Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) Tag: AWB |
||
(30 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|||
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' |
|||
<!--Template:Afd top |
|||
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> |
|||
The result was '''delete''', redirected to [[Tax protester (United States)]]. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] ([[User talk:Nandesuka|talk]]) 01:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Citizen of the several states]]=== |
===[[Citizen of the several states]]=== |
||
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|S}} |
|||
<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizen of the several states}}</ul></div> |
<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizen of the several states}}</ul></div> |
||
:{{la|Citizen of the several states}} (<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Citizen of the several states|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizen of the several states]]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizen of the several states|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 6#{{anchorencode:Citizen of the several states}}|View log]])</noinclude> |
:{{la|Citizen of the several states}} (<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Citizen of the several states|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizen of the several states]]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizen of the several states|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 6#{{anchorencode:Citizen of the several states}}|View log]])</noinclude> |
||
====This is a hoax==== |
====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 [[User:BD2412|< |
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 [[User:BD2412/deletion debates|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412/deletion debates|'''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. [[User:BD2412|< |
*Note: I've added some corrected info at the beginning, but the article is still useless, and mostly nonsense. [[User:BD2412/deletion debates|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412/deletion debates|'''T''']] 08:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
====Actual opinions==== |
====Actual opinions==== |
||
*'''Keep''' I learned something from this article. :-) [[User:Heroeswithmetaphors|Heroeswithmetaphors]] ([[User talk:Heroeswithmetaphors|talk]]) 09:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' I learned something from this article. :-) [[User:Heroeswithmetaphors|Heroeswithmetaphors]] ([[User talk:Heroeswithmetaphors|talk]]) 09:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
**Not if you read past the first three paragraphs. [[User:BD2412|< |
**Not if you read past the first three paragraphs. [[User:BD2412/deletion debates|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412/deletion debates|'''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''. [[User:StAnselm|StAnselm]] ([[User talk:StAnselm|talk]]) 12:03, 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''. [[User:StAnselm|StAnselm]] ([[User talk:StAnselm|talk]]) 12:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
****If we delete everything except the first three paragraphs, we're stuck with a duplication of material covered in [[Tax protester constitutional arguments]]. [[User:BD2412|< |
****If we delete everything except the first three paragraphs, we're stuck with a duplication of material covered in [[Tax protester constitutional arguments]]. [[User:BD2412/deletion debates|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412/deletion debates|'''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 [http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm]. 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.--[[User:Torchwoodwho|Torchwood Who?]] ([[User talk:Torchwoodwho|talk]]) 10:05, 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 [http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm]. 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.--[[User:Torchwoodwho|Torchwood Who?]] ([[User talk:Torchwoodwho|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. 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 [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=xut&q=citizen+of+the+several+states&btnG=Search] 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. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Torchwoodwho|Torchwoodwho]] ([[User talk:Torchwoodwho|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Torchwoodwho|contribs]]) 11:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
** 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 [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=xut&q=citizen+of+the+several+states&btnG=Search] 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. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Torchwoodwho|Torchwoodwho]] ([[User talk:Torchwoodwho|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Torchwoodwho|contribs]]) 11:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
Line 19: | Line 26: | ||
*'''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. [[User:StAnselm|StAnselm]] ([[User talk:StAnselm|talk]]) 12:02, 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. [[User:StAnselm|StAnselm]] ([[User talk:StAnselm|talk]]) 12:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizen_of_the_several_states&oldid=196246687 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. --[[User:Minimaki|Minimaki]] ([[User talk:Minimaki|talk]]) 12:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC) |
*'''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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizen_of_the_several_states&oldid=196246687 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. --[[User:Minimaki|Minimaki]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mandsford|Mandsford]] ([[User talk:Mandsford|talk]]) 13:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC) |
<s> *'''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. [[User:Mandsford|Mandsford]] ([[User talk:Mandsford|talk]]) 13:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC) </s> |
||
*'''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 [[WP:OR|original]] [[tax protester]] rhetoric; in fact, almost every word other than direct quotes from court decisions is incorrect. The lead is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizen_of_the_several_states&oldid=196246687 now] approximately correct. But if the lead were the only thing to be kept, it would fall under [[WP:NOT#DICT|WP:NOT (legal) DICT]]. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 13:36, 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 [[WP:OR|original]] [[tax protester]] rhetoric; in fact, almost every word other than direct quotes from court decisions is incorrect. The lead is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizen_of_the_several_states&oldid=196246687 now] approximately correct. But if the lead were the only thing to be kept, it would fall under [[WP:NOT#DICT|WP:NOT (legal) DICT]]. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 13:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' - [[WP:OR]] – [[User:Ukexpat|ukexpat]] ([[User talk:Ukexpat|talk]]) 15:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' - [[WP:OR]] – [[User:Ukexpat|ukexpat]] ([[User talk: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 [http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/NotACitizenUnderIRC.htm 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 [http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Citizenship/WhyANational.pdf 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. [[User:Famspear|Famspear]] ([[User talk:Famspear|talk]]) 15:53, 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 [http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/NotACitizenUnderIRC.htm 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 [http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Citizenship/WhyANational.pdf 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. [[User:Famspear|Famspear]] ([[User talk:Famspear|talk]]) 15:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete and salt''' - another recrudescence of the usual tax-protestor lawquackery. --[[User:Orangemike|< |
*'''Delete and salt''' - another recrudescence of the usual tax-protestor lawquackery. --[[User:Orangemike|<span style="color:darkorange;">Orange Mike</span>]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|<span style="color:orange;">Talk</span>]] 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 Wikipedia a bad reputation for being too far on a fringe. [[User:SaltyBoatr|SaltyBoatr]] ([[User talk:SaltyBoatr|talk]]) 16:57, 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 Wikipedia a bad reputation for being too far on a fringe. [[User:SaltyBoatr|SaltyBoatr]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 19:12, 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. -- [[User:Zsero|Zsero]] ([[User talk:Zsero|talk]]) 19:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 29: | Line 36: | ||
*'''Delete with fire''' [[WP:BALLS|complete bollocks]]. [[User:ObiterDicta|'''ObiterDicta''']] <small>( [[User talk:ObiterDicta|pleadings]] • [[Special:Contributions/ObiterDicta|errata]] • [[Special:Emailuser/ObiterDicta|appeals]] )</small> 23:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Delete with fire''' [[WP:BALLS|complete bollocks]]. [[User:ObiterDicta|'''ObiterDicta''']] <small>( [[User talk:ObiterDicta|pleadings]] • [[Special:Contributions/ObiterDicta|errata]] • [[Special:Emailuser/ObiterDicta|appeals]] )</small> 23:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Strong Delete''' Poorly-written tax protester gibberish, and incorrect as a matter of law. --[[User:Eastlaw|Eastlaw]] ([[User talk:Eastlaw|talk]]) 01:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Strong Delete''' Poorly-written tax protester gibberish, and incorrect as a matter of law. --[[User:Eastlaw|Eastlaw]] ([[User talk:Eastlaw|talk]]) 01:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Please allow me to clarify my earlier comment: the only place I have ever seen this theory, which is pure [http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Pseudolaw pseudolaw], is on the websites of far-right militia and tax protester groups. It has absolutely no currency in the courts or legal scholarship. --[[User:Eastlaw|Eastlaw]] ([[User talk:Eastlaw|talk]]) 04:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''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]]. [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::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.--[[User:Torchwoodwho|Torchwood Who?]] ([[User talk:Torchwoodwho|talk]]) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::: 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. [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 09:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::To the extent that this theory has any substance, it is properly covered at [[Tax protester constitutional arguments]]. [[User:BD2412/deletion debates|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412/deletion debates|'''T''']] 09:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::That may well be a sensible merger but deletion is not required to achieve this. [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 09:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::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.--[[User:Torchwoodwho|Torchwood Who?]] ([[User talk:Torchwoodwho|talk]]) 17:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''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 to the United States Constitution|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." [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 23:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)C |
|||
*'''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. [[User:Mandsford|Mandsford]] ([[User talk:Mandsford|talk]]) 01:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''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. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Claims]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Evidence]] </small> 13:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''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. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 03:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
====You obviously did not read this article==== |
====You obviously did not read this article==== |
||
Line 37: | Line 55: | ||
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. --[[User:Gettingitdone|Gettingitdone]] ([[User talk:Gettingitdone|talk]]) 08:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC) |
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. --[[User:Gettingitdone|Gettingitdone]] ([[User talk:Gettingitdone|talk]]) 08:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
:[[User:Gettingitdone|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.<br>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.<br>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! [[User:BD2412|< |
:[[User:Gettingitdone|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.<br>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.<br>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! [[User:BD2412/deletion debates|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412/deletion debates|'''T''']] 08:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
::bd24112, |
::bd24112, |
||
Line 44: | Line 62: | ||
::We will see who get removed. ::--[[User:Gettingitdone|Gettingitdone]] ([[User talk:Gettingitdone|talk]]) 09:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC) |
::We will see who get removed. ::--[[User:Gettingitdone|Gettingitdone]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:BD2412|< |
:::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. [[User:BD2412/deletion debates|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412/deletion debates|'''T''']] 09:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
====The Long Version==== |
====The Long Version==== |
||
Line 251: | Line 269: | ||
------------ |
------------ |
||
See also *Dan Goodman, ''"Slaughterhouse Cases, Two Citizens";'' December 1, 2007; <u>The New Media Journal.us<u> at http://therant.us/guest/d_goodman/12012007.htm a published piece. |
See also *Dan Goodman, ''"Slaughterhouse Cases, Two Citizens";'' December 1, 2007; <u>The New Media Journal.us</u> at http://therant.us/guest/d_goodman/12012007.htm a published piece. |
||
Line 300: | Line 318: | ||
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.”</blockquote> --[[User:Gettingitdone|Gettingitdone]] ([[User talk:Gettingitdone|talk]]) 08:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC) |
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.”</blockquote> --[[User:Gettingitdone|Gettingitdone]] ([[User talk:Gettingitdone|talk]]) 08:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
====Getting back on track==== |
|||
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. [http://www.therant.us/guest/d_goodman/12012007.htm] |
|||
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? [[User:Famspear|Famspear]] ([[User talk:Famspear|talk]]) 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
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. [[User:Famspear|Famspear]] ([[User talk:Famspear|talk]]) 16:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
To [[User:Famspear|Famspear]] ([[User talk:Famspear|talk]]) 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
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, --[[User:Gettingitdone|Gettingitdone]] ([[User talk:Gettingitdone|talk]]) 05:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC), I provided legal authority on this point you brought up. I reproduce here: |
|||
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: |
|||
<blockquote>“. . . 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.” <u>Baldwin v. Franks</u>: 120 U.S. 678, 690 (1887); reaffirmed, <u>Collins v. Hardyman</u>: 341 U.S. 651, 658-659 (1950); <u>Griffen v. Breckenridge</u>: 403 U.S. 88, 93-95 (1971).</blockquote> |
|||
Also: |
|||
<blockquote>“. . . 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.” <u>Crowley v. Christensen</u>: 137 U.S. 86, 91 (1890).</blockquote> |
|||
And: |
|||
<blockquote>". . . 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''." <u>United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company</u>: 164 U.S. 686, 688 (1877).</blockquote> |
|||
<u>Postscript</u> |
|||
I am in total agreement with you that a citizen of the United States can also be a citizen of a state. --[[User:Gettingitdone|Gettingitdone]] ([[User talk:Gettingitdone|talk]]) 05:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:BD2412/deletion debates|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412/deletion debates|'''T''']] 05:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
To [[User:BD2412/deletion debates|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412/deletion debates|'''T''']] 05:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
In my posting at,--[[User:Gettingitdone|Gettingitdone]] ([[User talk:Gettingitdone|talk]]) 05:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC). there was this Supreme Court case: |
|||
<blockquote>“. . . 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.” <u>United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company</u>: 164 U.S. 686, 688 (1897).</blockquote> |
|||
Here is another case (a state case): |
|||
<blockquote>"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." <u>Crosse v. Board of Supervisory of Election of Baltimore City</u>: 243 Md. 555, 562; 221 A.2d 431, 436 (1966).</blockquote> |
|||
From the same Supreme Case above, including citing, is the following: |
|||
<blockquote>“... [U]ndoubtedly in a purely technical and abstract sense citizenship of one of the states may not include citizenship of the United States.”</blockquote> |
|||
I think this makes it clear that one can be a citizen of a state and not a citizen of the United States. --[[User:Gettingitdone|Gettingitdone]] ([[User talk:Gettingitdone|talk]]) 06:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: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! [[User:BD2412/deletion debates|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412/deletion debates|'''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 <u>Amendment 14</u> reads: |
|||
<blockquote> “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.” </blockquote> |
|||
Section 1, Clause 2 of the <u>Amendment 14</u> provides: |
|||
<blockquote> “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.” </blockquote> |
|||
The following is from the ''Slaughterhouse Cases'' (83 U.S. 36) at pages 73 thru 74: |
|||
<blockquote>"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.</blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote> '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.'</blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>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.</blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>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. . . . </blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>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.</blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>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.</blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>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.</blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>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.</blockquote> |
|||
I have boldfaced the following terms from this opinion: |
|||
<blockquote>'''privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States'''</blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>'''privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States'''</blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>'''privileges and immunities of the/(a) citizen of the United States'''</blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>'''privileges and immunities of the/(a) citizen of the/(a) State'''</blockquote> |
|||
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: |
|||
<blockquote> “ . . . ‘"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.” </blockquote> |
|||
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: |
|||
<blockquote> “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.”''</blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>The language is, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." </blockquote> |
|||
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 : |
|||
<blockquote>"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.'' . . . </blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>"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.</blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>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."</blockquote> |
|||
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: |
|||
<blockquote>“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.</blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>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.” <u>Ward v. State of Maryland</u>: 79 U.S. 418, 430-431 (1870) </blockquote> |
|||
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): |
|||
<blockquote>a citizen of the United States,</blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>a citizen of the several States,</blockquote> |
|||
<blockquote>and a citizen of a state.</blockquote> |
|||
In addition, the ''Slaughterhouse'' court stated the following |
|||
<blockquote>”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.“</blockquote> --[[User:Gettingitdone|Gettingitdone]] ([[User talk:Gettingitdone|talk]]) 06:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:BD2412/deletion debates|<span style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412/deletion debates|'''T''']] 07:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> |
Latest revision as of 02:33, 6 February 2023
- ^ Slaughtherhouse Cases,83 U.S. 36 (1872).
- ^ Corfield v. Coryell,6 Fed. Cas. 546 (C.C.E.D.Pa. 1823)