The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, redirected to Tax protester (United States). Nandesuka (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen of the several states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is a hoax, or more specifically, tax protester nonsense, incorrectly (and with breathtaking stupidity) mis-stating the law to contend that someone may be either a citizen of the U.S. or a citizen of an individual state therein, but not both. In other words, the article argues that people who are citizens of Texas or Indiana or Wyoming are therefore not U.S. Citizens. If the erroneous contentions are removed, then this article would be nothing more than a duplicate of material in United States nationality law, so it should be deleted outright as a hoax bd2412 T 07:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: I've added some corrected info at the beginning, but the article is still useless, and mostly nonsense. bd2412 T 08:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I learned something from this article. :-) Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not if you read past the first three paragraphs. bd2412 T 09:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Fine, then we delete everything except the first three paragraphs. This debate is about the legitmacy of the article per se. StAnselm (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we delete everything except the first three paragraphs, we're stuck with a duplication of material covered in Tax protester constitutional arguments. bd2412 T 15:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete In the most accepted legal definition Citizen of the Several States refers only to what would equate to, in modern terms, as federal citizens. At the time the phrase was in use the colonies had declared independence but not ratified a constitution, therefore no better legal phrase to describe a federal citizenship existed [1]. This article, while it presents an interesting interpretation of the law is nothing but WP:SOAP and WP:POV. I don't think there is enough non-controversial information presented in this article to allow for anything beyond stubbing if clean-up was attempted, therefor I suggest deletion.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Upon further reading I am also willing to argue that this article constitutes WP:OR based upon interpretation of case law. Wikipedia relies on the ability to verify information in third-party reliable sources and all the information in the article in question appears to be based on speculation of case law instead of verifiable facts. In google searches [2] the phrase "citizen of the several" either appears in pages devoted to this "debate" or as passing mentions in which the phrase IS NOT defined as a separate class of citizenship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchwoodwho (talk • contribs) 11:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am ammending my argument to include WP:HOAX and WP:CB based upon Gettingitdone's open letter in this AFD. From reading his statements and provided case law I can see no evidence to support his claims of a third and unique class of citizenship. I see no statement from the court clearly making a statement to the effect of "Citizen of the United States, Citizen of a State and Citizen of the Several States shall each be governed by unique jurisdictions" Gettingitdone's references merely reference two at a time, not all three. This is VERY important in determining whether all three do in fact exist concurrently or exclusively.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:POV. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't know why we're debating the merits of the theory. The fact that it exists, some people hold it, and that publications mention it, suggests to me that we should have an article on it. The article doesn't necessarily have to be POV, and even if the author of the article is Dan Goodman (which would be poor form), he has actually published on it. StAnselm (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR. Articles on Wikipedia should not find theories and cite primary sources to support them, but instead write about theories and cite secondary sources by reliable publishers for those theories. This article clearly does the former though, it does some reasoning - mainly using various court findings as primary sources - to show something (I must admit, I couldn't really follow). A valid encyclopedic article would instead summarize the results of the theory and cite secondary sources for them. Seeing how the author of the first paragraph (which does have encyclopedic style and could lead to an article) gave up and initiated this AfD, I doubt such sources exist. If they are found, a new article about the topic can be created any time. --Minimaki (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I think it's a valid topic about a legal argument that has been raised, and which federal courts have had to actually address before rejecting it. I'm hoping that some of the participants here will learn that (a) not to accuse someone of a hoax unless your attempts at verification come back empty; (b) not to "take someone's addition off" or to otherwise edit out someone else's comments (a definite no-no); (c) emphasizing your point in BIG BOLD LETTERS may attract attention to you, but not to your argument; and finally (d) don't let personality conflicts overshadow where you stand on the topic being discussed. Mandsford (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete. If it were actually used by the courts with a meaning distinct from "citizens of the states", it might be notable term. But the commentary is, as noted, completely false original tax protester rhetoric; in fact, almost every word other than direct quotes from court decisions is incorrect. The lead is now approximately correct. But if the lead were the only thing to be kept, it would fall under WP:NOT (legal) DICT. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:OR – ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Prohibited original research, Also, although the creator of this article may not have realized it, this idea -- that you can be a citizen of a state and yet not be a citizen of the United States -- is indeed part of a hoax perpetrated by tax protesters. No court has ever upheld such a theory. Editor BD2412 has documented the tax protester connection by adding the link to You're not a "citizen" under the Internal Revenue Code. This is a web site run by Christopher M. Hansen of San Diego (not to be confused with the Christopher Hansen of Nevada, another individual allegedly connected with tax protester activity). Christopher M. Hansen is current the subject of a federal court order, including a permanent injunction, in connection with his activities and his web sites, www.famguardian.org (Family Guardian) and www.sedm.org (Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry). The United States District Court for the Southern District of California order is "Amended Order Re: Motions/Order Entering Permanent Injunction," at docket entry 105, entered December 13, 2006, in United States of America v. Christopher M. Hansen, case no. 05cv0921-L(CAB). The court order specifically states: "Defendant Christopher M. Hansen conducts business and promotes a number of tax-fraud schemes under two names or entities: the Family Guardian and the Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry [ . . .]" Amended Order, p. 1. "The evidence before the Court conclusively establishes that the Defendant knows or should know that the theories under which he urges others to avoid paying federal income taxes are false or fraudulent." Amended Order, p. 16. This is oversimplified, but one of Hansen's arguments is that a person can avoid paying federal income tax because the person is a citizen (or "national") of a state, but not of the United States. See, for example, the chart at item 10.1, table 9, page 57, at Why You are a National or State National and Not a U.S. Citizen, a rambling, convoluted, ninety-page document, where Hansen contends that an individual born in a "State of the Union" is a "non-resident alien," and not a "citizen" -- for purposes of 26 USC/the Internal Revenue Code -- complete with citations to the Internal Revenue Code and the Code of Federal Regulations that in no way support his laughable theories. Famspear (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt - another recrudescence of the usual tax-protestor lawquackery. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Delete out the original research, (presently 95% of the article), and what is left is already covered in the Tax protester (United States) article. Articles like this give Wikipedia a bad reputation for being too far on a fringe. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The very title is nonsense. In the English language, as opposed to whatever language these people speak, "the citizens of the several states" simply means the citizens of Alaska and the citizens of Alabama and the citizens of Arkansas, etc., taken together. There aren't three kinds of citizenship but two, and anybody born or naturalised in the USA, and who lives in some particular state, and who isn't a foreign ambassador or something similar, has both. -- Zsero (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article in dispute is clearly making a tax protester argument regarding citizenship. Because that violates the NPOV policy and because the article incorrectly describes American citizenship, it should be deleted. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with fire complete bollocks. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Poorly-written tax protester gibberish, and incorrect as a matter of law. --Eastlaw (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to clarify my earlier comment: the only place I have ever seen this theory, which is pure pseudolaw, is on the websites of far-right militia and tax protester groups. It has absolutely no currency in the courts or legal scholarship. --Eastlaw (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The matter is a notable point of constitutional law and is obviously not a hoax. The fact that it excites controversy is all the more reason to include it, c.f. Roe vs Wade. The topic is also interesting in the context of the developing European Union. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be incorrect, but I, personally, have been using the terms controversy and theory as means of being politically correct in this AFD process. I don't want to confuse the issue that this is nothing more than a fringe misconception and not an actual point of controversy within the law of the United States. This isn't even a commonly held misconception. If the article is to stay it must include language that makes it clear that there being three classes of citizenship isn't a valid theory of constitutional interpretation and that the notion is simply an urban legend. After an exhausting two days of researching this, from scratch, I believe that the article is simply not factual.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia contains much that is not factual - all the articles on fiction, for example. It also contains articles on real world hoaxes and misconceptions such as Flat Earth and Piltdown Man. All that matters for our purposes is whether this constitutional theory, right or wrong, has some substance outside of Wikipedia, and it seems that it does. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that this theory has any substance, it is properly covered at Tax protester constitutional arguments. bd2412 T 09:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That may well be a sensible merger but deletion is not required to achieve this. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel, there is plenty of COVERAGE of fiction in Wikipedia, but that does not mean that the substance of those articles is fiction. For example, I can say Spider-Man is a wall-crawling superhero in the Marvel Comics Universe and that statement is complete fact. Also, this article makes a confusing circular argument based upon court cases. The article's point is so confusing that even in this AFD multiple editors are trying to understand the point the main article editor is trying to make. At some points the title is explained to mean a third type of citizenship, at others it's about mutual exclusivity related to citizenship... it's completed unclear what the point of the article is. If there is an argument to be made about either of those points it can be addressed in a more appropriate article. If I look up the phrase "Citizen of the Several States" I want to know what the phrase actually means. What has been explained here is that it means, at its core, a plural form of Citizen of a single state... which in and of itself can be explained in another article on citizenship, if it's even an important enough issue to cover.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to an appropriate article discussing tax protester arguments, as that destination would probably be of greatest interest to someone searching on this phrase (which is the best test of what a useful redirect would be). As for the merits of the constitutional argument presented, the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is dispositive: "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." Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)C[reply]
• Delete Although I initially voted for a keep as a valid topic, I have no faith in the topic in the hands of its author. Ironically, "getting it done" means finishing a job quickly and efficiently. The sooner that this debate can be closed, the better. Mandsford (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even if you accept that the use of this term in this context is a Hoax (which I do not stipulate), some hoaxes are still notable if they receive independent coverage. My concern here is that the facts of the article amount to a synthesis of the various court cases and analyses presented, and not an overview of the independent sources listed. We can say that "Court case X read as follows:", but not that "Court case X read as follows, which means that...". There is interpretation here, which is outside the bounds of WP:NPOV. I must note, though, that the author of the article has put together an extremely well-written piece, with extensive research and finely-worded information - but, unfortunately, I don't think there is a place for this article in this form. I also note that the debate below is absolutely fascinating, but serves only to confirm the presence of synthesis in the article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with prejudice. Colonel Warden's keep amounts to "keep because it says stuff. To justify an article on a controversy the controversy itself has to be important as justified by third party reliable sources. The proponents for keeping have offered no correctly cited sources supporting the claims maid in the article or the importance of its topic. Per WP:V we cannot keep it. Man bd and Famspear, you guys have the patience of Job. I don't know where or why people dig up such garbage. - Taxman ^Talk 03:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bd24112,

I have taken your addition off. You obviously did not read this article. If you did you would have seen that this article is based on citizenship. There are three citizenships in this country: citizenship of the United States, citizenship of the several states, and citizenship of a state. Taxes has nothing to do with this article. Your action was, therefore, unjustified.

I will report you to Wikipedia if you do this again. I suggest you read this article. It has references to Supreme Court cases, documents of our forefathers and other sources, including acts of Congress. --Gettingitdone (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gettingitdone, you are putting forth a legally incorrect decision, one that is in fact utterly false and nonsensical. Pursuant to the discussion at Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment, such nonsense may be deleted on site. The fact that you don't mention taxes in the article is besides the point, as this argument is only ever used (although without success) by tax protesters and their ilk.
I have only taken the step of listing this on AFD because it is important that the community see and respond to these attacks on Wikipedia's credibility. Since you claim that the article is "based on citizenship", that alone is reason to delete it as a POV fork of the existing article on U.S. citizenship. Your sources are, of course, completely misconstrued, and intentionally so.
But, if you disagree, please feel free to report me to Wikipedia. Be sure to notify Mike Godwin, general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, and Wikipedia's Chair Emeritus, Jimbo Wales. I'm sure they will rush to your defense. Cheers! bd2412 T 08:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

bd24112,

I intend to do so. I noticed that you took off the very first line on this page, which is a Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett, which holds that there are citizens of the several states and citizens of the United States. So you take off what is the intitial proof of the article and put your unrelated and innapprioprate material on and thereby change the whole purpose of the article.

We will see who get removed.  ::--Gettingitdone (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's just style. You start an encyclopedia article with a description of the topic in your own words, not with a quote from someone else's. The Minor v. Happersett has no bearing on your argument, as that case does not contend that a person could be a citizen of a state but not of the United States. bd2412 T 09:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To all,

I am concluding that what is said by the Supreme Court of the United States on the topic of a citizen of the several states would matter to you.

On this point there is the following from the Supreme Court of the United States:

“The intention of section 2, Article IV (of the Constitution), was to confer on the citizens of the several States a general citizenship.” Cole v. Cunningham: 133 U.S. 107, 113-114 (1890).

This case was decided after the Slaughterhouse Cases (1890) to (1873).

In addition, the following was removed by BD2412, from the top of my article:

“Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.” Minor v. Happersett: 88 U.S. 162, 165 (1874).

This is another Supreme Court case decided after the Slaughterhouse Cases."

There is also the following from the Slaughterhouse Cases:

"The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established...

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section, 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 of citizens of the several states. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause (that is Section 2, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment) are the same.” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 73-74.

And, from another Supreme Court case decided after the Slaughterhouse Cases. there is:

“In the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 21 L. ed. 394, the subject of the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, as distinguished from those of a particular state, was treated by Mr. Justice Miller in delivering the opinion of the court. He stated that the argument in favor of the plaintiffs, claiming that the ordinance of the city of New Orleans was invalid, rested wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment are the same as to citizens of the United States and citizens of the several states. This he showed to be not well founded; that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual." Maxwell v. Dow: 176 U.S. 581, 587-588 (1900).

Citizen of the several States is therefore a legal term.

In addition, this article has nothing to do with taxes. It deals with citizenship. Sources are referred to including but not limited to: Supreme Court cases, documents of our forefatheres, and acts of Congress. --Gettingitdone (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To all,

I went through BD2412 reference to Wikipedia's Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment, and found nothing in it, by way of "theory" of citizenship, to the issue of federal income taxes. The closest thing is that the Fourteenth Amendment was not properly ratified, which is NOT present in my article. --Gettingitdone (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • The AFD will be closed by an administrator who decides upon the consensus of the community as represented by arguments of Wikipedia policy. Your arguments, although perfectly logical to you, do not speak to the concerns of the community regarding WP:OR, WP:SOAP, WP:POV, WP:HOAX or other policies in question. Please familiarize yourself with the policies of Wikipedia before demanding ridiculous actions such as having this AFD removed immediately. Furthermore, all good Wikipedians have done their due diligence in discussing this AFD by looking at both the article, the supporting discussions on Wikipedia AND through outside sources. I for one have nothing to do with these tax debates as you can see from my edit history. I urge you not to use words like "bogus" in regards to these proceedings because although I do not agree with your stand on whether this article should be kept or not it your words make you seem irrational and undermine your arguments. I think we all want a fair proceeding and by making open letters and proclamations of the validity of the AFD proceeding you do nothing but weight the argument against you. Lastly, the reasoning for the proposed deletion is that the case law you cite does not clearly state your case. From a reasonable perspective you must admit that no court or governing body has any definitive statement on the validity of this theory. Since there is no clear indication of truth to the way the arguments are represented in the article we are in a position to have to decide whether this article should be left intact. Due to the passion you display in regards to this article and in other discussions I am hard-pressed to believe that any modifications to this article to represent a balanced, verifiable point of view would result in anything but editing-warring and or stubbing I am proposing deletion. The theory, as proposed and disputed allowing for balance, exists as a section of other existing wikipedia pages. This means that there are other places on this site in which a balanced viewpoint on this theory is accessible to the public. I am adding to my previous Deletion request that the closing admin also salt this article or otherwise protect it from recreation for a certain amount of time. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To all,

Above I quoted and cited cases from the Supreme Court relating to a citizen of the several States. Here are some from the Supreme Court which relate to a citizen of a state.

“. . . The act was considered in Johnson v. United States, 160 U.S. 546, 16 Sup. Ct. 377, and we there held that a person who was not a citizen of the United States at the time of an alleged appropriation of his property by a tribe of Indians was not entitled to maintain an action in the court of claims under the act in question. There was not in that case, however, any assertion that the claimant was a citizen of a state, as distinguished from a citizen of the United States.” United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company: 164 U.S. 686, 688 (1897).

The Supreme Court makes a distinction between a citizen of a state and a citizen of the United States.

In addition, there is the following:

“. . . In the Constitution and laws of the United States the word 'citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense, to designate one who has the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State OR of the United States.” Baldwin v. Franks: 120 U.S. 678, 690 (1887); reaffirmed, Collins v. Hardyman: 341 U.S. 651, 658-659 (1950); Griffen v. Breckenridge: 403 U.S. 88, 93-95 (1971).

Also:

“. . . There is no inherent right in a citizen to thus sell intoxicating liquors by retail; it is not a privilege of a citizen of a State OR of a citizen of the United States.” Crowley v. Christensen: 137 U.S. 86, 91 (1890).

And:

". . . Unquestionably, in the general and common acceptation, a citizen of the state is considered as synonymous with citizen of the United States, and the one is therefore treated as expressive of the other. This flows from the fact that the one is normally and usually the other, and where such is not the case it is purely exceptional and uncommon." United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company: 164 U.S. 686, 688 (1877).

From the Slaughterhouse Cases there is the following:

“The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established. . . .

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual." Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873).

Therefore, citizen of a state is a legal term.

And, as stated at my first entry there are three citizenship in this country; citizenship of the United States, citizenship of the several States, and citizenship of a state. To this I will add that privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States are in the 14th Amendment, privileges and immunities of a citizen of the several States are located at Article IV, Section 2 and privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state are to be found in the constitution and laws of an individual State. --Gettingitdone (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To all,

Now that I have given legal authority, I will now address other issues. My article does not in WP:POV violate local bias. Legal authority is quoted and cited (and link to in most cases). In addition, the views expressed are not my but those of the legal sources. I have provided additional legal sources to further support those views in my article. As I have stated before this article is on citizenship and NOT taxes. Assuming the obvious is obviously not being violated since nothing is assumed in my article. Pseudonyms has not been violated. Other points really doesn't apply. English language also really doesn't apply. Under Basic writing I do not see a problem especially regarding being "unbalanced" since althought the article treats citizenship of the several states, citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state are also included. And Other areas really doesn't apply. So I am left with the conclusion that WP:POV in not being violated, in whole, at all. --Gettingitdone (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To all,

I will now address the issue of an hoax WP.HOAX. "A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real." Such is not the case here. Legal authority has been provided which provide the basis for my article. Note: court cases, acts of Congress, and other sources like the Congressional Globe are considered published documents. An article was also referred to: Dan Goodman, "Slaughterhouse Cases, Two Citizens"; December 1, 2007; The New Media Journal.us at http://therant.us/guest/d_goodman/12012007.htm . A published piece. There is no trickery.

Just because one does not know of something does not make it non-existent. I at first, was unaware of what is now in this article. However, I kept my mind open and pursued it further and was surprised at what I found. In a way it is like finding out the Earth is round instead of being flat. You took the journey to the edge of the Earth to see if it is really flat, knowing that it might not be and found out that it was indeed round and not flat. --Gettingitdone (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To all,

In WP.CB it reads "It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." However, I will make a comment. The terms that used in my work are not complete bollocks. Legal authority is provided in the article and has been provided in this Talk. Turning the table around, if I was to say what is a citizen of the United States, Amendment 14 of the Constitution of the United States would be cited, and if pressed further reference to the Slaughterhouse Cases, would have been made. Both are legal documents, both are published, and both have the terms citizen of the United States or United States citizen in them. --Gettingitdone (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To all,

WP.OR relates to unpublished original research or original thought. My work is the expression of the legal sources included. As stated in reference to WP.HOAX "Legal authority has been provided which provide the basis for my article. Note: court cases, acts of Congress, and other sources like the Congressional Globe are considered published documents. An article was also referred to: Dan Goodman, "Slaughterhouse Cases, Two Citizens"; December 1, 2007; The New Media Journal.us at http://therant.us/guest/d_goodman/12012007.htm . A published piece." Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability are therefore satisfied. This piece has been written in objective manner. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is therefore also satisfied. --Gettingitdone (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the article is about status of citizenship why should this article stand on its own and not be part of United States nationality law if it is in-fact accurate that there are three distinct citizenships?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I finished reading United States nationality law. This article deals, in essence, with an act of Congress. Granted, it relates to the Constitution of the United States, but it does not deal with the provisions of the Constitution of the United States as my article does. I think the contributor would agree with me that his or his piece is substantially different from my, even though they both deal with citizenship.

You would be putting an apple with an orange. Even though they are a fruit, they are not the same. Similiar yes, the same no. --Gettingitdone (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • From the article itself: "As a citizen of the several States, a citizen of a State had the same rights and privileges (in general) as the citizens of the State in which he was in. And, as a citizen of the United States, the Bill of Rights and constitutional provisions and amendments plus the laws of the United States contained them." I see no basis for the support of this statement in the Slaugheterhouse quote... specifically here... "and so important in their bearing upon the relations of the United States and of the several States to each other, and to the citizens of the states and of the United States," Furthermore, in reading this quote from Slaughterhouse "We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section, 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 of citizens of the several states." I can not in good faith say that I believe the court is using "citizens of the states" or "citizens of the several states" as anything other than a plural to include all citizens of all states. Please Explain, in layman's terms, why my argument is false.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC),

You have to read Footnote 1 and not the Slaughterhouse Case reference. BD2412 remove the first line which was:

"Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision." [1] (1)

Footnotes:

(1) "Before . . .

Reference:

[1] ^ Minor v. Happersett,88 U.S. 162, 165 (1874).

I am still reading United States nationality law. --Gettingitdone (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following Supreme Court case should answer your concern:

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

Note at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States it states:

"The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens IN the several states."

Words in law are chosen carefully. Citizens OF the several states is not the same as citizens IN the several states. Citizen of the several states refers to a citizen of the several states and not a citizen of a state. This is shown in Cole v. Cunningham:

“The intention of section 2, Article IV (of the Constitution), was to confer on the citizens OF the several States a general citizenship.” Cole v. Cunningham: 133 U.S. 107, 113-114 (1890).

--Gettingitdone (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please expand on your statement

  "Words in law are chosen carefully. Citizens OF the several states is not the same as citizens IN the several states. Citizen of the several states refers to a citizen of the several states and not a citizen of a state."

  I still see no evidence whatsoever as to your interpretation of the case law in question. Please link to party-neutral evidence that clearly explains this. If you can provide third party evidence of your interpretation, maybe a United States Government booklet on citizenship... maybe direct quotes from academically used text books... maybe a U.S. government website that clearly explains the three types of citizenship, these are all things that can used to verify your claims, but simply interpreting these court cases constitutes WP:OR and perpetuates a WP:HOAX or worse WP:CB. If there is a U.S. government sanctioned third type of citizenship I feel that the article needs to clearly define all three types of citizenship and the differences thereof based upon approved academic and official government sources, otherwise it is just a "theory" and a controversial one at that which should in no way be presented as factual information.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a case:

"The expression, Citizen of a State, is carefully omitted here. In Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution of the United States, it had been already provided that 'the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.' The rights of Citizens of the States (under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1) and of citizens of the United States (under The Fourteenth Amendment) are each guarded by these different provisions. That these rights are separate and distinct, was held in the Slaughterhouse Cases, recently decided by the Supreme court. The rights of Citizens of the State, as such, are not under consideration in the Fourteenth Amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions." United States v. Anthony: 24 Fed. Cas. 829, 830 (Case No. 14,459) (1873).

--Gettingitdone (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I have taken the liberty of researching more in-depth into the sources cited in the article. Beginning with the further reading entitled "Privileges and Immunities of a Citizen of the Several States" it states in the opening paragraph " Under the Constitution of the United States, there are two citizens. They are a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the several States. "

This clearly states there are two types of citizenship, not three. Ignoring the case law as citations, which I feel we can because no one is disputing the results of those cases or the looking at the cases from an academic standpoint in this article... we are in essence debating the language... I will move on to Jacob Howard, Congressional Globe...

"It has in view some results beneficial to the citizens of the several States, or it would not be found there; yet I am not aware that the Supreme Court have ever undertaken to define either the nature or extent of the privileges and immunities thus guarantied. . ."

This illustrates that the author does not understand there to be three classes of citizenship, and if so he doesn't know what the differences are. This source is from 1866 in in context refers to interstate commerce right. In the citation for Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Papers the direct quote referencing Citizens of the Several States is thus,

"It may be esteemed the basis of the union, that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states."

I can see no reference suggesting that the use of the phrase is distinct from citizens of the united states or citizen of a state in plural. The Joseph Story citation opens with the statement

"The first is, "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

I am again at a loss for how this is interpreted as a unique and distinct classification of citizenship. In the final citation in question the document refers to the differences between political and civil rights of freed black and is in substance

"that the word white be stricken out. Chancellor Kent supported this motion and among other reasons suggested that the exclusion of negroes might be opposed to the constitution of the United States, which provided that 'the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states."

I again, there is no single statement put forward in this citation that defines three unique classes of citizenship. I therefore conclude that this article desperately needs better citations to bolster the argument that there is a third classification of citizenship and not merely a debate over semantics.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Torchwoodwho|talk 08:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You have made an ettor. You have concluded that a citizen of the states is the same as a citizen of a state from the case U.S. v. Anthony. This is incorrect as shown in my artice at "Citizenship of the several States after the Fourteenth Amendment" There it is shown that the term is the same as a citizen of the several states in the Slaughterhouse Casse. To wit:

"Citizenship of the several States after the Fourteenth Amendment"

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, The Supreme Court of the United States decided in the Slaughterhouse Cases ^[1] that because of the Fourteenth Amendment there were now two separate and distinct citizens under the Constitution of the United States (and not the Fourteenth Amendment): a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the several States;

To wit:

"We do not conceal from ourselves the great responsibility which this duty devolves upon us. No questions so far reaching and pervading in their consequences, so profoundly interesting to the people of this country, and so important in their bearing upon the relations of the United States and of the several States to each other, and to the citizens of the states and of the United States, have been before this court during the official life of any of its present members. We have given every opportunity for a full hearing at the bar; we have discussed it freely and compared views among ourselves; we have taken ample time for careful deliberation, and we now propose to announce the judgments which we have formed in the construction of those articles, so far as we have found them necessary to the decision of the cases before us, and beyond that we have neither the inclination nor the right to go.” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, at 67.

And:

"The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established...

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section, 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 of citizens of the several states. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause (that is Section 2, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment) are the same.” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 73-74.

Also:

"Fortunately we are not without judicial construction of this clause of the Constitution (that is, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1). The first and the leading case on the subject is that of Corfield v. Coryell ^[2], decided by Mr. Justice Washington in the circuit court for the district of Pennsylvania in 1823. 4 Wash C. C. 371.

'The inquiry,' he says, 'is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States? . . .

This definition of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the states is adopted in the main by this court in the recent case of Ward v. Maryland. . . .

Having shown that the privileges and immunities relied on in the argument are those which belong to citizens of the states as such, and that they are left to the state governments for security and protection, and not by this article placed under the special care of the Federal government, we may hold ourselves excused from defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States which no state can abridge, until some case involving those privileges may make it necessary to do so.” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 75-76, 78-79.

---

See also *Dan Goodman, "Slaughterhouse Cases, Two Citizens"; December 1, 2007; The New Media Journal.us at http://therant.us/guest/d_goodman/12012007.htm a published piece.

--Gettingitdone (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To all,

In the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme Court dealt with two clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment; Section 1, Clause 1 and Section 1, Clause 2. Citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state were treated in Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Citizenship of the United States and citizenship of the several States were covered in Section 1, Clause 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

“. . . [T]o establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States and also citizenship of a state, the 1st clause of the 1st section was framed. . . .

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular state . . .

The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established. . . .

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section (2nd clause of the 1st section), 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 of citizens of the several states. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 72-74.

Moreover, it was decided that citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state were now separate and distinct. Privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state were to be found in the constitution and laws of the individual state. Privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States were to be located at the Fourteenth Amendment.

Also, the Slaughterhouse court concluded that there were now two separate and distinct citizens under the Constitution of the United States (and not the Fourteenth Amendment); a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the several States:

To wit:

“We do not conceal from ourselves the great responsibility which this duty devolves upon us. No questions so far reaching and pervading in their consequences, so profoundly interesting to the people of this country, and so important in their bearing upon the relations of the United States and of the several States to each other, and to the citizens of the states and of the United States, have been before this court during the official life of any of its present members. We have given every opportunity for a full hearing at the bar; we have discussed it freely and compared views among ourselves; we have taken ample time for careful deliberation, and we now propose to announce the judgments which we have formed in the construction of those articles, so far as we have found them necessary to the decision of the cases before us, and beyond that we have neither the inclination nor the right to go.” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, at 67 (1873).

And:

“The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established. . . .

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section (2nd clause of the 1st section), 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 of citizens of the several states. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 73-74.

Also:

“Fortunately we are not without judicial construction of this clause of the Constitution (that is, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1). The first and the leading case on the subject is that of Corfield v. Coryell, decided by Mr. Justice Washington in the circuit court for the district of Pennsylvania in 1823. 4 Wash C. C. 371.

'The inquiry,' he says, 'is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States?. . .

This definition of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the states is adopted in the main by this court in the recent case of Ward v. Maryland. . . .

Having shown that the privileges and immunities relied on in the argument are those which belong to citizens of the states as such, and that they are left to the state governments for security and protection, and not by this article placed under the special care of the Federal government, we may hold ourselves excused from defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States which no state can abridge, until some case involving those privileges may make it necessary to do so.” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 75-76, 78-79.

It is to be observed that the terms “citizens of the states” and “citizens of the several states” are used interchangeably by the Slaughterhouse court. And they are employed in contradistinction to the term “citizens of the United States.”

--Gettingitdone (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gettingitdone: If I'm reading you correctly, you keep saying that "citizen of the United States" and "citizen of the several states" and "citizen of a state" are three separate things.

Here is what "Dan Goodman" says in the material you linked:

Therefore, one can be a citizen of the United States or a citizen of the several States, but not both. [3]

Sorry, but in none of the court cases you cited, and in none of the court cases Dan Goodman cited, did any court ever rule that a person cannot be BOTH a citizen of the United States AND a citizen of "the several States" at the same time. Similarly, in none of the court cases cited did any court ever rule that one cannot be BOTH a citizen of the United States and a citizen of "a state" at the same time. No case. Not once. Not ever.

Think of it this way: The mere fact that "being a father" is not the same as "being a brother" does not mean that I cannot be both at the same time. Yes, they're two different things, with different attributes and responsibilities and rights -- but I can be both a father and a brother at the same time. The mere fact that being a "citizen of the United States" is not the same as being a "citizen of Texas" does not mean that I cannot be both at the same time.

It appears that Goodman is essentially arguing that because "being a citizen of Texas" AND "being a citizen of the United States" are two different things (which of course they are), a person therefore cannot be both at the same time. The argument is completely illogical. And more to the point, none of the courts in the court cases Goodman cited ever made any such ruling.

And as far as the phrase "citizens of the several states," as somehow being a "third class" of citizenship, none of the court cases cited ever contained any ruling that there is a third class of citizenship called "citizens of the several states." The term "citizens of the several states" essentially means, "citizens of the separate, or various, states." This is not rocket science.

There are only two classes of citizenship in the sense in which we are speaking here: state citizenship and national citizenship. Under the Constitution (which of course includes the Fourteenth Amendment), a "citizen of the United States" is automatically a "citizen of the state wherein he or she resides" at a given time. You cannot be a citizen of a state (e.g., Montana) and not also be a United States citizen at the same time. Nothing that Dan Goodman writes, and nothing that you write, will ever change that fundamental legal concept.

I am having a hard time finding any information on the linked web site about "Dan Goodman." What are his qualifications or credentials? Does he have any legal training? Can you find anyone with any legal expertise who has ever made the arguments Dan Goodman is making? I think we are also having a reliable source issue here.

In no federal court case whatsover has any court ever ruled that someone can be a citizen of "a state" and yet not, at the same time, be a "citizen of the United States". So, where is all this leading you? Famspear (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-script: Looking back, it appears that what you and Dan Goodman may be arguing is that there were three classes of citizenship before the 14th Amendment and only two afterward. You are at least correct that there are only two classes of citizenship after the Amendment (if that's what you're arguing). But the basic problem I have identified is: Goodman seems to be confused in his reading of the court cases. Goodman is incorrectly inferring that somehow the courts have ruled that you cannot be both a citizen of the United States AND a citizen of a state at the same time. Goodman is wrong. No court has ever ruled that way, and again the argument has no legal validity. It's nonsensical. Famspear (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Famspear (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that "In no federal court case whatsover has any court ever ruled that someone can be a 'citizen of a state" and yet not, at the same time, be a 'citizen of the United States'.

In an earlier post on this Talk page, --Gettingitdone (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC), I provided legal authority on this point you brought up. I reproduce here:[reply]

The Supreme Court makes a distinction between a citizen of a state and a citizen of the United States.

(As an example), there is the following:

“. . . In the Constitution and laws of the United States the word 'citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense, to designate one who has the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State OR of the United States.” Baldwin v. Franks: 120 U.S. 678, 690 (1887); reaffirmed, Collins v. Hardyman: 341 U.S. 651, 658-659 (1950); Griffen v. Breckenridge: 403 U.S. 88, 93-95 (1971).

Also:

“. . . There is no inherent right in a citizen to thus sell intoxicating liquors by retail; it is not a privilege of a citizen of a State OR of a citizen of the United States.” Crowley v. Christensen: 137 U.S. 86, 91 (1890).

And:

". . . Unquestionably, in the general and common acceptation, a citizen of the state is considered as synonymous with citizen of the United States, and the one is therefore treated as expressive of the other. This flows from the fact that the one is normally and usually the other, and where such is not the case it is purely exceptional and uncommon." United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company: 164 U.S. 686, 688 (1877).

Postscript

I am in total agreement with you that a citizen of the United States can also be a citizen of a state. --Gettingitdone (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This goes back to Famspear's point above about someone being both a father and a brother. You can just as easily say that someone has not lived up to their responsibilities as a father or as a brother. Saying that does not mean that one is exclusive of the other. You can just as easily say that selling liquor is not a privilege to which I am automatically entitled as a resident of Coral Gables or as a resident of Miami-Dade County. It hardly means that being a resident of the former means I am not a resident of the latter, just that each entity can afford me certain rights, but I derive the rights at issue from neither. That is precisely the point the court is making in each of the above quotes, and that is precisely what the Fourteenth Amendment says: "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". In order for you to overcome the plain language of the Constitution, you must make an extraordinary showing of evidence that the word "and" in the amendment means "one or the other, but not both at the same time". You have not provided a single authority which clearly says that, and frankly you will be unable to because it is simply not the case. bd2412 T 05:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To bd2412 T 05:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In my posting at,--Gettingitdone (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC). there was this Supreme Court case:[reply]

“. . . The act was considered in Johnson v. United States, 160 U.S. 546, 16 Sup. Ct. 377, and we there held that a person who was not a citizen of the United States at the time of an alleged appropriation of his property by a tribe of Indians was not entitled to maintain an action in the court of claims under the act in question. There was not in that case, however, any assertion that the claimant was a citizen of a state, as distinguished from a citizen of the United States.” United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company: 164 U.S. 686, 688 (1897).

Here is another case (a state case):

"Under the Fourteenth Amendment all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside, but we find nothing which requires that a citizen of a state must be a citizen of the United States." Crosse v. Board of Supervisory of Election of Baltimore City: 243 Md. 555, 562; 221 A.2d 431, 436 (1966).

From the same Supreme Case above, including citing, is the following:

“... [U]ndoubtedly in a purely technical and abstract sense citizenship of one of the states may not include citizenship of the United States.”

I think this makes it clear that one can be a citizen of a state and not a citizen of the United States. --Gettingitdone (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have misread the cases. Let's take the first one, United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company, 164 U.S. 686 (1897). The issue in that case was whether a corporation was to be considered a "citizen of a state". It was not about a person at all. The statute at issue was one which allowed the Court of Claims to adjudicate "all claims for property of citizens of the United States" taken or destroyed by Indians. The Court specifically states:

"The sole question presented by the appeal, therefore, is as to whether, under a proper construction of the act referred to, a corporation of a State for the purpose of the act is embraced within the designation 'citizens of the United States'".

The Court then finds:

"Unquestionably, in the general and common acceptation, a citizen of the State is considered as synonymous with citizen of the United States, and the one is therefore treated as expressive of the other. This flows from the fact that the one is normally and usually the other, and where such is not the case, it is purely exceptional and uncommon".

In short, the Court says that because the corporation was legally a citizen of a state, it must also be a citizen of the United States, and able to sue under the statute. Now, the other case the court cites in your quote from Northwestern Express, Johnson v. United States, 160 U.S. 546 (1896), was exceptional because Johnson was born outside the U.S., and then became a U.S. citizen while residing in Utah- before Utah became a state. Johnson was an alien at the time that his property was taken by Indians. He later became a U.S. citizen, but not of a state. The Court held that because Johnson had not yet been naturalized as a citizen when his property was taken, the statute did not apply to him. Both Johnson and Northwestern Express consider it highly unusual for a natural-born person (as opposed to a corporation) to be a citizen of a state without simultaneously being a citizen of the United States. The Court in Northwestern Express calls these conditions "synonymous".

Now, as for the Maryland case, Crosse v. Board of Supervisory of Election of Baltimore City, 243 Md. 555 (1966), we are again talking about an alien, born in another country, who becomes a citizen of the United States. In this case, George Crosse was born in the West Indies, and moved to Maryland in 1957. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1966, and shortly thereafter filed papers to run for sheriff. The state would not let him run because of a requirement under Maryland law that a person be a citizen of Maryland for five years before holding office, and although Grosse had lived there for ten years, he had only been a U.S. citizen for a month. The Maryland court compared this to case from another state, Halaby v. Board of Directors of University of Cincinnati, 162 Ohio St. 290 (1954), which was about "a statute which provided free university instruction to citizens of the municipality in which the university is located". Notice, now we are comparing this to citizenship in a municipality as opposed to either a state or the United States. That court held that the plaintiff, "an alien minor whose parents were residents of and conducted a business in the city", fell within the statute because "[i]t is to be observed that the term, 'citizen,' is often used in legislation where 'domicile' is meant and where United States citizenship has no reasonable relationship to the subject matter and purpose of the legislation in question."

The Maryland court was not saying that the U.S. Constitution provides for two different and mutually exclusive kinds of citizenship. It was simply saying that a state can use the word 'citizen' when it really means 'domicile'. A person who was born outside the U.S. and had not been naturalized, but who was a 'citizen' of Maryland in the sense of being able to run for sheriff, would still not be able to vote in a federal election, serve on a jury, or take advantage of diversity jurisdiction in a federal court. A federal tribunal would not consider such a person to be a citizen of a state or of the United States.

What you have shown is that there are rare circumstances where a person born outside the United States can become a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a state (if they live in a U.S. territory such as Utah in the 1880s or Guam today), and that a person born outside of the United States but living in a U.S. State can be considered a 'citizen' of that state by that state, for limited purposes which do not relate to the rights provided by citizenship under the Constitution of the United States. Please show me an instance - one instance - where a person born in a U.S. State, and residing in a U.S. State, is considered to be a citizen of a U.S. State but not a citizen of the United States (or of "the several states" as you like to put it).

In any event, this is a far deviation from your original point. You wrote in the article that "After Slaughterhouse, however, one could be a citizen of the United States or a citizen of the several States, but not both". This is plainly false under Northwestern Express, and you have not produced an iota of support for the assertion that citizenship in a state excludes citizenship in the United States.

Cheers! bd2412 T 09:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Issue: Three Citizens (Citizenships)

To all,

I will now address the issue of three citizens (citizenships).

Section 1, Clause 1 of the Amendment 14 reads:

“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.”

Section 1, Clause 2 of the Amendment 14 provides:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The following is from the Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36) at pages 73 thru 74:

"To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section (of the Fourteenth Amendment) was framed.

'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 first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. . . .

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section (the second clause of the first section), 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 (privileges and immunities) of citizens of the several States. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same, and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.

The language is, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It is a little remarkable, if this clause was intended as a protection to the citizen of a State against the legislative power of his own State, that the word citizen of the State should be left out when it is so carefully used, and used in contradistinction to citizens of the United States in the very sentence which precedes it. It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and, with a purpose.

Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause (the second clause of the first section) 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.

I have boldfaced the following terms from this opinion:

privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States

privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States

privileges and immunities of the/(a) citizen of the United States

privileges and immunities of the/(a) citizen of the/(a) State

The Slaughterhouse court makes the observation that the term citizen of a state is in Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment but not in 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.’ It is a little remarkable, if this clause was intended as a protection to the citizen of a State against the legislative power of his own State, that the word citizen of the State should be left out when it is so carefully used, and used in contradistinction to citizens of the United States in the very sentence which precedes it. It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and, with a purpose.”

Therefore, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not relate to a citizen of a state.

However, the Slaughterhouse court uses the term privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states in reference to Section 1, Clause 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

“We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section (the second clause of the first section), 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 (privileges and immunities) of citizens of the several States. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same, and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.”

The language is, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

The Slaughterhouse court refers to the argument of the plaintiff in error, and remarks that the brief rests on the wrong citizenship (and provision of the Constitution). In this case, before this opinion, there is the following, starting at the bottom of page 45, then to pages 55 thru 56 :

"Mr. John A. Campbell, and also Mr. J. Q. A. Fellows, argued the case at much length and on the authorities, in behalf of the plaintiffs in error. The reporter cannot pretend to give more than such an abstract of the argument as may show to what the opinion of the court was meant to be responsive. . . .

"Now, what are 'privileges and immunities' in the sense of the Constitution? They are undoubtedly the personal and civil rights which usage, tradition, the habits of society, written law, and the common sentiments of people have recognized as forming the basis of the institutions of the country. The first clause in the fourteenth amendment does not deal with any interstate relations, nor relations that depend in any manner upon State laws, nor is any standard among the States referred to for the ascertainment of these privileges and immunities. It assumes that there were privileges and immunities that belong to an American citizen, and the State is commanded neither to make nor to enforce any law that will abridge them.

The case of Ward v. Maryland bears upon the matter. That case involved the validity of a statute of Maryland which imposed a tax in the form of a license to sell the agricultural and manufactured articles of other States than Maryland by card, sample, or printed lists, or catalogue. The purpose of the tax was to prohibit sales in the mode, and to relieve the resident merchant from the competition of these itinerant or transient dealers. This court decided that the power to carry on commerce in this form was 'a privilege or immunity' of the sojourner. 2. The act in question is equally in the face of the fourteenth amendment in that it denies to the plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws. By an act of legislative partiality it enriches seventeen persons and deprives nearly a thousand others of the same class, and as upright and competent as the seventeen, of the means by which they earn their daily bread."

However, Ward v. Maryland did not deal with the Fourteenth Amendment and privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, but rather, with Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 and citizens of the several States:

“Comprehensive as the power of the states is to lay and collect taxes and excises, it is, nevertheless, clear, in the judgment of the court, that the power cannot be exercised to any extent in a manner forbidden by the Constitution; and inasmuch as the Constitution provides that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, it follows that the defendant might lawfully sell, or offer or expose for sale, within the district described in the indictment, any goods which the permanent residents of the state might sell, or offer or expose for sale in that district, without being subjected to any higher tax or excise than that exacted by law of such permanent residents.

Grant that the states may impose discriminating taxes against the citizens of other states, and it will soon be found that the power conferred upon Congress to regulate interstate commerce is of no value, as the unrestricted power of the states to tax will prove to be more efficacious to promote inequality than any regulations which Congress can pass to preserve the equality of right contemplated by the Constitution among the citizens of the several states.” Ward v. State of Maryland: 79 U.S. 418, 430-431 (1870)

Privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states therefore relate to a citizen of the several states.

Thus, from the Slaughterhouse Cases, there are three citizens (citizenships):

a citizen of the United States,

a citizen of the several States,

and a citizen of a state.

In addition, the Slaughterhouse court stated the following

”Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause (the second clause of the first section) 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.“

--Gettingitdone (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing in very wide circles. Absolutely nothing you have provided supports the claim that either a) "citizens of the several states" is anything other than a shorter way of saying "citizens of the states of the United States"; or b) that there is any reason why a citizen of a state could not simultaneously be a citizen of the United States. The only thing your citations support is the core principle of federalism: that being a citizen of the United States secures certain rights and imposes certain obligations; and that being a citizen of a U.S. state simultaneously secures additional rights and imposes additional obligations. If Georgia has a statute requiring used car dealerships to disclose prior repairs to a car, then every citizen of Georgia has the right to receive such disclosures; and thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment, Georgia can not require such disclosures to Georgians but not to Alabamans, even though Alabama may require no such disclosure. This works in harmony with, and not in derogation to, the continued federal requirement that, for example, Georgia not require such disclosures only to members of one race or religion. bd2412 T 07:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.