one citizen before, two citizens after, the fourteenth amendment_ proof at last

8/4/2019 One citizen before, Two citizens after, the Fourteenth Amendment_ Proof at Last

1/32

One citizen before, Two citizens after,

the Fourteenth Amendment:

Proof at Last

God Inspired

Dan Goodman

2011


2/32

About the author:

After many years of research, Dan has discovered that in the United States, inaddition to a citizen of the United States, there is a citizen of a State, who is not a

citizen of the United States:

We come to the contention that the citizenship of Edwards was not averred in

the complaint or shown by the record, and hence jurisdiction did not appear.

In answering the question, whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the

controversy, we must put ourselves in the place of the Circuit Court of Appeals, and

decide the question with reference to the transcript of record in that court.

Had the transcript shown nothing more as to the status of Edwards than the

averment of the complaint that he was a resident of the State of Delaware, as suchan averment would not necessarily have imported that Edwards was a citizen of

Delaware, a negative answer would have been impelled by prior decisions. MexicanCentral Ry. Co. v. Duthie, 189 U.S. 76; Horne v. George H. Hammond Co., 155 U.S. 393;Denny v. Pironi, 141 U.S. 121; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646. The whole record,

however, may be looked to, for the purpose of curing a defective averment of

citizenship, where jurisdiction in a Federal court is asserted to depend upondiversity of citizenship, and if the requisite citizenship, is anywhere expressly

averred in the record, or facts are therein stated which in legal intendment

constitute such allegation, that is sufficient. Horne v. George H. Hammond Co., supraand cases cited.

As this is an action at law, we are bound to assume that the testimony of theplaintiff contained in the certificate of the Circuit Court of Appeals, and recited to

have been given on the trial, was preserved in a bill of exceptions, which formed

part of the transcript of record filed in the Circuit Court of Appeals. Being a part ofthe record, and proper to be resorted to in settling a question of the character of

that now under consideration, Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 648, we come to ascertain

what is established by the uncontradicted evidence referred to.

In the first place, it shows that Edwards, prior to his employment on the New York

Sun and the New Haven Palladium, was legally domiciled in the State of Delaware.

Next, it demonstrates that he had no intention to abandon such domicil, for hetestified under oath as follows: One of the reasons I left the New Haven Palladium

was, it was too far away from home. I lived in Delaware, and I had to go back and

forth. My family are over in Delaware. Now, it is elementary that, to effect a changeof ones legal domicil, two things are indispensable: First, residence in a new

i


3/32

domicil, and, second, the intention to remain there. The change cannot be made,

except facto et animo. Both are alike necessary. Either without the other isinsufficient. Mere absence from a fixed home, however long continued, cannot work

the change. Mitchell v. United States, 21 Wall. 350.

As Delaware must, then, be held to have been the legal domicil of Edwards at the

time he commenced this action, had it appeared that he was a citizen of the

United States, it would have resulted, by operation of the Fourteenth

Amendment, that Edwards was also a citizen of the State of Delaware. Anderson

v. Watt, 138 U.S. 694. Be this as it may, however, Delaware being the legal domicil ofEdwards, it was impossible for him to have been a citizen of another State, District,

or Territory, and he must then have been either a citizen of Delaware or a citizen

or subject of a foreign State. In either of these contingencies, the Circuit Courtwould have had jurisdiction over the controversy. But, in the light of the testimony,

we are satisfied that the averment in the complaint, that Edwards was a resident of

the State of Delaware, was intended to mean, and, reasonably construed, must be

interpreted as averring, thatthe plaintiff was a citizen of the State of Delaware.Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327, 331; Express Company v. Kountze, 8 Wall. 342. Sun

Printing & Publishing Association v. Edwards: 194 U.S. 377, at 381 thru 383 (1904).

See his work, Yes, there is a citizen of a State .

In this work, Dan (with the help of Warren Hathaway) leads the reader, with legalproof, to the conclusion that since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, there

are now two citizens under the Constitution of the United States, one at Section 1 of

the Fourteenth Amendment, the other at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1. See foryourself who the two citizens are and how they are recognized under international

law.

ii


4/32

Acknowledgements:

The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to Warren Hathaway for his

help in organizing the contents of this work, to his suggestions and comments.

Without them, this work would not be the coherent and complete work it is now.

To the Reader:

The materials in this work are presented in a definite manner. The reader should

read this work in the order it is presented.

Each chapter builds on the knowledge of the preceding chapter. Skipping

chapters will result in not seeing the whole picture.

iii


5/32

Arrangement

Chapter Page

1. A State Citizen Does Exist _ Since the Fourteenth Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES _ SINCE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT . . 2

3. More On A State Citizen _ Since the Fourteenth Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4. MORE ON PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES _ SINCE THE FOURTEENTH . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . AMENDMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

5. Citizenship and Birth _ Since the Fourteenth Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

6. Citizen of the United States v. Citizen of a State _ Since the Fourteenth . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

7. Two Distinct State Citizens _ Since the Fourteenth Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

8. Domicile and Residence _ In the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

9. PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES _ IN THE UNITED STATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

10. MORE ON PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES _ IN THE UNITED STATES . . . . . . . 20

11. Why and How a citizen of the several States _ In the United States . . . . . . . . . . 23


6/32

1. A State Citizen Does Exist _ Since the Fourteenth Amendment

Finally, proof that one can be a citizen of a State

and not be a citizen of the United States

* Its Not A Theory:

As a man may be a citizen of a State without being a citizen of the UnitedStates, and as Section 1428, Revised Statutes, requires all officers of all United

States vessels to be citizens of the United States, all officers of the Naval Militia must

be male citizens of the United States as well as of the respective States, Territories,

of the District of Columbia, of more than 18 and less than 45 years of age. GeneralOrders of Navy Department (Series of 1913); Orders remaining in force up to

January 29, 1918; General Order No. 153, Page 17, Para 73.

* Or Conspiracy Theory:

. . . There is no inherent right in a citizen to thus sell intoxicating liquors by

retail. It is not a privilege of a citizen of the State OR of a citizen of the UnitedStates. Crowley v. Christensen: 137 U.S. 86, at 91 (1890).

. . . In the Constitution and laws of the United States, the word citizen isgenerally, if not always, used in a political sense to designate one who has the rightsand privileges of a citizen of a State OR of the United States. Baldwin v. Franks:

120 U.S. 678, at 690 (1887).

* Its Law!

"Resident Aliens. (a) For purposes of any provision of this code that requires an

applicant for a license or permit to be a United States citizen OR Texas citizen,regardless of whether it applies to an individual, a percentage of stockholders of a

corporation, or members of a partnership, firm, or association, an individual who is

not a United States citizen but who legally resides in the state is treated as a UnitedStates citizenAND a citizen of Texas. (Added by Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 1971, ch.

777, Sec. 18, eff. Aug. 27, 1979.)

Source: Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code; Title 1, Chapter 1, Section 1.07

1


7/32

2. PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES _ SINCE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

* The Fourteenth Amendment . . . was finally adopted July 28, 1868. Holden

v. Hardy: 169 U.S. 375, at 382 (1918).

* The Slaughterhouse Cases were decided on April 15, 1873.

With the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, there are now three sets of

privileges and immunities in the United States. The three sets of privileges andimmunities are: privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States,

privileges and immunities of a citizen of a State, and privileges and immunities of a

citizen of the several States.

Privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States are at Section 1, Clause

2 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges

or immunities of citizens of the United States.

Privileges and immunities of a citizen of a State are at the constitution and laws of

a particular State:

. . . Whatever may be the scope of section 2 of Article IV and we need

not, in this case enter upon a consideration of the general question theConstitution of the United States does not make the privileges and

immunities enjoyed by the citizens of one State under the constitution and

laws of that State, the measure of the privileges and immunities to beenjoyed, as of right, by a citizen of another State under its constitution and

laws. McKane v. Durston: 153 U.S. 684, at 687 (1894).

Privileges and immunities of a citizen of the several States are at Article IV,

Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution:

In speaking of the meaning of the phrase privileges and immunities ofcitizens of the several States, under section second, article fourth, of the

Constitution, it was said by the present Chief Justice, in Cole v. Cunningham,133 U.S. 107, that the intention was to confer on the citizens of the several

States a general citizenship, and to communicate all the privileges andimmunities which the citizens of the same State would be entitled to underthe like circumstances, and this includes the right to institute actions.

Maxwell v. Dow: 176 U.S. 581, at 592 (1900).

In addition, privileges and immunities of a citizen of the several States are those

2


8/32

described in Corfield v. Coryelldecided by Mr. Justice Washington in the Circuit

Court for the District of Pennsylvania in 1825:

In the Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 76, in defining the privilegesand immunities of citizens of the several States, this is quoted from the

opinion of Mr. Justice Washington in Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. Cir. Ct. 371,380. Hodges v. United States: 203 U.S. 1, at 15 (1906)

* * * * * * *

3. More On A State Citizen _ Since the Fourteenth Amendment

A citizen of a State, who is not a citizen of the United States, is entitled toprivileges and immunities of a citizen of the several States under Article IV, Section

2, Clause 1 of the Constitution:

There can be no doubt that Balk, as a citizen of the State of NorthCarolina, had the right to sue Harris in Maryland to recover the debt which

Harris owed him. Being a citizen of North Carolina, he was entitled to all theprivileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, one of which is the

right to institute actions in courts of another State. Harris v. Balk: 198 U.S.215, at 223 (1905).

And:

. . . So, a State may, by rule uniform in its operation as to citizens of the

several States, require residence within its limits for a given time before acitizen of another State who becomes a resident thereof shall exercise the

right of suffrage or become eligible to office. It has never been supposed thatregulations of that character materially interfered with the enjoyment by

citizens of each State of the privileges and immunities secured by theConstitution to citizens of the several States. Blake v. McClung: 172 U.S. 239,

at 256 (1898).

3


9/32

A citizen of a State, who is not a citizen of the United States, is therefore a citizen

of the several States:

The intention of section 2 of Article 4 was to confer on the citizens of theseveral States ageneral citizenship. Cole v. Cunningham: 133 U.S. 107, at

113 thru 114 (1890).

In speaking of the meaning of the phrase privileges and immunities of

citizens of the several States, under section second, article fourth, of the


States ageneral citizenship. Maxwell v. Dow: 176 U.S. 581, at 592 (1900).

As such, a citizen of a State, as a citizen of the several States, would have commercial

privileges:

The power of a State to make reasonable and natural classifications for

purposes of taxation is clear and not questioned; but neither under form ofclassification nor otherwise can any State enforce taxing laws which in their

practical operation materially abridge or impair the equality of commercial

privileges secured by the Federal Constitution to citizens of the several

States. Chalker v. Birmingham & N.W. Railroad Company: 249 U.S. 522, at526 thru 527 (1919).

* * * * * * *

4. MORE ON PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES _ SINCE THE FOURTEENTH

AMENDMENT

A citizen of the United States, under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, is

entitled to be a citizen of a State, under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

The Fourteenth Amendment declares that citizens of the United Statesare citizens of the state within they reside; therefore the plaintiff was at the

time of making her application, a citizen of the United States and a citizen of

the State of Illinois.

We do not here mean to say that there may not be a temporary residencein one State, with intent to return to another, which will not createcitizenship in the former. But the plaintiff states nothing to take her case out

of the definition of citizenship of a State as defined by the first section of the

fourteenth amendment. Bradwell v. State of Illinois: 83 (16 Wall.) 130, at

4


10/32

138 (1873).

As a citizen of a State, a citizen of the United States, is entitled to privileges and

immunities of a citizen of a State. Such privileges and immunities are with theparticular State:

. . . Whatever may be the scope of section 2 of Article IV and we neednot, in this case enter upon a consideration of the general question the

Constitution of the United States does not make the privileges and

immunities enjoyed by the citizens of one State under the constitution andlaws of that State, the measure of the privileges and immunities to be

enjoyed, as of right, by a citizen of another State under its constitution andlaws. McKane v. Durston: 153 U.S. 684, at 687 (1894).

A citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, is

entitled to privileges and immunities of a citizen of the several States, under ArticleIV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution:

There can be no doubt that Balk, as a citizen of the State of North

Carolina, had the right to sue Harris in Maryland to recover the debt which

Harris owed him. Being a citizen of North Carolina, he was entitled to all the

privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, one of which is theright to institute actions in courts of another State. Harris v. Balk: 198 U.S.

215, at 223 (1905).

And:


Constitution, it was said by the present Chief Justice, in Cole v. Cunningham,

133 U.S. 107, that the intention was to confer on the citizens of the severalStates a general citizenship, and to communicate all the privileges and

immunities which the citizens of the same State would be entitled to under

the like circumstances, and this includes the right to institute actions. Maxwell v. Dow: 176 U.S. 581, at 592 (1900).

Privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States are not the same asprivileges and immunities of a citizen of the several States:

We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this amendment

of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this samesection (Section 1, Clause 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment), which is the one

mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks ONLY of privileges and

immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those(privileges and immunities) of citizens of the several States. Slaughterhouse

Cases: 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, at 74 (1873).

5


11/32

5. Citizenship and Birth _ Since the Fourteenth Amendment

A citizen of the United States, under the Fourteenth Amendment, is one who is

born in the United States, not a particular State:

All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction

thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they

reside. Section 1, Clause 1 Fourteenth Amendment, Constitution of theUnited States of America.

The language of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring two kinds ofcitizenship is discriminating. It is: All persons born or naturalized in the

United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the

United States and of the State wherein they reside. While it thus establishesnational citizenship from the mere circumstance of birth within the territory

and jurisdiction of the United States, birth within a state does not establishcitizenship thereof. State citizenship is ephemeral. It results only from

residence and is gained or lost therewith. Edwards v. People of the State ofCalifornia: 314 U.S. 160, at 183 (concurring opinion of Jackson) (1941).

That all persons resident in this state, born in the United States, or

naturalized, or who shall have legally declared their intention to become

citizens of the United States, are hereby declared citizens of the State of

Alabama, possessing equal civil and political rights. (Declaration of Rights)Article I, Section 2 Constitution of the State of Alabama of 1875.

Note: This provision is not in the current constitution of the State of

Alabama.

Citizenship in a particular State, therefore, is based on residence, not birth:

Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a

citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert theformer into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen

of it. . . . .

One of these privileges is conferred by the very article (FourteenthAmendment) under consideration. It is that a citizen of the United States can,

of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bond fideresidence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State.

Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, at 74, 80 (1873).

A citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of theUnited States, is one who is born in a particular State:

6


12/32

(Before the Fourteenth Amendment)

It appears that the plaintiff in error, though a nativeborn citizen of

Louisiana, was married in the State of Mississippi, while under age, with theconsent of her guardian, to a citizen of the latter State, and that their

domicile, during the duration of their marriage, was in Mississippi. Connerv. Elliott: 59 U.S. (Howard 18) 591, at 592 (1855).

(After the Fourteenth Amendment)

"Joseph A. Iasigi, a native born citizen of Massachusetts, was arrested,

February 14, 1897, on a warrant issued by one of the city magistrates of thecity of New York, as a fugitive from the justice of the State of

Massachusetts." Iasigi v. Van De Carr: 166 U.S. 391, at 392 (1897).

(Before the Fourteenth Amendment)

A naturalized citizen of the United States or a native citizen of any otherstate of the union, domiciled in Virginia, being entitled to all the privileges of

a citizen of this state, is a citizen. Syllabus, Commonwealth v. Towles: 5

Leigh 743 (1835).

In the case of a naturalized alien, as well as in the case of an individual

born out of this commonwealth in some other of the United States, the

privileges and immunities of citizenship, implied in naturalization, andexpressly declared in the constitution, must be complete under the federal

laws, without requiring any aid, or admitting the interference, or any state

law. . . . It is obvious, that the privileges and immunities of the naturalizedcitizen, and the native citizen of North Carolina, would be both equally

entitled to them, whatever they are, in the state of Virginia. Opinion,

Commonwealth v. Towles: 5 Leigh 743, at 748 thru 749 (1835).

(After the Fourteenth Amendment)

. . . This court in Commonwealth v. Towles, 5 Leigh 743, expresslydecided that a person born in another state of this Union is entitled to all the

rights and privileges of this state. Hannon v. Hounihan: 12 S.E. 157, at 158(1888).

Thus, a citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, is

one who is born in a particular State. A citizen of the United States, under Section 1of the Fourteenth Amendment, is one who is born in the United States; that is, the

District of Columbia, the territories or possessions of the United States, or a federalenclave within a particular State.

7


13/32

6. Citizen of the United States v. Citizen of a State _ Since the

Fourteenth Amendment

A citizen of the United States, under Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth

Amendment, is entitled to be a citizen of a State:


time of making her application, a citizen of the United StatesAND a citizen of


We do not here mean to say that there may not be a temporary residence

in one State, with intent to return to another, which will not create

citizenship in the former. But the plaintiff states nothing to take her case outof the definition of citizenship of a State as defined by the first section of the

fourteenth amendment. Bradwell v. State of Illinois: 83 (16 Wall.) 130, at

138 (1873).

As such a citizen of the United States would be a citizen of the United States AND acitizen of a State:

The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the

fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United StatesANDthe State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of

the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage tomen alone. . . .

There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by

the fourteenth amendment all persons born or naturalized in the UnitedStates and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are expressly declared to be

citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Minor v.

Happersett: 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, at 165 (1874).

A citizen of the United States, under the Fourteenth Amendment, has to aver that

he or she is a citizen of the United StatesAND a citizen of a State in a federal courtproceeding:

The courts of the United States have not jurisdiction in cases betweencitizens of the United States, unless the record expressly states them to be

citizens of different states. Wood v. Wagon: 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 1 (1804).

8


14/32

A citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, only

has to aver that he or she is a citizen of a particular State:

The bill filed in the Circuit Court by the plaintiff, McQuesten, alleged herto be a citizen of the United StatesAND of the State of Massachusetts, and

residing at Turner Falls in said State, while the defendants Steigleder andwife were alleged to be citizens of the State of Washington, and residing at

the city of Seattle in said State. Statement of the Case, Steigleder v.

McQuesten: 198 U.S. 141 (1905).

The averment in the bill that the parties were citizens of different States

was sufficient to make a prima facie case of jurisdiction so far as it dependedon citizenship. Opinion, Steigleder v. McQuesten: 198 U.S. 141, at 142

(1905).

And:

The appellants brought suit in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York for the purpose of recovering from the Trustee

an interest in a trust estate which had been sold, transferred and assigned by

Conrad Morris Braker, the beneficiary. The complainants were citizens and

residents of Pennsylvania. Both defendants were citizens and residents ofNew York. Notwithstanding the diversity of citizenship, the court dismissed

the bill on the ground that, as the assignor Braker, a citizen of New York,

could not in the United States District Court, have sued Fletcher, Trustee andcitizen of the same State, neither could the Complainants, his assignees, sue

therein, even though they were residents of the State of Pennsylvania.

Brown v. Flectcher: 235 U.S. 589, at 594 thru 595 (1914).

To this:

By the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States extends to

controversies between citizens of a State, and foreign States, citizens or

subjects. And by statute, Circuit Courts of the United States have originalcognizance of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, in which

there is a controversy between citizens of a State and foreign States, citizens,

or subjects. 25 Stat. 433, c. 866. . . . .

As complainants were citizens of a foreign State and defendant was a

citizen of Nebraska, as affirmatively appeared from the pleadings, no issue of

fact arising in that regard, the Circuit Court had jurisdiction. Hennessy v.Richardson Drug Company: 189 U.S. 25, at 34 (1903).

9


15/32

7. Two Distinct State Citizens _ Since the Fourteenth Amendment

In any State of the Union, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, there

are now two distinct state citizens. The first is recognized at Article IV, Section 2,

Clause 1 of the Constitution:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and

Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

The next is recognized at Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the

jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein

they reside.

The difference between them is a citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2,

Clause 1 of the Constitution, is not a citizen of the United States, but a citizen of theseveral States:

The Fourteenth Amendment declares that citizens of the United States

are citizens of the state within they reside; therefore the plaintiff was at thetime of making her application, a citizen of the United States and a citizen of


We do not here mean to say that there may not be a temporary residence

in one State, with intent to return to another, which will not create

citizenship in the former. But the plaintiff states nothing to take her case out

of the definition of citizenship of a State as defined by the first section of thefourteenth amendment. Bradwell v. State of Illinois: 83 (16 Wall.) 130, at

138 (1873).


Carolina, had the right to sue Harris in Maryland to recover the debt whichHarris owed him. Being a citizen of North Carolina, he was entitled to all the

privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, one of which is the

right to institute actions in courts of another State. Harris v. Balk: 198 U.S.

215, at 223 (1905).


Constitution, it was said by the present Chief Justice, in Cole v. Cunningham,

133 U.S. 107, that the intention was to confer on the citizens of the several

States ageneral citizenship. Maxwell v. Dow: 176 U.S. 581, at 592 (1900).

10


16/32

Privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States are not the same as

privileges and immunities of a citizen of the several States:

We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this amendmentof great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same

section (Section 1, Clause 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment), which is the onemainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks ONLY of privileges and

immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those

(privileges and immunities) of citizens of the several States. SlaughterhouseCases: 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, at 74 (1873).

Privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States are located in theFourteenth Amendment, at Section 1, Clause 2 and arise out of the nature and

essential character of the Federal government, and granted or secured by the

Constitution (Duncan v. State of Missouri: 152 U.S. 377, at 382 [1894]) or, in otherwords, owe their existence to the Federal government, its National character, its

Constitution, or its laws. (Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, at 79 [1873]).

Privileges and immunities of a citizen of the several States are those described inCorfield v. Coryelldecided by Mr. Justice Washington in the Circuit Court of the

District of Pennsylvania in 1825:

In the Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 76, in defining the privileges

and immunities of citizens of the several States, this is quoted from the

opinion of Mr. Justice Washington in Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. Cir. Ct. 371,380. Hodges v. United States: 203 U.S. 1, at 15 (1906).

Thus, three are two distinct state citizens:

. . . [I]t is contended, on behalf on the plaintiff in error, that thereby

citizens of the State of Louisiana, and of each and every State and the

inhabitants thereof, are deprived of their privileges and immunities

under article 4, sec. 2, and under the Fourteenth Amendment to the

Constitution of the United States. It is said that such an ordinance deprivesevery person, not a bona fide resident of the city of New Orleans, of the right

to labor on the contemplated improvements . . .

In so far as the provisions of the city ordinance may be claimed to affect therights and privileges of citizens of Louisiana and of the other States, the

plaintiff in error is in no position to raise the question. It is not alleged, nordoes it appear, that he is one of the laborers excluded by the ordinance from

employment, or that he occupies any representative relation to them.Apparently he is one of the preferred class of resident citizens of the city of

New Orleans. Chadwick v. Kelley: 187 U.S. 540, at 546 (1903).

11


17/32

8. Domicile and Residence _ In the United States

Domicile and residence are not the same:

This case presents another phase of the Indiana Gross Income Tax Act of1933, which has been before this Court in a series of cases beginning with

Adams Mfg. Co. v. Storen, 304 U.S. 307. The Act imposes a tax upon the

receipt of the entire gross income ofresidents and domiciliaries ofIndiana. Freeman v. Hewit: 329 U.S. 249, at 250 (1946).

. . . Domicile is not necessarily synonymous with residence, Perri v.Kisselbach, 34 N.J. 84, 87, 167 A.2d 377, 379 (1961), and one can reside in

one place but be domiciled in another, District of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S.

441 (1941); In re Estate of Jones, 192 Iowa 78, 80, 182 N.W. 227, 228(1921). Mississippi Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield: 490 U.S. 30, at 48 (1989).

Residence in fact, coupled with the purpose to make the place of

residence ones home, are the essential elements of domicile. Mitchell v.

United States, 21 Wall. 350; Pannill v. Roanoke Times Co., 252 F. 910; Beekman

v. Beekman, 53 Fla. 858, 43 So. 923; Babcock v. Slater, 212 Mass. 434, 99 N.E.173; Matter of Newcomb, 192 N.Y. 238, 84 N.E. 950; Beale, Conflict of Laws,

15.2. State of Texas v. State of Florida: 306 U.S. 398, 424 (1939).

With reference to residence there are four types of residence: (a) temporaryresidence; (b) actual (bona fide) residence; (c) permanent residence; and (d)

domiciliary residence (same as domicile, see previous quote and cite):


time of making her application, a citizen of the United States and a citizen of


We do not here mean to say that there may not be a temporaryresidence in one State, with intent to return to another, which will not create

citizenship in the former. But the plaintiff states nothing to take her case out

of the definition of citizenship of a State as defined by the first section of the

fourteenth amendment. Bradwell v. State of Illinois: 83 (16 Wall.) 130, at138 (1873).

Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a

citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the

former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen

of it. . . . .

12


18/32

One of these privileges is conferred by the very article (Fourteenth

Amendment) under consideration. It is that a citizen of the United States can,

of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bond fideresidence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State.


A person may maintain more than one residence and the fact that one is

maintained for political purposes does not itself prevent the residence from

being actual and bona fide. Intent to maintain a residence is an importantfactor, but intent alone does not establish abona fide residence. There must

be actual, physical use or occupation of quarters for living purposes before

residence is established. Williamson v. Village of Baskin: 339 So.2d 474

(1976).

Petitioner, Kwong Hai Chew, is a Chinese seaman last admitted to theUnited States in 1945. Thereafter, he married a native American and bought

the home in which they reside in New York. Having proved his good moral

character for the preceding five years, petitioner secured suspension of his

deportation. In 1949, he was admitted topermanent residence in theUnited States as of January 10, 1945. . . . .

. . . Before petitioners admission topermanent residence, he wasrequired to satisfy the Attorney General and Congress of his suitability for

that status. Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding: 344 U.S. 590, at 592 thru 593, 602

(1953).

Therefore when a person who is a citizen of the United States by birth or

naturalization, comes to this State and resides here he is a citizen of this

State. . . .

Where a citizen of another State comes to this State and resides in some

town for a temporary purpose, though such stay be protracted, he does notthereby become a citizen of this State. Easterly v. Goodwin, 35 Conn., 286.

With such a person, his residence here must be in the sense of making it a

home which he has no present intention of abandoning. I think that it must

be a domiciliary residence. The Residence of a Male Citizen, Opinions of

the AttorneyGeneral; State of Connecticut; Hartford, February 1, 1909;Report of the Tax Commissioner for Biennial Period 1909 and 1910, pages 52

thru 53.

Note, a citizen of another State is a citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2,

Clause 1 of the Constitution:

2. As applied to a citizen of another State, or to a citizen of the United

13


19/32

States residing in another State, a state law forbidding sale of convictmade

goods does not violate the privileges and immunities clause[s] of Art. IV, 2

and the [privileges or immunities clause of the] Fourteenth Amendment ofthe Federal Constitution, if it applies also and equally to the citizens of the

State that enacted it. P. 437. Syllabus, Whitfield v. State of Ohio: 297 U.S.

431 (1936).

1. The court below proceeded upon the assumption that petitioner was

a citizen of the United States; and his status in that regard is not questioned.The effect of the privileges [and] or immunities clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment, as applied to the facts of the present case, is to deny the power

of Ohio to impose restraints upon citizens of the United States resident in

Alabama in respect of the disposition of goods within Ohio, if like restraintsare not imposed upon citizens resident in Ohio. The effect of the similar

clause found in the Fourth Article of the Constitution, as applied to thesefacts, would be the same, since that clause is directed against discrimination

by a state in favor of its own citizens and against the citizens of other states.Slaughter House Cases , 16 Wall. 36, 1 Woods 21, 28; Bradwell v. State, 16

Wall. 130, 138. Opinion, Whitfield v. State of Ohio: 297 U.S. 431, at 437(1936).

Domicile is then:

. . . A residence at a particular place accompanied with positive or

presumptive proof of an intention to remain there for an unlimited time.This definition is approved by Phillimore in his work on the subject. By the

term domicile, in its ordinary acceptation, is meant the place where a personlives and has his home. Mitchell v. United States: 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 350, at

352 (1875).

Thus, a citizen of the United States becomes a citizen of a State, under Section 1 ofthe Fourteenth Amendment, by establishing a bona fide (actual) residence in a

particular State. A citizen of a State (another State), under Article IV, Section 2,

Clause 1 of the Constitution, becomes a citizen of a particular State by establishing adomiciliary residence (domicile).

* * * * * * *

14


20/32

9. PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES _ IN THE UNITED STATES

In Privileges and Immunities, Since the Fourteenth Amendment (#2), it was stated

that [w]ith the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, there are now three SETS

of privileges and immunities in the United States. The three SETS of privileges andimmunities are: privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States,

privileges and immunities of a citizen of a State, and privileges and immunities of a

citizen of the several States..

In Privileges and Immunities, In the United States, there are three additionalTYPES of privileges and immunities in the United States. The three TYPES of

privileges and immunities in the United States are fundamental privileges andimmunities, common privileges and immunities, and special privileges and

immunities.

Before the Fourteenth Amendment and the Slaughterhouse Cases, privileges andimmunities of a citizen of a State included fundamental privileges and immunities,

common privileges and immunities, and special privileges and immunities.

Fundamental privileges and immunities were those described in Corfield v.Coryell:

The next question is, whether this Act infringes that section of the

Constitution which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled toall privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States?

The inquiry, is what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the

several states? We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to thoseprivileges and immunities which are fundamental. Corfield v. Coryell: 4

Wash. Cir. Ct. 371, at 380 (1825).

Note, fundamental privileges and immunities in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 in

the Constitution were located prior to the Constitution in Article IV of the Articles ofConfederation:

The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse

among the people of the different States in this union, the free inhabitants ofeach of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted,

shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the severalStates; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and

from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and

commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the

inhabitants thereof respectively. Article IV of the Articles of Confederation.

15


21/32

From the Slaughterhouse Cases, there is the following:

The first occurrence of the words privileges and immunities in our

constitutional history, is to be found in the fourth of the articles of the oldConfederation. . . .

In the Constitution of the United States, which superseded the Articles ofConfederation, the corresponding provision is found in section two of the

fourth article. . . .

There can be but little question that the purpose of both these

provisions is the same, and that the privileges and immunities intended

are the same in each. In the article of the Confederation we have some of

these specifically mentioned and enough perhaps to give some general idea

of the class of civil rights meant by the phrase.

Fortunately we are not without judicial construction of this clause of the

Constitution. The first and the leading case on the subject is that ofCorfield v.Coryell, decided by Mr. Justice Washington. Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S.

(16 Wall.) 36, at 75 (1873).

Common privileges and immunities:

But the privileges and immunities secured to citizens of each State in the

several States, by the provision in question (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1),are those privileges and immunities which are common to the citizens in the

latter States under their constitution and laws by virtue of their being

citizens. Paul v. State of Virginia: 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168, at 180 (1868).

And special privileges and immunities:

Specialprivileges enjoyed by citizens in their own States are not secured

in other States by this provision (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1). Paul v.

State of Virginia: 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168, at 180 (1868).

So before the Fourteenth Amendment and the Slaughterhouse Cases Article IV,

Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution contained fundamental privileges andimmunities as well as common privileges and immunities for a citizen of a State.

Special privileges and immunities for a citizen of a State were with the State for

which he or she was a citizen.

However, after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and theSlaughterhouse Cases, fundamental privileges and immunities, under Corfield v.Coryell, were transferred from a citizen of a State to a citizen of the several States:



16


22/32

opinion of Mr. Justice Washington in Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. Cir. Ct. 371,

380. Hodges v. United States: 203 U.S. 1, at 15 (1906).

A citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, is nowalso a citizen of the several States, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the

Constitution:


Carolina, had the right to sue Harris in Maryland to recover the debt which

Harris owed him. Being a citizen of North Carolina, he was entitled to all theprivileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, one of which is the

right to institute actions in courts of another State. Harris v. Balk: 198 U.S.215, at 223 (1905).


citizens of the several States, under section second, article fourth, of theConstitution, it was said by the present Chief Justice, in Cole v. Cunningham,

133 U.S. 107, that the intention was to confer on the citizens of the severalStates ageneral citizenship. Maxwell v. Dow: 176 U.S. 581, at 592 (1900).

Common privileges and immunities remained with a citizen of a State, under

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution:

As to the second question, our answer is also in the negative. There is nodenial of any rights and privileges to citizens of other States which are

accorded to citizens of Iowa. No one can allow diseased cattle to run at large

in Iowa without being held responsible for the damages caused by the spread

of disease thereby; and the clause of the Constitution declaring that the

citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities ofcitizens in the several States does not give nonresident citizens of Iowa any

greater privileges and immunities in that State than her own citizens there

enjoy. So far as liability is concerned for the act mentioned, citizens of otherStates and citizens of Iowa stand upon the same footing. Paul v. Virginia, 8

Wall. 168. Kimmish v. Ball: 129 U.S. 217, at 222 (1889).

Therefore, a citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the

Constitution, as a citizen of a State, is entitled to common privileges and immunities

under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. Also, a citizen of a State,under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, as a citizen of the several

States, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, is entitled tofundamental privileges and immunities, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the

Constitution. Thus, a citizen of a State has common privileges and immunities and

fundamental privileges and immunities under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of theConstitution, however, fundamental privileges and immunities are now as a citizen

of the several States.

17


23/32

A citizen of the United States, under the Fourteenth Amendment, has common

privileges and immunities also, however, such privileges and immunities are at

Section 1, Clause 2, of the Fourteenth Amendment:

The court below proceeded upon the assumption that petitioner was a

citizen of the United States; and his status in that regard is not questioned.The effect of the privileges [and] or immunities clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment, as applied to the facts of the present case, is to deny the power

of Ohio to impose restraints upon citizens of the United States resident inAlabama in respect of the disposition of goods within Ohio, if like restraints

are not imposed upon citizens resident in Ohio. The effect of the similar

clause found in the Fourth Article (Second Section) of the Constitution, as

applied to these facts, would be the same, since that clause is directed againstdiscrimination by a state in favor of its own citizens and against the citizens

of other states. Slaughter House Cases , 16 Wall. 36, 1 Woods 21, 28; Bradwellv. State, 16 Wall. 130, 138. Whitfield v. State of Ohio: 297 U.S. 431, at 437

(1936).In addition, a citizen of the United States, under the Fourteenth Amendment, has

no fundamental privileges and immunities:

But, as this court more than once has pointed out, the privileges andimmunities of citizens protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against

abridgment by state laws are not those fundamental privileges and

immunities inherent in state citizenship, but only those which owe their

existence to the Federal Government, its national character, its constitution,or its laws. Slaughter House Cases , 16 Wall. 36, 72 74, 77 80; Duncan v.

Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382: Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U.S. 525, 538. Prudential

Insurance Company of America v. Cheek: 259 U.S. 530, at 539 (1922).

To qualify for special privileges and immunities in a State, one must be a citizen of

a State and be domicile (or a domiciliary resident):

Following, then, this salutary rule, and looking only to the particular

right which is here asserted, we think we may safely hold that the citizens of

one State are not invested by this clause of the Constitution with any interestin the common property of the citizens of another State. If Virginia had by

law provided for the sale of its once vast public domain, and a division of the

proceeds among its own people, no one, we venture to say, would contendthat the citizens of other States had a constitutional right to the enjoyment of

this privilege of Virginia citizenship. Neither if, instead of selling, the State

had appropriated the same property to be used as a common by its peoplefor the purposes of agriculture, could the citizens of other States avail

themselves of such a privilege. And the reason is obvious: the right thus

granted is not a privilege or immunity of general but ofspecial citizenship.

18


24/32

It does not belong of right to the citizens of all free governments, but only to

the citizens of Virginia, on account of the peculiar circumstances in which

they are placed. They, and they alone, owned the property to be sold or used,and they alone had the power to dispose of it as they saw fit. They owned it,

not by virtue of citizenship merely, but ofcitizenship and domicile united;

that is to say, by virtue of a citizenship confined to that particular locality.McCready v. State of Virginia: 94 U.S. 391, at 395 thru 396 (1876).

A citizen of a State (another State) is entitled to special privileges and immunities, assuch a citizen can become a citizen of a State by establishing a domicile (domiciliary

residence):

Where a citizen of another State comes to this State and resides in some

town for a temporary purpose, though such stay be protracted, he does not

thereby become a citizen of this State. Easterly v. Goodwin, 35 Conn., 286.

With such a person, his residence here must be in the sense of making it a

home which he has no present intention of abandoning. I think that it mustbe a domiciliary residence. The Residence of a Male Citizen, Opinions ofthe AttorneyGeneral; State of Connecticut; Hartford, February 1, 1909;

Report of the Tax Commissioner for Biennial Period 1909 and 1910, pages 52

thru 53.

A citizen of the United States is not entitled to special privileges and immunities.

Though a citizen of the United States is entitled to be a citizen of a State, being such acitizen is done by establishing a bona fide residence, not a domicile (domiciliary

residence):

Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being acitizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the

former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen

of it. . . . .

One of these privileges is conferred by the very article (FourteenthAmendment) under consideration. It is that a citizen of the United States can,

of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bond fide

residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State.


19


25/32

10. MORE ON PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES _ IN THE UNITED STATES

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution contains both common and

fundamental privileges and immunities. Before the adoption of the Fourteenth

Amendment and the Slaughterhouse Cases they were privileges and immunities of acitizen of a State. However, after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and

the Slaughterhouse Cases common privileges and immunities are now privileges and

immunities of a citizen of a State as a citizen of a State, whereas fundamentalprivileges and immunities are privileges and immunities of a citizen of a State as a

citizen of the several States.

Common privileges and immunities of a citizen of a State, as a citizen of a State,

are identified in the Constitution at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 as privileges and

immunities of citizens IN the several States:

[Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution] declares that thecitizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of

citizens IN the several States. . . . .

But the privileges and immunities secured to citizens of each State in theseveral States, by the provision in question (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1),

are those privileges and immunities which are common to the citizens in thelatter States under their constitution and laws by virtue of their being

citizens. Paul v. State of Virginia: 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168, at 180 (1868).

Fundamental privileges and immunities of a citizen of a State, as a citizen of theseveral States, are now identified in the Constitution at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1

as privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several States:



opinion of Mr. Justice Washington in Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. Cir. Ct. 371,380. Hodges v. United States: 203 U.S. 1, at 15 (1906).

Fortunately we are not without judicial construction of this clause(Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1) of the Constitution. The first and leading case

on the subject is that ofCorfield v. Coryell, decided by Mr. Justice Washington

. . . .

The inquiry, he says, is, what are the privileges and immunities of

citizens of (*) the several States? We feel no hesitation in confining theseexpressions to those privileges and immunities which arefundamental.

Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, at 75 thru 76 (1873), quoting

Corfield v. Coryell.

20


26/32

__________________

(*) Compare this quote of the case ofCorfield v. Coryell, with the case itself on my

chapter on Privileges and Immunities, In the United States (#9), at Page 15.

__________________


citizens OF the several States, under section second, article fourth, of the


States a general citizenship. Maxwell v. Dow: 176 U.S. 581, at 592 (1900).

Therefore, there are privileges and immunities of citizens IN the several Statesand there are privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several States under

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution:

To this petition the defendants demurred on the grounds, first, that

4058 and 4059 are in conflict with Section 8, Article 1 of the Constitution of

the United States, in that the legislature of Iowa undertakes to regulate andinterfere with interstate commerce; and second, that the sections are in

conflict with Section 2 of Article 4 of the Constitution of the United States

relative to the privileges and immunities OFcitizens of the several States.

. . . Thereupon, on motion of the plaintiff, it was ordered that the points

of disagreement be certified to this court; and upon this certificate (fn 1) the

case has been heard.

____________

(fn 1) The questions certified were as follows:

1st. Is 4059 of the Code of Iowa repugnant to and in conflict with the

provisions of Sec. 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States

relative to the regulation of commerce among the several States and byreason thereof unconstitutional?

2 nd. Is 4059 of the Code of Iowa repugnant to or in conflict with Sec. 2of Article 4 of the Constitution of the United States relative to the privileges

and immunities of citizens INthe several States and by reason thereofunconstitutional? Statement of the Case, Kimmish v. Ball: 129 U.S. 217, at218 thru 219 (1889).

Thus, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, since the adoption of the Fourteenth

Amendment and the Slaughterhouse Cases, is to be read as:

21


27/32

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and

Immunities of Citizens IN the several States. or,

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges andImmunities of Citizens OF the several States.

Depending on the type of privileges and immunities in the case. Whereas, for bothtypes of privileges and immunities, it is to be read:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges andImmunities of Citizens IN and OF the several States.

In the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Court dealt with fundamental privileges and

immunities of a citizen of the several States:

The first occurrence of the words privileges and immunities in ourconstitutional history, is to be found in the fourth of the articles of the old

Confederation. . . .

In the Constitution of the United States, which superseded the Articles of

Confederation, the corresponding provision is found in section two of the

fourth article, in the following words: The citizens of each State shall beentitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several States.

There can be but little question that the purpose of both these

provisions is the same, and that the privileges and immunities intended

are the same in each. . . . .

Fortunately we are not without judicial construction of this clause of the

Constitution. The first and leading case on the subject is that ofCorfield v.Coryell, decided by Mr. Justice Washington . . . .

The inquiry, he says, is, what are the privileges and immunities of

citizens OF the several States? We feel no hesitation in confining these

expressions to those privileges and immunities which arefundamental. Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, at 75 thru 76 (1873).

To read Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution as The Citizens of each

State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens IN and OF the

several States means that this clause was modified, (that is; there is a change of

wording, new wording added, or old wording deleted). In this case, two new words

have been added to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution: and OF, bythe Supreme Court of the United States in the Slaughterhouse Cases to retainfundamental privileges and immunities under this provision.

22


28/32

11. Why and How a citizen of the several States _ In the United States

Before the Fourteenth Amendment, a citizen of a State was under Article IV,

Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, a citizen of the Untied States:

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the

ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority

of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to giveeffect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without

operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union,and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States,

remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did

not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union . State

of Texas v. White: 74 U.S. (Wall. 7) 700, 722 thru 726 (1868).

. . . That the process to require surety for good behavior was acriminal process; and that, at common law, such surety could only be

demanded upon conviction of some offence. That it is not reasonable to

suppose that congress intended that color alone should be a good cause for

demanding it. That the constitution knows no distinction of color. That allwho are not slaves are equally free; that they are equally citizens of the

United States, as those free white persons in Virginia who have no freehold,

or those in the other states who have not the property required to qualifythem to vote or to serve on juries, or who are too aged to be enrolled in the

militia. That those people of color, who are citizens of any state of the

Union, have a right to come here and claim all the privileges of

citizenship under that clause of the constitution which gives to thecitizens of each state all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the

several states. That to cause a warrant to issue for surety of good behavioror of the peace, without an allegation of some crime actually committed, or of

the apprehension of some crime, supported by oath, or affirmation, would be

contrary to the constitution of the United States, and therefore the chartermust not be construed so as to give that power. Costin v. Washingtion: 6

Fed. Cas. (No. 3266) 612, at 613; 2 Cranch, C. C. 254 (1821).

See also, Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Lowrie, Feb. 19, 1824, The Writings of Albert

Gallatin, Volume II, Pages 285 thru 287.

As such a citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 was recognized as

a citizen of the United States under international law (law of nations):

The intercourse of this country with foreign nations and its policy inregard to them, are placed by the Constitution of the United States in the

hands of the government, and its decisions upon these subjects are

23


29/32

obligatory upon every citizen of the Union. He is bound to be at war with

the nation against which the warmaking power has declared war, and

equally bound to commit no act of hostility against a nation with which thegovernment is in amity and friendship. This principle is universally

acknowledged by the laws of nations. It lies at the foundation of all

government, as there could be no social order or peaceful relations betweenthe citizens of different countries without it. It is, however, moreemphatically true in relation to citizens of the United States . For as the

sovereignty resides in the people, every citizen is a portion of it, and is himself

personally bound by the laws which the representatives of the sovereignty may

pass, or the treaties into which they may enter, within the scope of their

delegated authority. And when that authority has plighted its faith to another

nation that there shall be peace and friendship between the citizens of the two

countries, everycitizen of the United States is equally and personally pledged.

The compact is made by the department of the government upon which hehimself has agreed to confer the power. It is his own personal compact as a

portion of the sovereignty in whose behalf it is made. And he can do no act,nor enter into any agreement to promote or encourage revolt or hostilities

against the territories of a country with which our government is pledged bytreaty to be at peace, without a breach of his duty as a citizen and the breach

of the faith pledged to the foreign nation. Kennett v. Chambers: 55 U.S. 38,

49 thru 50 (1852).

A citizen of the United States, before the Fourteenth Amendment, was also a

citizen of the several States united:

The act of Congress referred to in the first section of the act of 11th April,

1799 is repealed and supplied by an act passed 14th April, 1802, which isincorporated in this note for the purpose of connecting the whole law on thesubject.

An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal theacts heretofore passed on that subject.

Be in enacted, &c. That any alien being a free white person, may beadmitted to become a citizen of the United States [Next Cite], or any of

them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: Laws of theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania, From the Fourteenth Day of October, One

Thousand Seven Hundred. Republished, Under the Authority of the

Legislature with Notes and References, Volume 4, (1810); Philadelphia: John

Bioren, page 364.

At the time of the formation of the constitution, the States were

members of the confederacy united under the style of the United States of

24


30/32

America, and upon the express condition that each State retains its

sovereignty, freedom, and independence. And the consideration that, underthe confederation, We, the people of the United States of America,

indubitably signified the people of the several States of the Union, as free,independent and sovereign States, coupled with the fact that the constitution

was a continuation of the same Union (a more perfect Union), and a mere

revision or remodeling of the confederation, is absolutely conclusive that, bythe term, the United States is meant the several States unitedas

independent and sovereign communities; and by the words, We, the people

of the United States, is meant the people of the several States as distinct and

sovereign communities, and not the people of the whole United Statescollectively as a nation. Stunt v. Steamboat Ohio: 4 Am. Law. Reg. 49, at 95

(1855), Dis. Ct., Hamilton County, Ohio; and (same wording) Piqua Bank v.Knoup, Treasurer: 6 Ohio 261, at 303 thru 304 (1856).

The people of the United States constitute one nation, under one

government, and this government, within the scope of the powers with whichit is invested, is supreme. On the other hand, the people of each State

compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all thefunctions essential to separate and independent existence. The States

disunited might continue to exist. Without the States in union there could

be no such political body as the United States .

Both the States and the United States existed before the Constitution. The

people, through that instrument, established a more perfect union bysubstituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon

the citizens, instead of the Confederate government, which acted withpowers, greatly restricted, only upon the States. Lane County v. the State of

Oregon: 74 U.S. (Wall. 7) 71, at 76 (1868).

The Fourteenth Amendment created a citizen of the United States. As decided in

the Slaughterhouse Cases, a citizen of a State was now separate and distinct from acitizen of the United States (not the same as a citizen of the United States):

Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States, and ofthe privileges and immunities of the citizen of the State , and what they respective

are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former

which are placed by this clause (Section 1, Clause 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment)under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they

may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the

amendment. Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, at 74 (1873).

25


31/32

Privileges and immunities of a citizen of a State are located in the constitution and

laws of an individual State:

. . . Whatever may be the scope of section 2 of article IV and we neednot, in this case enter upon a consideration of the general question the

Constitution of the United States does not make the privileges andimmunities enjoyed by the citizens of one State under the constitution and

laws of that State, the measure of the privileges and immunities to be

enjoyed, as of right, by a citizen of another State under its constitution andlaws. McKane v. Durston: 153 U.S. 684, at 687 (1894).

That there is a citizen of a State, who is not a citizen of the United States:

As Delaware must, then, be held to have been the legal domicil of

Edwards at the time he commenced this action, had it appeared that he wasa citizen of the United States, it would have resulted, by operation of the

Fourteenth Amendment, that Edwards was also a citizen of the State ofDelaware. Anderson v. Watt, 138 U.S. 694. Be this as it may, however,

Delaware being the legal domicil of Edwards, it was impossible for him tohave been a citizen of another State, District, or Territory, and he must then

have been either a citizen of Delaware or a citizen or subject of a foreignState. In either of these contingencies, the Circuit Court would have had

jurisdiction over the controversy. But, in the light of the testimony, we are

satisfied that the averment in the complaint, that Edwards was a resident of

the State of Delaware, was intended to mean, and, reasonably construed,must be interpreted as averring, thatthe plaintiff was a citizen of the State

of Delaware. Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327, 331; Express Company v.

Kountze, 8 Wall. 342. Sun Printing & Publishing Association v. Edwards: 194U.S. 377, at 381 thru 383 (1904).

As such, a citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitutionis no longer a citizen of the United States. Which means that a citizen of a State,

under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 is no longer recognized under international law

(law of nations) as a citizen of the United States.

To correct this situation, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the

Slaughterhouse Cases, created a new citizenship that would be recognized underinternational law (law of nations). The Court took a citizen of the Unite States

before the Fourteenth Amendment; that is, a citizen of the United States / citizen of

the several States united, and split them. They put a citizen of the United States, togo with the Fourteenth Amendment, and a citizen of the several States (united), to

go with Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. In addition, the Court

designated fundamental privileges and immunities to go with being a citizen of the

26


32/32

several States. This was done so that a citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2,

Clause 1 of the Constitution, would be recognized as a citizen of the several States

under international law (law of nations).

A citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, is a

citizen of the several States, when on the high seas:

Action to have a certain marriage between plaintiff and defendant

declared valid and binding upon the parties. A second amended complaint

alleged: That on August 2, 1897, defendant was a minor of the age of 15 yearsand 10 months, and that her father, one A. C. Thomson, was her natural and

only guardian. Plaintiff was of the age of 21 years and 10 months, and bothplaintiff and defendant were citizens and residents of Los Angeles county,

Cal. . . .

Appellant contends (1) that the marriage is valid because performedupon the high seas; and (2) that it would have been valid if performed within

this state, because there is no law expressly declaring it to be void.Respondent presents the case upon two propositions, claiming (1) that novalid marriage can be contracted in this state, except in compliance with the

prescribed forms of the laws of this state . . . .

Sections 4082, 4290, 722, Rev. St. U.S., are cited by appellant as

recognizing marriages at sea and before foreign consuls, and that section 722

declares the common law as to marriage to be in force on the high seas onboard American vessels. We have carefully examined the statutes referred

to, and do not find that they give the slightest support to appellants claim.

The law of the sea, as it may relate to the marriage of citizens of the

United States domiciled in California, cannot be referred to the commonlaw of England, any more than it can to the law of France or Spain, or any

other foreign county. We can find no law of congress, and none has beenpointed out by appellant, in which the general government has

undertaken or assumed to legislate generally upon the subject of

marriage on the sea. Nor, indeed, can we find in the grant of powers to

the general government by the several states, as expressed in the

national constitution, any provision by which congress is empowered to

declare what shall constitute a valid marriage between citizens of the

several states upon the sea, either within or without the conventional three

mile limit of the shore of any state; and clearly does no such power rest in

congress to regulate marriages on land, except in the District of Columbiaand the territories of the United States, or where is power of exclusivejurisdiction. We must look elsewhere than to the acts of congress for the law

governing the case in hand. Norman v. Norman: 54 Pac. Rep. 143, 143 thru144 (1898).

27

one citizen before, two citizens after, the fourteenth amendment_ proof at last

Documents