Constitutional Citizens vs. statutory Citizens-it makes a difference

[Frederick Burrell]

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawA...yANational.pdf

fB

[allodial]

"Statutory citizen" seems a lot like "state citizen", no?

[shikamaru]

"Statutory citizen" seems a lot like "state citizen", no?

Only problem with this is that I am not aware of any citizenship created by statute.

State citizens derive their citizenship from their respective State constitutions.
State citizenship even precedes the creation of the Citizens in the several States (Article IV) under the US Constitution.

The 14th Amendment is an amendment to a constitution. The rights of this form of citizenship is enumerated by the Supreme Court or legislatively scoped by Congress which is where statutes will come into play.

In the sense of American law, constitutions and amendments are of greater eminence than a statute (or act) though all are written enactments.

In the sense of Roman Civil Law, constitutiones are a specie of statute enacted by a Roman emperor.

[David Merrill]

That corrupt governments and public servants intent on breaking down the separation of powers between states of the Union and the federal government purposefully try to exploit legal ignorance of the average American to deceive constitutional citizens through willful abuse of “words of art” into falsely declaring themselves as statutory citizens on government forms and in legal pleadings.

I think it should be read in context by substituting federal employee for constitutional citizen and state employee for statutory citizen.

Only problem with this is that I am not aware of any citizenship created by statute.

State citizens derive their citizenship from their respective State constitutions.
State citizenship even precedes the creation of the Citizens in the several States (Article IV) under the US Constitution.

The 14th Amendment is an amendment to a constitution. The rights of this form of citizenship is enumerated by the Supreme Court or legislatively scoped by Congress which is where statutes will come into play.

In the sense of American law, constitutions and amendments are of greater eminence than a statute (or act) though all are written enactments.

In the sense of Roman Civil Law, constitutiones are a specie of statute enacted by a Roman emperor.

Read the Original 13th Amendment found for the 1861 Colorado Territory. The US citizen were and still are federal employees. Indeed it goes back further than Rome. It goes back to Nehemiah 10.

[Frederick Burrell]

David, I find your interpretation of the 13 amendment interesting.

paraphased. no citizen can receive any type of title etc from another entity and remain a citizen.

And will not be allowed to hold a public office.

To me this speaks to questionable allegiance to a foreign power and working as a federal employee. But I don't understand how this translates into a citizen being an employee, can you please explain your thinking on this.

allegiance would place one in the category of being a constitutional citizen, but not a statutory citizen. Thanks.

Here is a quote from an article I thought interesting. Take a look. Your thoughts?

We emphasize that ALL statutory statuses under federal law attach to domicile on federal territory not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any state fo the Union. Those who are truly sovereign are not domiciled on federal territory and not subject to federal law, but also not a statutory "exempt individual" in respect to federal legislative jurisdiction. This was alluded to by the U.S. Supreme Court when it held the following:

"In Udny v. Udny (1869) L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicile of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: 'The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicile.' Page 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage relied on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying: 'The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions,—one by virtue of which he becomes the subject [NATIONAL] of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.' And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicile (domicilium), the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, and the basis on which 'the personal rights of the party—that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy, or intestacy— must depend,' he yet distinctly recognized that a man's political status, his country (patria), and his 'nationality,—that is, natural allegiance,'—'may depend on different laws in different countries.' Pages 457, 460. He evidently used the word 'citizen,' not as equivalent to 'subject,' but rather to 'inhabitant'; and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects. "

[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898); SOURCE: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...5771263111765]
From the above, we can see that:

The Constitution is a POLITICAL and not a LEGAL document. It therefore determines your POLITICAL status rather than your LEGAL/STATUTORY status.
Nationality determines your POLITICAL STATUS and whether you are a "subject" of the country.
DOMICILE determines your CIVIL and LEGAL and STATUTORY status. It DOES NOT determine your POLITICAL status or nationality.
Being a constitutional "citizen" per the Fourteenth Amendment is associated with nationality, not domicile.
Allegiance is associated with nationality, not domicile. Allegiance is what makes one a "subject" of a country.
Your personal and municipal rights, meaning CONSTITUTIONAL rights, associate with your choice of legal domicile, not your nationality or what country you are a subject of or have allegiance to.
Being a statutory "citizen" is associated with domicile, not nationality, because it is associated with being an inhabitant RATHER than a "subject".
A statutory "alien" under most acts of Congress is a person with a foreign DOMICILE, not a foreign NATIONALITY. By "foreign", we mean:
8.1 Nationality context: OUTSIDE of COUNTRY United States.
8.2 Domicile context: OUTSIDE of federal territory and the exclusive federal jurisdiction, and NOT outside the Constitutional United States (states of the Union).


As you have alluded to probably best not to be a citizen of either type. fB

[David Merrill]

I was saying that federal employee and US citizen are synomimous.

David, I find your interpretation of the 13 amendment interesting.

paraphased. no citizen can receive any type of title etc from another entity and remain a citizen.

And will not be allowed to hold a public office.

I am saying that no US employee can accept gifts or titles from foreign powers. That makes a lot more sense. If they are being paid by the US then they cannot accept pay from other state or national dignitaries. Conflict of interest.

I think that this clears up a lot of confusion in interpreting the writings you import. A state citizen is a state employee. A US citizen is a federal employee. Do you have government-issued ID?

[Frederick Burrell]

David I understand the conflict of interest part of your post

In regards to the citizen are you saying that only employees are citizens, if so how do you make the leap that having an ID of some sort, makes you an employee of the government. I have never had an ID issued by the government. I have a driver license, a pass port, had a SS card, but no ID.

EMPLOYEE. One who is authorized to act for another; a mandatory.

http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_e.htm

Am I or you authorized to act for the government. I can see where they (government workers and elected officials) are employees and authorized to act for another.

Just trying to get some sort of Idea of your thought process on this. I am not seeing it at this point.

I could understand if you were saying that a driver license or passport bound you to them in some contractual way. Does contracting with them make you an employee.

[David Merrill]

David I understand the conflict of interest part of your post

In regards to the citizen are you saying that only employees are citizens, if so how do you make the leap that having an ID of some sort, makes you an employee of the government. I have never had an ID issued by the government. I have a driver license, a pass port, had a SS card, but no ID.

EMPLOYEE. One who is authorized to act for another; a mandatory.

http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_e.htm

Am I or you authorized to act for the government. I can see where they (government workers and elected officials) are employees and authorized to act for another.

Just trying to get some sort of Idea of your thought process on this. I am not seeing it at this point.

I could understand if you were saying that a driver license or passport bound you to them in some contractual way. Does contracting with them make you an employee.

Good point. A driver license is not an ID. However, all officers believe that it can suffice as an ID and that is the same thing.

[Frederick Burrell]

Good point. A driver license is not an ID. However, all officers believe that it can suffice as an ID and that is the same thing.

Can't disagree on that point. They do. But on to the employee issue. Do you not want to discuss it in this venue. fB