Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: betty boop
What has “gone wrong” such that, e.g., federal judges routinely feel free to legislate their ideals of social progress from the bench?

Governmental duplicity in the guise of the 14th Amendment has caused us to claim to be United States citizens, which is a STATUORY, or ARTIFICIAL entity.

The intent of the the Founders was for us to be residents first, and State citizens if we chose to be. A State citizen is a CIVIL entity. Civil entities are 'natural persons' or human beings because civil law is based on common law.

But don't take my word for it:

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
(Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383).

______________________________________________________________________

"... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State ..."
U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542:

______________________________________________________________________

In 1887 the Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Franks 7 SCt 656, 662; 120 US 678, 690 found that:
"In the constitution and laws of the United States the word `citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense ... It is so used in section 1 of article 14 of the amendments of the constitution ..."

______________________________________________________________________

The US Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 SCt 617, 626:
"In Baldwin v. Franks ... it was decided that the word `citizen' .... was used in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident', `inhabitant', or `person' ..."

______________________________________________________________________

14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122:
"... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."

______________________________________________________________________

U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794:
"The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"

______________________________________________________________________

By claiming US citizenship, we VOLUNTARILY place ourselves under the jurisdiction of the federal government and are therefore subject to every whim of every black-robed bandit that sits on a bench....nor do we any longer have 'rights'

Merely privileges.

59 posted on 09/19/2005 5:50:50 PM PDT by MamaTexan (~ I am NOT a 'legal entity'....... nor am I a 'person' as created by law ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: MamaTexan
By claiming US citizenship, we VOLUNTARILY place ourselves under the jurisdiction of the federal government and are therefore subject to every whim of every black-robed bandit that sits on a bench....nor do we any longer have 'rights' Merely privileges.

I question this statement that "By claiming US citizenship, we VOLUNTARILY place ourselves under the jurisdiction of the federal government..."
Most of us here never, in fact, claimed US citizenship. Instead we achieved this citizenship by simply by being born within the geographical borders of the United States or in its acknowledged possessions overseas, i.e. military bases,etc.

This being the case does the phrase, "...we VOLUNTARILY place ourselves under the jurisdiction of the federal government" still hold true?

65 posted on 09/19/2005 8:27:19 PM PDT by yankeedame ("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson