Talk:State citizenship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] NPOV
The last three paragraphs in this article seriously "insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another" and "the author's own viewpoint is obvious." Also "alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms."
The author referring condescendingly to adherents of other viewpoints by implying that they are ignorant of the subject matter or illiterate ("those with a limited knowledge of law and of the English language") and then presenting his own view as "reality" cannot possibly be construed as neutral. The examples provided also seem like apologetics for a particular viewpoint out of place in this article.
"It has been argued by those with a limited knowledge of law and of the English language that the United States government has no legislative control over the states. This argument is based on Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution, which grants Congress the power to exercise exclusive legislation over the District of Columbia and over certain places purchased from the states, such as forts, magazines, and arsenals.
The argument holds that the grant of exclusive legislative power over certain places prevents Congress from exercising legislative power anywhere else. It assumes that if Congress has exclusive control over certain places, the states must have exclusive control over everything else. A brief look at reality, however, will clarify the matter. Although the state of Nebraska, for example, cannot pass a law that applies to people living in Washington, D.C., Congress can pass a law that applies to people living in Omaha.
[Above statement is faulty: Congress can pass legislation affecting their persons, wherever resident. See Cook v. Tait (265 U.S. 47 (1924)).]
Likewise, a person can be accused of a state crime for an act committed in a federally-owned building. An example of this would be a person who assaults his co-workers in a United States Postal Service building. Although he might be accused of violating federal statutes and Postal Service regulations by his actions, he will certainly be charged under state law for the assault."
[Probably because: 1. The state has not ceeded jurisdiction, 2. The United States government relies on state, county, and local services such as police and fire for most of its properties, even military bases, and 3. The United States Postal Service is a private business organization and not a governmental entity. At the very least, the above paragraph is a poor example, even before we examine the logic of whether ownership of an edifice can determine criminal jurisdiction.]
[edit] Citations from the article
I removed the citations part of the article. There are way too many and there is not enough context for many of them. If someone wants to go through them and use some in the article, they can. -- Kjkolb 12:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
State citizenship, case law citations;
With strictest propriety, ...our national scene opens with the most magnificent object, which the nation could present. "The PEOPLE of the United States are the first personages introduced. Who were those people? They were the citizens of the thirteen States ... -- Chisolm v. Georgia, Wilson, 2 Dall. 463 (1793)
PEOPLE. ... as generally used in constitutional law, the entire body of those citizens of a state. -- Black's Law Dictionary 4th Ed.
People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative. -- Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89, 4 Wendell 9 NY (1829)
The sovereignty has been transferred from one man [King George III] to the collective body of the people, and he who before was a subject of the King is now a "citizen" of the state. -- Medvedieff v. Cities Service Oil Co., 35 FSupp 999, 1002
The Constitutions are not the sources of our personal rights. Our theory of government is that the people [Citizens of the several states], in full possession of inherent, inalienable rights, have formed the government in order to protect these [Natural] rights, and have incorporated them into the organic law as a shield against unwarrantable interference by any department of governments. -- 16 CJS § 199
Every [state] citizen and freeman is endowed with certain rights and privileges, to enjoy which no written law or statute is required. These are fundamental or natural rights, recognized among all free people. -- United States v. Morris, 125 F 322, 325
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people [Citizens of the several states], by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. -- Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370 (1886)
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating their authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. -- "Brown Act" Calif. Govt. Code, Chapter 1588 Section 54950 (page 3269)
It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error. -- American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442
In the federal Constitution the words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' [of the several states] are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing [state Citizens]. They both describe the political body, who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the sovereign people, and a constituent member of the sovereignty. -- Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393, 404 (1856)
... a state and the federal government each has citizens of its own, and the same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a state. The government of the United States can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the states. -- U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588
... a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States, ... -- McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320 16 Wall. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (derivation: 14 CJS § 2, see also 11 C.J. p 777 note 46)
A person may be a citizen of the United States, and not a citizen of any particular state. -- Butchers' Benev. Assoc. v. Crescent City Livestock Landing, etc., Co., La., 16 Wall. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (derivation: 14 CJS § 2, see also 11 C.J. p 777 note 44)
The government of the United States is a foreign corporation with respect to a [union] state. -- In re Merriam, 36 NE 505, 141 NY 479, affirmed 16 SCt 1073, 163 US 625 [see also 20 CJS § 1785]
"... Protection to life, liberty, and property rests primarily with the states, ... those fundamental rights which belong to [state] citizenship, and which the state governments were created to secure. The privileges and immunities of citizens [subjects] of the United States, as distinguished from the privileges and immunities of citizens of the states, ... are privileges and immunities arising out of the nature and essential character of the national government, and granted or secured by [the 14th Amendment to] the Constitution of the United States ... (United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L. ed. 588; Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 21 L. ed 394)" -- Justice Peckham, Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 593 (1899)
... there is a clear distinction between national and State citizenship. U.S. [federal] citizenship does not entitle [subject] citizen of the Privileges and Immunities of the [sovereign] Citizen of the State. -- K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P 545, 201 Cal 239 1927), 53 ALR 1279, affirmed 49 SCt 47, 278 US 123
The governments of the United States and of the each of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other. -- Colgate v. Harvey, 296 US 404, 429.
... the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal Government. -- Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 581, 597 (1899)
The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90, 23 L. ed. 678), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2d Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 29 L. ed. 615, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, ... -- Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 98 (1908)
... it is definitely settled that citizenship of the United States is paramount and dominant and not subordinate and derivative from state citizenship. -- Arver v. U.S., Minn. & N.Y., 38 S.Ct. 159, 245 U.S. 366, 62 L.Ed. 349, L.R.A.1918C 361, Ann. Cas.1918B 856
[edit] ?: No citizens before the 14th?
--EngNate 06:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The article definitely needs review and update for more factual content and less persuasion. Having had knowledge and objective interest in this subject for about 15 years, I must say the article cannot be considered neutral, and I state this objectively without regard to my own view of the subject material. The citations list on this page is hard fact that should be the basis for the reasoning presented. When presenting an encyclopedia article defining 'state citizenship' as it applies to Americans, one cannot exclude the earliest observance with reference to the United States: Art. 4, Sec. 2 of the Constitution:
"The citizens of each state shall have the priveleges and immunities of citizens in the several states."
Were there no citizens before the 14th Ammendment?
It means that a citizen of one state, while in another state, shall have the same priveleges and immunities as a citizen of the state he is in. He cannot vote, or send his kids to school, etc. there without meeting the residency requirements, which then makes him a citizen of that state if he chooses to make it his home.
As to the exclusive jurisdiction argument, it is generally held in contract law that: "The inclusion of one thing necessarily excludes other things not mentioned." It follows that a grant of exclusive control over specified areas and/or subjects is limited to that which is specified.
A statement that utilizes, for comparative purpose or any other, a concept held by "those ignorant..." does not seem appropriate at all in any objective documentary work, whether the argument as presented is true or not. The writer has tossed himself a slow-pitch, no one can successfully argue that the United States has no jurisdiction within the states. Presenting a defeat to this micro-view is like smashing an already dead fly with a hammer. It's a persuasive argument utilizing actual facts, rather than a representation of the facts as found.
...some quickly stated observations, not at all the last word...
