Exploring the destruction of liberty

The next step in our journey along the path of discovery about why the Utah Supreme Court feels the 14^th Amendment is an element of destruction of state sovereignty, takes us into the Constitution for the Unites States of America. But before we go there I want to take a side path with a few related statements from the United States Supreme concerning citizenship. They should serve to bolster the understanding that citizenship status is very important for freedom to survive.

First, “The power of Congress to regulate naturalization under the 14^th Amendment of the Unites States Constitution does not include the power to restrict the effect of birth to constitute a sufficient and complete right of the citizenship as declared by the Constitution.” (emphasis mine) United States v. Wong Kim Ark

The main point of this ruling is that you and I, as natural born Americans, do not need the 14^th Amendment to lay claim to all of our constitutionally protected rights. Our rights as natural born American citizens exist just the same as they did prior to the creation of the special class of federal citizen created by Congress through the 14^th Amendment.

Next “In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship.” Afroyim v. Rusk

If it is true that the federal citizen operates under federal jurisdiction, different or even more so than the sovereign state citizen, then the government must still recognize the reality and existence of the sovereign state citizen and not try to remove that status in favor of another status (i.e. federal citizen). Review the Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections from the previous post. Again, we do not need federal citizenship to have a proper relationship with our government.

Here is one that will bake your noodle. It is also from the Afroyim v. Rusk case. “The Fourteenth Amendment citizenship is one which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it and, which, once acquired, cannot be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the states, or any other governmental unit.” Once you are a federal citizen nobody can take it from you – but you can relinquish it. You can give it up!

Finally, before we go on to the Constitution, here is a huge ruling. You need to let this one sink in – think about what it is telling you. “Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.” Jones v. Temmer (1993) (emphasis mine) Note the date of this statement.

Clearly, the High Court has stated that federal citizenship and state citizenship are two very different things and that the privileges and immunities clause only applies to federal citizens. What? If this be so then why do we constantly appeal to the 14^th Amendment to protect our rights? And why does, did, the Utah Supreme court think the Amendment was deleterious to state sovereignty?

Within striking distance,

The rattlesnake

Exploring the destruction of liberty

At the close of the last post I asked the question. If the rights of the citizens of the states are not under consideration in the 14^th Amendment then what type of citizen is under consideration in the Amendment? To answer this we must first understand precisely what the 14^th Amendment was designed to do. The United States Supreme Court of 1873, just five years after the creation of the amendment, gave us the reason for the amendment:

"The history and aim of the 14th Amendment is well known, and the purpose had in view by its adoption, well understood. That purpose was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States who could not be brought within the operation of the naturalization laws because (of being) native born; and whose birth, though native, had at the same time left them without the status of citizenship. These persons were not white persons, but were, in the main, persons of African descent who had been held in slavery in this country or, if having themselves never been held in slavery, were the native-born descendants of slaves." Van Valkenberg v. Brown (1872),43 Cal. Sup. Ct. 43, 47. (Emphasis added.)

Plainly the amendment was written to give to the black slaves a citizenship of some type. Since the states would not recognize the slave’s natural born status nor would the state allow for naturalization citizenship, these people were left with no legal status of any kind. Ergo, the congress, through the 14^th Amendment created a special class of citizen which came to be known as a resident or citizens of the United States. This citizenship status was a citizen of the federal government. So following the 14^th Amendment passage the country now had three types of legal citizenship statuses; natural born, naturalized and federal, citizenships. The statements of the high court in the following cases confirm this as fact.

“The term resident and citizen of the United States are distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by congress.” U.S. v. Anthony

“A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government . . . “Kitchens v. Steele

“Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a Citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.” Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections (1966)

Now, after the 14^th passage, the term United States citizens could mean any one of three statuses. Note that the first two statuses are grounded in the sovereignty of the states but the special class of federal citizen is grounded in the jurisdiction of the federal government. Also note that the court was very clear that the citizenship resulting from natural born status in a sovereign state was specifically different from that of the federal citizen. And the die is cast for the iteration of the Utah Supreme Court.

How do these truths affect the sovereign rights of the states and individual people?

Within striking distance,

The rattlesnake

Exploring the destruction of liberty

“ In regard to the Fourteenth Amendment, which the present Supreme Court of the United States has by decision chosen as a basis for invading the rights and the prerogative of the sovereign states, . . . “

Supreme Court of Utah, March 22, 1968

Gerald J. Dyett v. John W. Turner

The 14^th Amendment is arguably the most misunderstood of all of the amendments following the first ten. What does the Utah High court mean, or refer to, with its bold statement? It means, plainly, that the 14^th Amendment in its current application(s), at least by 1968, which is not exactly ancient history, is being used to destroy the rights and Constitutional powers of the sovereign states. This is a remarkable statement, one that might be expected to emanate from the lips of a wild-eyed right wing anti-government type -- certainly not from a body as distinguished and learned as the Utah Supreme Court.

To obtain a grasp of the court’s meaning we must examine another statement made by the United States Supreme Court, one made just five years after the creation of the 14^th Amendment.

“The rights of Citizens of the States, as such, are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment. They (the rights of the state citizens of the state) stand as they did before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment and are fully guaranteed by other provisions.” United States v. 24 Federal Cases (1873) emphasis mine.

Prior to the 14^th Amendment there existed two citizenship statuses in America; the natural born citizen and the naturalized citizen. Both of these statuses originated in the states. A person was first a citizen of a sovereign state and ipso facto, citizens of the United States by virtue of the nexus between the states and their agent the United States. The “other provisions” spoken of are the provisions of the Constitution for the United States of America. If the state citizens are protected by the Constitution of the Unites States, but the 14^th amendment does not take these citizens into consideration with it’s articulation of rights, then who, or better asked, what citizen is the 14^th Amendment considering? The answer to this question is the crux of the Utah Supreme Court’s statement.

I will reach into this topic on the next blog post. Stay tuned.

Within striking distance,

The rattlesnake