Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Citizen of the several states - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gettingitdone (talk | contribs) at 05:47, 7 March 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:47, 7 March 2008 by Gettingitdone (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Citizen of the several states

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

This is a hoax

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)

You obviously did not read this article

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. Be sure to notify Mike Godwin, general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, and Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

Actual opinions

  • Keep I learned something from this article. :-) Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 09:29, 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 . 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)
    • Upon further reading I am also willing to argue that this article constitutes WP:OR based upon interpretation of case law. Misplaced Pages 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 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)
      • 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)
  • Delete as WP:POV. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Delete as WP:OR. Articles on Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Delete - WP:OR – ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Delete and salt - another recrudescence of the usual tax-protestor lawquackery. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages a bad reputation for being too far on a fringe. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Delete with fire complete bollocks. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Poorly-written tax protester gibberish, and incorrect as a matter of law. --Eastlaw (talk) 01:47, 7 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)


To all,

I went through BD2412 reference to Misplaced Pages'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.

I, therefore, demand this bogus request for deletion be removed immediately. --Gettingitdone (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

      • The AFD will be closed by an administrator who decides upon the consensus of the community as represented by arguments of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] 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)


Citizen of the several states

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

This is a hoax

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)

You obviously did not read this article

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. Be sure to notify Mike Godwin, general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, and Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

Actual opinions

  • Keep I learned something from this article. :-) Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 09:29, 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 . 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)
    • Upon further reading I am also willing to argue that this article constitutes WP:OR based upon interpretation of case law. Misplaced Pages 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 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)
  • Delete as WP:POV. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Delete as WP:OR. Articles on Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Delete - WP:OR – ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Delete and salt - another recrudescence of the usual tax-protestor lawquackery. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages a bad reputation for being too far on a fringe. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Delete with fire complete bollocks. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Poorly-written tax protester gibberish, and incorrect as a matter of law. --Eastlaw (talk) 01:47, 7 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)


To all,

I went through BD2412 reference to Misplaced Pages'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.

I, therefore, demand this bogus request for deletion be removed immediately. --Gettingitdone (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


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)

Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Citizen of the several states Add topic