"Ignorance of the law is no excuse"
December 19th, 2014 - Attorney General Eric Holder has issued an edict, through a memorandum, that cross dressing and transsexualism is now protected under federal civil rights laws which were designed to protect women from sex discrimination. Existing federal law provides no statutory support for treating cross-dressers and transsexuals as the law treats female victims of discrimination.
14th Amendment Federal government civil rights citizen (Is a Privilege by the state i.e. Force Licence, Tax, Fees, Permits etc...)
vs. A State (sovereign) Citizens are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights (Rights comes from God vs. A State privilege)...
A Collection of Court Authorities
Two Classes of Citizens
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
(All Rights Reserved without Prejudice)
Before the 14th amendment [sic] in 1868:
A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to
be, and called a citizen of the United States, although
technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To
conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen
of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea,
and inconsistent with the proper construction and common
understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,
which must be deduced from its various other provisions.
The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power
of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective
[Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]
[bold emphasis added]
It is true, every person, and every class and description of
persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the
Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States,
became also citizens of this new political body; but none
other; it was formed by them, and for them and their
posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and
privileges guarantied [sic] to citizens of this new
sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were
then members of the several state communities, or who should
afterwards, by birthright or otherwise, become members,
according to the provisions of the Constitution and the
principles on which it was founded.
[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404 (1856)]
... [F]or it is certain, that in the sense in which the word
"Citizen" is used in the federal Constitution, "Citizen of each
State," and "Citizen of the United States***," are convertible
terms; they mean the same thing; for "the Citizens of each
State are entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens
in the several States," and "Citizens of the United States***"
are, of course, Citizens of all the United States***.
[44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting]
[italics in original, underlines & C's added]
As it was the adoption of the Constitution by the
Conventions of nine States that established and created the
United States***, it is obvious there could not then have
existed any person who had been seven years a citizen of the
United States***, or who possessed the Presidential
qualifications of being thirty-five years of age, a natural
born citizen, and fourteen years a resident of the United
States***. The United States*** in these provisions, means
the States united. To be twenty-five years of age, and for
seven years to have been a citizen of one of the States
which ratifies the Constitution, is the qualification of a
representative. To be a natural born citizen of one of the
States which shall ratify the Constitution, or to be a
citizen of one of said States at the time of such
ratification, and to have attained the age of thirty-five
years, and to have been fourteen years a resident within one
of the said States, are the Presidential qualifications,
according to the true meaning of the Constitution.
[People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870)]
[bold and underline emphasis added]
After the 14th amendment [sic] in 1868:
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.
[Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36]
[(1873) emphasis added]
The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made negroes
citizens of the United States**, and citizens of the State in
which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens,
one of the United States** and the other of the state.
[Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327]
[(1874) headnote 8, emphasis added]
We have in our political system a Government of the United
States** and a government of each of the several States. Each
one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each
has citizens of its own ....
[U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542]
[(1875) emphasis added]
One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the
United States. Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v. Carter,
48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507;
In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443.
[McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320, 323]
[(1883) underlines added]
citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a
person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen
of the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to
the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right
to declare who are its citizens.
[State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380]
[6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]
The first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the federal
Constitution made negroes citizens of the United States**, and
citizens of the state in which they reside, and thereby created
two classes of citizens, one of the United States** and the other
of the state.
[4 Dec. Dig. '06, p. 1197, sec. 11]
["Citizens" (1906), emphasis added]
There are, then, under our republican form of government, two
classes of citizens, one of the United States** and one of the
state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person, without
the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of
Columbia; but both classes usually exist in the same person.
[Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155]
[48 S. 788, 791 (1909), emphasis added]
There is a distinction between citizenship of the United States**
and citizenship of a particular state, and a person may be the
former without being the latter.
[Alla v. Kornfeld, 84 F.Supp. 823]
[(1949) headnote 5, emphasis added]
A person may be a citizen of the United States** and yet be not
identified or identifiable as a citizen of any particular state.
[Du Vernay v. Ledbetter]
[61 So.2d 573, emphasis added]
... citizens of the District of Columbia were not granted the
privilege of litigating in the federal courts on the ground of
diversity of citizenship. Possibly no better reason for this
fact exists than such citizens were not thought of when the
judiciary article [III] of the federal Constitution was drafted.
... citizens of the United States** ... were also not thought of;
but in any event a citizen of the United States**, who is not a
citizen of any state, is not within the language of the [federal]
[Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914]
# # #
Berg v. Obama et al. (September 15, 2008 A.D.)
Berg v. Obama et al. (October 14, 2008 A.D.)
to Consul General of Kenya in Los Angeles (October 18, 2009 A.D.)
"Sedition by Syntax," by Ralph Schwan, The Upright Ostrich (Dec/Jan 1985-86)