Subject: Right to travel 2/7

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 95 21:46:23 -0700

[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]

     public.  The rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of
     acquiring and protecting reputation and property, - and, in general,
     of attaining objects suitable to their condition, without injury to
     another, are the rights of a citizen; and all men by nature have them.
          Douglass, Adm'r., v. Stephens, Delaware Chancery, Vol. 1, Page
     470 (1821)

     These are the rights inherent in Sovereign Citizenship.  So long as we
remained Citizens, they couldn't be taken away from us.  So the key was to
take our Citizenship away from us.

ARTICLE #2 - Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship

     If you look through the copy of the United States constitution found
in the 1990 edition of Black's Law Dictionary, you'll notice something very
interesting.  The word "Citizen" is always capitalized until you get to the
fourteenth amendment, which was adopted in 1868.  After that, it's no
longer capitalized.  This isn't an isolated occurrence either.  In the
definition of "Dred Scott Case," a supreme court case decided before the
fourteenth amendment, they capitalize "Citizen," but everywhere else in the
dictionary, where it refers to the laws of today, the word isn't
capitalized.  As you shall see, this is just one small indicator of many
that the fourteenth amendment created a new class of citizen.
     This is certainly no secret to the legal community.  In fact, under
the definition of "Fourteenth Amendment" it says, "The Fourteenth Amendment
of the Constitution of the United States... creates... a citizenship of the
United States as distinct from that of the states..."  This class of
"citizen of the United States" was new; it was unknown to the constitution
prior to 1868.  This wasn't the status of our forefathers.
     In the first sentence of the definition of "United States" found in
Black's, it says, "This term has several meanings."  Pursuing this further,
we find that one of the definitions is the "collective name of the states
which are united by and under the Constitution."  This is what the framers
of the constitution meant by "Citizen of the United States" - that is, the
Citizen of one state is to be considered and treated as a Citizen of every
other state in the union.
     Used in another sense, though, the term is simply the name of the
federal government.  This is what is meant by "citizen of the United States
in the fourteenth amendment":

          Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects
     only those rights peculiar to being citizen of federal government; it
     does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.
          Jones v. Temmer, Federal Supplement, Vol. 829, Page 1227 (1993)

     From the authorities above, we can see that the fourteenth amendment
created citizenship of the federal government.  This status is a privilege
granted by the government:

          Citizenship is a political status, and may be defined and
     privilege limited by Congress.
          Ex Parte (NG) Fung Sing, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 6,
     Page 670 (1925)

     It goes without saying that the federal government can regulate the
privileges it creates.  By definition, "citizenship" is the basis of a
person's relationship with the government.  In the legal sense, everything
else is built upon it.  Therefore, since fourteenth amendment citizenship
is a privilege, every aspect of the citizen's life could potentially be
regulated.  Worst of all, this new class of citizen does not have the right
to invoke the protections of the Bill of Rights, as explained in the
following supreme court case:

          We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that 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.  They were decided subsequently to the adoption of
     the Fourteenth Amendment...
          Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)

     This isn't an idea peculiar to the turn of the century either.  Going
back to the 'Jones' case, which was decided in 1993, we find the courts of
today saying, "The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of
the Bill of Rights not protects all rights of individual citizens."
     Although fourteenth amendment citizens have no guaranteed access to
the Bill of Rights, the amendment itself does state that they have certain
"privileges and immunities."  Here's what the supreme court has decided
they are:

          Privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, on
     the other hand, are only such as arise out of the nature and essential
     character of the national government, or are specifically granted or
     secured to all citizens or persons by the Constitution of the United
     States.  Slaughter-House Cases, supra, p.79; Re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436,
     448, 34 L.ed. 519, 524, 10 Sup. Ct.Rep. 930; Duncan v. Missouri, 152
     U.S. 377, 382, 38 L.ed. 485, 487, 14 Sup.Ct.Rep. 570.  Thus, among the
     rights and privileges of national citizenship recognized by this court
     are the right to pass freely from state to state (Crandall v. Nevada,
     6 Wall. 35, 18 L.ed. 75); the right to petition Congress for a redress
     of grievances (United States v. Cruikshank, supra); the right to vote
     for national officers (Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 28 L.ed. 274,
   [ Continued In Next Message... ]