizens of the United States are Possessions

 

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 each State,” and  “Citizen of  the United  States***,” are convertible terms;   they mean  the same  thing;   for “the  Citizens of each State are  entitled to  all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in 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 distinct from each  other and  which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.
                       [Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)]
                                                 [emphasis added]
The  first  clause  of  the  fourteenth  amendment  made  negroes citizens of  the United  States**, and  citizens of  the State in which 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  United States** and  a government  of each  of the several States.  Each one of  these governments  is distinct  from the others, and each has 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 the
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  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 (1889), emphasis added]
The first  clause of  the fourteenth  amendment  of  the  federal Constitution made  negroes citizens  of the  United States**, and citizens of  the state  in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States** and the other of the state.
                              [4 Dec. Dig. ’06, p. 1197, sec. 11]
                              [“Citizens” (1906), emphasis added]
There are,  then, under  our republican  form of  government, two classes of  citizens, one  of the  United States** and one of the state.  One class of  citizenship may  exist in a person, without the other,  as in  the case  of a  resident of  the  District  of Columbia;  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 the former 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 not identified or identifiable as a citizen of any particular state.
                    [Du Vernay v. Ledbetter, 61 So.2d 573 (1952)]
                                                 [emphasis added]
… citizens  of the  District of  Columbia were  not granted the privilege of  litigating in  the federal  courts on the ground of diversity of citizenship.   Possibly no  better reason  for this fact exists  than  such citizens were  not  thought of  when  the judiciary 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 a citizen of any state, is not within the language of the [federal] Constitution.
                     [Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914 (1918)]
                                                 [emphasis added]
That there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state,  and the privileges and immunities of one  are not the same  as the other  is well established  by  the decisions  of the courts of this country.
                          [Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)]
No fortifying authority  is necessary  to sustain  the proposition that  in the United States a double citizenship exists.  A citizen of the United States  is  a citizen of the Federal Government  and at  the  same time  a citizen  of the State  in which  he resides. Determination  of what  is  qualified residence within a State  is not  here necessary.  Suffice it to say  that  one possessing such double citizenship owes allegiance  and  is entitled to protection from each sovereign to whose jurisdiction he is subject.
            [Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp. 383 (USDC/WDMO 1953)]
… both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution,  it  has  not  been necessary  for a person  to be a citizen of the United States in