Frivolous Subject: “Subject to THE jurisdiction” in the Fourteenth Amendment means subject to the national government’s LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction
FALSE STATEMENT:
The Fourteenth Amendment confers legislative jurisdiction to the national government within states of the Union that would not otherwise exist. Therefore, claiming Fourteenth Amendment citizenship should be avoided. Of citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment says:
Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution — Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection
Section 1. Rights Guaranteed
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. 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 deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
[Fourteenth Amendment Annotated; SOURCE: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/]
Of the above amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has held:
“It is impossible to construe the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words ‘within its jurisdiction,’ in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons ‘within the jurisdiction’ of one of the States of the Union are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'”
[. . .]
The decision in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, indeed, did not directly pass upon the effect of these words in the Fourteenth Amendment, but turned upon subsequent provisions of the same section. But, as already observed, it is impossible to attribute to the words, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” that is to say, of the United States, at the beginning, a less comprehensive meaning than to the words “within its jurisdiction,” that is, of the State, at the end of the same section; or to hold that persons, who are indisputably “within the jurisdiction” of the State, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the Nation.”
REBUTTAL:
1. The constitution is a political document, not a legislative document.
2. The jurisdiction the Constitution describes is POLITICAL jurisdiction, not LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction.
3. Based on Wong Kim Ark above, the allegiance established by birth or naturalization under the Fourteenth Amendment is to the COLLECTION of states of the Union, not the national government. States of the Union are the parties to the constitution, not the national government. The Wong Kim Ark case establishes this by saying:
“The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do 725*725 to the time of naturalization in the other.”
4. The Wong Kim Ark case above is referring to the constitution, and therefore to POLITICAL jurisdiction. The phraseology above is therefore referring to people born within one of the states of the Union, one of whose parents are American nationals. The following video proves this:
The Case Against Birthright Citizenship, SEDM Exhibit #01.021 (OFFSITE LINK) -Heritage Foundation
5. POLITICAL jurisdiction and LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction are NOT the same and it is fraud to equivocate these two terms to LOOK the same. This is established in the following sources on this site:
5.1 Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006, Sections 2.3, 4.3, and 4.4
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhyANational.pdf
5.2 Political Jurisdiction, Form #05.005
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/PoliticalJurisdiction.pdf
In fact, courts CANNOT entertain POLITICAL questions, and therefore cannot entertain disputes involving POLITICAL jurisdiction such as that described in the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, no rights enforceable in a court of law are conveyed by the the Fourteenth Amendment other than that one is or is not a “national” per 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21).
6. There are TWO types of CITIZENS: CONSTITUTIONAL and STATUTORY and the two are NOT equivalent. Both of them have in common NATIONALITY, meaning “national” status.
7. The eligibility to apply for or receive a USA passport is based on whether one is a NATIONAL, not whether one is a citizen in a CONSTITUTIONAL or a STATUTORY context:
§ 51.2 Passport issued to nationals only.
(a) A United States passport shall be issued only to a national of the United States (22 U.S.C. 212).
(b) Unless authorized by the Department no person shall bear more than one valid or potentially valid U.S. passport at any one time.
[SD–165, 46 FR 2343, Jan. 9, 1981]
Having a passport is not proof that you are a “citizen” but that you are a “national”. And both CONSTITUTIONAL citizens in the Fourteenth Amendment and STATUTORY citizens in 8 U.S.C. §1401 and 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) have in common that they are “nationals”. But these two contexts are NOT equivalent and MUTUALLY exclusive. See:
Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhyANational.pdf
8. STATUTORY citizens are subject to “ITS” [legislative] jurisdiction whereas CONSTITUTIONAL citizens are “subject to THE [political] jurisdiction” or THEIR [the states] jurisdiction as in the Fourteenth Amendment. These are NOT equivalent.
9. The D.C. Circuit court pointed out these distinctions as follows:
““Finally, this Court is mindful of the years of past practice in which territorial citizenship has been treated as a statutory [PRIVILEGE!], and not a constitutional, right. In the unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, birthright citizenship was conferred upon their inhabitants by various statutes many years after the United States acquired them. See Amicus Br. at 10-11. If the Citizenship Clause guaranteed birthright citizenship in unincorporated territories, these statutes [8 U.S.C. §1401-1459 mentioned in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c)] would have been unnecessary.”
OF COURSE the government can tax privileges. We would never argue with that. However, privileges are voluntary and avoidable or we have unconstitutional slavery, and we therefore choose to avoid them. And if we can’t make that choice, we are a slave. All just powers, according to the Declaration of Independence, derive from the CONSENT of the governed. We consent to NOTHING. Anything not consensual in a civil context is therefore inherently UNJUST. To equivocate between CONSTITUTIONAL and STATUTORY “citizens”, which are mutually exclusive and non-overlapping, is to essentially KIDNAP the identity of people in states of the Union to federal territory without their consent and enslave them, in violation of Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution. Identity theft is a criminal offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. §911 in the case of a statutory “U.S. Citizen” franchise/privilege.
10. As far as what “state” one is a national of:
10.1 The term “state national” has a custom definition. See section 4.24:
https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm#4.24._State_National
This definition is invoked EVERY PLACE the term “state national” is used so that it cannot be called “frivolous”. And since it relies upon legal definitions, it is unambiguous. And, it is the ONLY type of allegiance the bible permits Christians to have without violating their delegation of authority order while temporarily sojourning as transient foreigners here on earth:
https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/DelOfAuthority.pdf
To claim any other allegiance or to make that allegiance superior to that which is owed to God violates the First Four commandments of the Ten Commandments. So if government tries to interfere with claiming that type of “national” status, they are interfering with the First Amendment freedom to practice religion.
10.2 The above definition defines the “state” that allegiance is owed to as follows:
“4. Owing allegiance to THE PEOPLE as individuals and sovereigns occupying the land within the state, and not to the government that serves them under the constitution as the delegation of authority order. “State” in a political sense always refers to PEOPLE occupying land and never to GOVERNMENTS or government corporations. In biblical terms, that allegiance is called “love” and it is commanded by God in Matt. 22:34-40. God NEVER commands Christians to love governments or civil rulers and often tells people to DISOBEY them when they violate the Bible as their delegation of authority order (Form #13.007).”
[SEDM Disclaimer, Section 4.24: “state national”; https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/DelOfAuthority.pdf]
10.3 So the “state” such a person owes allegiance to in a national context is the PEOPLE within the collective states of the Union united under the constitution and not the government that serves them. They are the sovereigns. Collectively, these people are called “united states OF AMERICA” under the Articles of Confederation. This is entirely consistent with the quote from Wong Kim Ark above, in fact.
More at:
- Why the Fourteenth Amendment is Not a Threat to Your Freedom, Form #08.015
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/FourteenthAmendNotProb.pdf - Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Form #08.004, Section 10.1: State Citizens are not Fourteenth Amendment Citizens
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/FlawedArgsToAvoid.pdf - Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006, Sections 4.11, 19.3.1
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhyANational.pdf - Citizenship Status v. Tax Status, Form #10.011
http://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/CitizenshipStatusVTaxStatus/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htm.