Does a promissory note have

User avatar
dunstvangeet
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:53 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#501

Post by dunstvangeet » Tue Aug 23, 2016 10:13 pm

Just some guy wrote:
Dr. Caligari wrote:
no one born in a state was considered a citizen of the us, hence the state citizens having different rights then the federal US CITIZENS(which at the time were folks in DC and other FEDERAL TERRITORIES like the NW territory.)
Then, as Northland asked you, who was elected to Congress from Virginia before the 14th Amendment?
Citizens of the states were also citizens of the us, BUT they were citizens of the state first and foremost. Being born in Virginia do not make you a citizen of the us, the fact that Virginia was a part of the union made you a us citizen SECOND to that of your state.
That's also bunk, because the United States Constitution actually delegated Naturalization to the Federal Government, and did not allow the States to develop their own rules for Naturalization.

Article I, Section 8, fourth one down: "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". People might have considered themselves more a citizen of their State, but that didn't mean that the U.S. was subservient to the State on their naturalization.

The U.S. had its own rules of Naturalization, independent of any of the States.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Does a promissory note have

#502

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Aug 23, 2016 10:14 pm

Just some guy wrote:
Dr. Caligari wrote:
no one born in a state was considered a citizen of the us, hence the state citizens having different rights then the federal US CITIZENS(which at the time were folks in DC and other FEDERAL TERRITORIES like the NW territory.)
Then, as Northland asked you, who was elected to Congress from Virginia before the 14th Amendment?
Citizens of the states were also citizens of the us, BUT they were citizens of the state first and foremost. Being born in Virginia do not make you a citizen of the us, the fact that Virginia was a part of the union made you a us citizen SECOND to that of your state.
:roll: :yankyank:



User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#503

Post by Just some guy » Tue Aug 23, 2016 10:27 pm

Suranis wrote:
Oh boy now he has Irish family members. What a surprise

The EU unlike the US is an economic and increasingly political union of independence states with a long history of being independent countries. The USA is made of non independent states that never had an existence as independent states. They were always part of the USA for their entire existence.

Talk to Germany sometime about where they came from. They are as likely to say something like Bavaria rather than Germany. Does not stop Germany being a unified country.

And people born here were and are considered both "born in the EU or born in IRELAND." Here is an Irish Passport... which doubles as an EU Passport. It's right there on the top.

Image

And now for extra comedy..
Just some guy wrote:1. So why were people born there before the 14th amendment not called US CITIZENS? If you say they were, I challenge you to find something that backs you up.
I already did, Mr Mighty Reader. The stiff I quoted from 1830 said flat out that anyone born in the USA was an american citizen. But since you insist
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826
)
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
“That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”

January 28, 1838, Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838)
“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”

Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)
“Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”

Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)
“in like manner every one who first saw the light on the American soil was a natural-born citizen ; but the power of naturalization, which, under the king, each colony had claimed to regulate by its own laws, remained under the confederacy with the separate states.”

George Bancroft, History of the United States, from the Discovery of the American Continent: The American Revolution., pg. 439 (1866)
“Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution…Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the King; and aliens are such as are born out of it.” …… “It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, ‘founded in reason and the nature of government’ … The English Law made no distinction … in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward.” ‘

Rep. Wilson, 1866 Civil Rights Act debates. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115, 1117 (1866)
The 14th amendment was, of course, in 1868. All these people didn't get the memo. And I actually have a lot more quotes I could throw at you...
2. the constitution and the lose confederacy of states eh? yeah you know what you are talking about.
Uh... Articles of Confederation. Look it up, Mr Fantastic Reader

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
The Continental Congress printed paper money which was so depreciated that it ceased to pass as currency, spawning the expression "not worth a continental". Congress could not levy taxes and could only make requisitions upon the States. Less than a million and a half dollars came into the treasury between 1781 and 1784, although the governors had been asked for two million in 1783 alone.[33]

When John Adams went to London in 1785 as the first representative of the United States, he found it impossible to secure a treaty for unrestricted commerce. Demands were made for favors and there was no assurance that individual states would agree to a treaty. Adams stated it was necessary for the States to confer the power of passing navigation laws to Congress, or that the States themselves pass retaliatory acts against Great Britain. Congress had already requested and failed to get power over navigation laws. Meanwhile, each State acted individually against Great Britain to little effect. When other New England states closed their ports to British shipping, Connecticut hastened to profit by opening its ports.[34]
This was all before the drafting of the Constitution.

I bet you think that the Texans won the Battle of the Alamo too.
Welsh Irish on my mothers side, but that's besides the point.

Lets say we take your theory that after the constitution everyone was a us citizen.

Were free blacks and women considered US citizens before the 14th amendment? How about if they were born in Virginia?

After the 14th was passed, were women, surely born in the us, were they citizens of the US?

I mean I am confused now, did the 14th say all men born or...., or did it say all persons born or...., were women not persons?

oh I have some quotes as well...
“There is, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state. Once class of citizenship may exist in a person without the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of Columbia; but both classes usually exist in the same person. The federal government by this amendment (the 14th amendment) has undertaken to say who shall be citizen of both of the states and United States.”
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 48 So. 788, 160 Ala. 155. 1909
One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the
United States. Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v. Carter,
48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507;
In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443.
[McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320, 323]
[(1883) underlines added]
We have in our political system a Government of the United
States** and a government of each of the several States. Each
one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each
has citizens of its own ....
[U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542]
[(1875) emphasis added]
Before the 14th amendment [sic] in 1868:

A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to
be, and called a citizen of the United States, although
technically and abstractly there is no such thing.
To
conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen
of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea,
and inconsistent with the proper construction and common
understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,
which must be deduced from its various other provisions.
The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power
of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective
States.
[Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]
[bold emphasis added]


After the 14th amendment [sic] in 1868:

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

[Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36]
[(1873) emphasis added]

A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a
citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a
person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen
of the United States**.
To hold otherwise would be to deny to
the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right
to declare who are its citizens.
[State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380]
[6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]
Oh, was that AFTER the 14th passed? hhmmm...

There is a distinction between citizenship of the United States**
and citizenship of a particular state, and a person may be the
former without being the latter.
[Alla v. Kornfeld, 84 F.Supp. 823]
[(1949) headnote 5, emphasis added]

... citizens of the District of Columbia were not granted the
privilege of litigating in the federal courts on the ground of
diversity of citizenship. Possibly no better reason for this
fact exists than such citizens were not thought of when the
judiciary article [III] of the federal Constitution was drafted.
... citizens of the United States** ... were also not thought of;
but in any event a citizen of the United States**, who is not a
citizen of any state, is not within the language of the [federal]
Constitution.
[Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914]
[emphasis added]


That there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship
of a state, and the privileges and immunities of one are not the
same as the other is well established by the decisions of the
courts of this country.
[Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)]
likewise I could give you more.



User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#504

Post by Just some guy » Tue Aug 23, 2016 10:34 pm

dunstvangeet wrote:
Just some guy wrote:1. so why before the 14th were people considered state citizens and not US citizens?
This has to be one of the most idiotic statements that there ever was. Before the 14th Amendment, there are at least 3 different references to U.S. citizenship in the Constitution (Article I, Section 1, Clause 2: "Citizen of the United States", Article I, Section 1, Clause 3: "Citizen of the United States", Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: "natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States". If nobody was to be a Citizen of the United States until the 14th Amendment, why did they put "Citizen of the United States" three different times in the ORIGINAL Constitution?

Is it true that people mainly considered their state, yes. However, that has no relevence. They were also citizens of the United States.
2. So why after the 14th were people no longer considered born in Virginia and instead born in the united states?
Because the Federal Constitution deals with the Federal Government. Why would the Federal Government say that anybody born in Virginia is a citizen of the United States and the state in which they reside? They'd have to amend that statement anytime a new state was admitted into the Union. Virginia is part of the United States. Anybody born in Virginia is also born in the United States, just as anybody born in Richmond is also born in Virginia, and the United States, and while they reside there, they are citizens of all three.

You can be a citizen of dozens of entities that you reside in. You can be a citizen of: school districts, community college districts, water control districts, irrigation districts, port districts, regional air quality control authorities, fire districts, hospital districts, mass transit districts, sanitary districts and authorities, people’s utility districts, domestic water supply districts and authorities, cemetery districts, park and recreation districts, metropolitan service districts, special road districts, road assessment districts, highway lighting districts, health districts, vector control districts, water improvement districts, weather modification districts, geothermal heating districts, transportation districts, county service districts, chemical control districts, weed control districts, emergency communication districts, diking districts, and soil and water conservation districts. Each one of these is a separate governmental entity, which means that all of them have citizens. And if there's one where you live, then you're a citizen of it.

1. citizen of the united states means a citizen of the federal government does it not?

A citizen
of the United States is a citizen of the Federal Government
[Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp. 383 (USDC/WDMO 1953)]

oh also this....

One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the
United States. Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v. Carter,
48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507;
In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443.
[McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320, 323]
[(1883) underlines added]

We have in our political system a Government of the United
States** and a government of each of the several States. Each
one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each
has citizens of its own ....
[U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542]
[(1875) emphasis added]

A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to
be, and called a citizen of the United States, although
technically and abstractly there is no such thing.
To
conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen
of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea,
and inconsistent with the proper construction and common
understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,
which must be deduced from its various other provisions.
The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power
of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective
States.
[Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]
[bold emphasis added]


A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a
citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a
person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen
of the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to
the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right
to declare who are its citizens.
[State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380]
[6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]
oh btw, I think you mean you can be a resident of Chicago, as you can only be a citizen of a sovereign, but please let me know when you find ANY mention IN ANY legal papers addressing this citizen of Chicago.



User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#505

Post by Just some guy » Tue Aug 23, 2016 10:44 pm

dunstvangeet wrote:
Just some guy wrote:
Dr. Caligari wrote:
Then, as Northland asked you, who was elected to Congress from Virginia before the 14th Amendment?
Citizens of the states were also citizens of the us, BUT they were citizens of the state first and foremost. Being born in Virginia do not make you a citizen of the us, the fact that Virginia was a part of the union made you a us citizen SECOND to that of your state.
That's also bunk, because the United States Constitution actually delegated Naturalization to the Federal Government, and did not allow the States to develop their own rules for Naturalization.

Article I, Section 8, fourth one down: "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". People might have considered themselves more a citizen of their State, but that didn't mean that the U.S. was subservient to the State on their naturalization.

The U.S. had its own rules of Naturalization, independent of any of the States.
im sorry, did you think being born in Virginia has something to do with Naturalization?



User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#506

Post by Just some guy » Tue Aug 23, 2016 10:46 pm

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes:

1. natural born citizens, or those born within the state,

2. and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)


He is ABSOLUTELY correct, native born us citizens were citizens born in the STATE.



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15668
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#507

Post by Suranis » Tue Aug 23, 2016 10:48 pm

Paul Andrew Mitchel was a hell of a purveyor of gibberish, wasn't he? Because he sure as all hell was the source of at least some of your quotes. You even bolded what he bolded, like a good little copycat. The fact that you were copycating someone who was ruled incompetent to stand trial by reason of insanity should make you pause.

Here is what you copy and pasted.

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm

There is at least one Quatalloos thread on this clown

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... &start=140

I can use ze google. Now fuck off and stop wasting our time with emergency copy and pastes.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 11358
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Re: Does a promissory note have

#508

Post by Whatever4 » Tue Aug 23, 2016 10:53 pm

Have you read the cases themselves or just picked up the quotes from sovcit sites? Because I can't find some of the actual cases. I ask because we've found that many times such quotes are out of context, rely on other parts of the case, are from the dissent, or are from cases overturned on appeal. I like to look them up myself. I've learned that law cases can't be quote-mined.

Such as Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449. Got a link for that?
Edit: ETA Also, no longer good law as it has been superseded by a later ruling or legislation.


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (R-ME)

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15668
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#509

Post by Suranis » Tue Aug 23, 2016 10:56 pm

Just some guy wrote:im sorry, did you think being born in Virginia has something to do with Naturalization?
Naturalisation by birth, yeah. It's a term thats used often in the laws we debunkers have all have read about Natural Born citizenship over the last 8 years.
He is ABSOLUTELY correct, native born us citizens were citizens born in the STATE.
The state, in this case, meaning "within the Jurisdiction thereof." in this case within the jurisdiction of the USA. If he had meant within the various states he would have said so. Of course after reading all this shit from before the 14th amendment you cant understand a word of the legal language used. In this case he was talking about the US constitution and a federal office so being born within the jurisdiction of the US constitution is all that mattered.

So CTRL + V something else, genius. I'm eating a pizza.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Does a promissory note have

#510

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Aug 23, 2016 10:56 pm

Typical SovCit tactic. Not citing the exact language from the plethora of state court cases whose citations he throws out there. (Are they correct? I don't give a shit.) No understanding that on matters of U.S. Citizenship it's what the Constitution says. Oh, and in addition to the original Constitution speaking of citizens of the United States, it also spoke of citizens of a particular state when discussing the judicial power. You say we should call them "residents." The Constitution says we should call them "citizens" (of a state). Article II, Section 2 destroys your most recent arrogant ignorance:
Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
Once again your abysmal ignorance and inability to understand context befouls your stupid arguments.

ARE YOU ON GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE, SIR?



User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#511

Post by Just some guy » Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:12 pm

Suranis wrote:Paul Andrew Mitchel was a hell of a purveyor of gibberish, wasn't he? Because he sure as all hell was the source of at least some of your quotes. You even bolded what he bolded, like a good little copycat. The fact that you were copycating someone who was ruled incompetent to stand trial by reason of insanity should make you pause.

Here is what you copy and pasted.

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm

There is at least one Quatalloos thread on this clown

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... &start=140

I can use ze google. Now fuck off and stop wasting our time with emergency copy and pastes.

Were women citizens after the 14th passed?

yes I am sure he is the only one that has those case cites.

btw loving your stuff you posted.....


“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826


Nothing that freedom loving americans want to hear then the fact that they have never been free and in fact are just subjects of the federal government.

A citizen
of the United States is a citizen of the Federal Government
[Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp. 383 (USDC/WDMO 1953)]



User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#512

Post by Just some guy » Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:15 pm

Suranis wrote:
Just some guy wrote:im sorry, did you think being born in Virginia has something to do with Naturalization?
Naturalisation by birth, yeah. It's a term thats used often in the laws we debunkers have all have read about Natural Born citizenship over the last 8 years.
He is ABSOLUTELY correct, native born us citizens were citizens born in the STATE.
The state, in this case, meaning "within the Jurisdiction thereof." in this case within the jurisdiction of the USA. If he had meant within the various states he would have said so. Of course after reading all this shit from before the 14th amendment you cant understand a word of the legal language used. In this case he was talking about the US constitution and a federal office so being born within the jurisdiction of the US constitution is all that mattered.

So CTRL + V something else, genius. I'm eating a pizza.
Wow, nice how you just tried to say born and naturalized were the same thing.

Is the term you looking for perhaps called jus soli?



User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#513

Post by Just some guy » Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:19 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Typical SovCit tactic. Not citing the exact language from the plethora of state court cases whose citations he throws out there. (Are they correct? I don't give a shit.) No understanding that on matters of U.S. Citizenship it's what the Constitution says. Oh, and in addition to the original Constitution speaking of citizens of the United States, it also spoke of citizens of a particular state when discussing the judicial power. You say we should call them "residents." The Constitution says we should call them "citizens" (of a state). Article II, Section 2 destroys your most recent arrogant ignorance:
Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
Once again your abysmal ignorance and inability to understand context befouls your stupid arguments.

ARE YOU ON GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE, SIR?

My god you people can not read, I said you could only be a citizen of a sovereign, like the us or a state, and that you could not be a citizen of CHICAGO.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24203
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Does a promissory note have

#514

Post by bob » Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:19 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:ARE YOU ON GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE, SIR?
:fingerwag: The major awards for participating in internet dick-measuring contests provide a comfortable lifestyle.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
dunstvangeet
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:53 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#515

Post by dunstvangeet » Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:24 pm

Just some guy wrote:Were women citizens after the 14th passed?
Yes, just as sure that they were before the 14th Amendment was passed. See Lynch v. Clarke, for one. But also, the landmark case on citizenship and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment is U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. But there was a case before the 14th Amendment was passed called U.S. v. Rhodes: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England...since as before the Revolution."



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15668
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#516

Post by Suranis » Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:29 pm

Just some guy wrote: My god you people can not read, I said you could only be a citizen of a sovereign, like the us or a state, and that you could not be a citizen of CHICAGO.
The Chicago Citizen newspaper, the newspaper for Chicago Citizens. http://thechicagocitizen.com/about/

Citizens comittee for new York city http://www.citizensnyc.org/

You get the drift.

And, yeah, subject and citizen mean the same thing, its just that one has a monarch and the other does not. Its amazing that the freedom loving people around the time of the American Revolution understood that and you don't.

It was a very nice Pizza by the way.
dunstvangeet wrote:Yes, just as sure that they were before the 14th Amendment was passed. See Lynch v. Clarke, for one.
You can add to that list Minor V Happerset, which discussed the citizenship status of women at the time at length.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 11358
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Re: Does a promissory note have

#517

Post by Whatever4 » Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:41 pm

Just some guy wrote: My god you people can not read, I said you could only be a citizen of a sovereign, like the us or a state, and that you could not be a citizen of CHICAGO.
e

But Merriam-Webster says:

Citizen-- 1 an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (R-ME)

User avatar
dunstvangeet
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:53 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#518

Post by dunstvangeet » Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:49 pm

Suranis wrote:
dunstvangeet wrote:Yes, just as sure that they were before the 14th Amendment was passed. See Lynch v. Clarke, for one.
You can add to that list Minor V Happerset, which discussed the citizenship status of women at the time at length.
I was actually looking for a case discussing it which happened before the 14th Amendment happened. Minor v. Happersett is there, along with U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. However, I wouldn't expect JSG to look past the date, and say, "Well, those happened after the 14th Amendment" and look towards the actual logic of the decision.

For instance, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark actually wasn't decided on the basis of the 14th Amendment. It's argument was that Mr. Wong was a citizen all the time, including before the Constitution was passed. It traced our citizenship law from English Common Law all the way through the end of the 19th century, and ultimately determined that the 14th Amendment didn't actually change anything, it was just declaratory of what the common law was.



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15668
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#519

Post by Suranis » Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:51 pm

Whatever4 wrote:
Just some guy wrote: My god you people can not read, I said you could only be a citizen of a sovereign, like the us or a state, and that you could not be a citizen of CHICAGO.
e

But Merriam-Webster says:

Citizen-- 1 an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman
But Blacks free online law dictionary says

http://thelawdictionary.org/citizen/
What is CITIZEN?

In general, A member of a free city or jural society, (civitas.) possessing all the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties.

Law Dictionary: What is CITIZEN? definition of CITIZEN (Black's Law Dictionary)
Ha! Bet you feel foolish now, obot!!!


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

chancery
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:51 pm

Re: Does a promissory note have

#520

Post by chancery » Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:55 pm

Whatever4 wrote:Have you read the cases themselves or just picked up the quotes from sovcit sites? Because I can't find some of the actual cases. I ask because we've found that many times such quotes are out of context, rely on other parts of the case, are from the dissent, or are from cases overturned on appeal. I like to look them up myself. I've learned that law cases can't be quote-mined.

Such as Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449. Got a link for that?
Edit: ETA Also, no longer good law as it has been superseded by a later ruling or legislation.
Check you PMs



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15668
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Does a promissory note have

#521

Post by Suranis » Wed Aug 24, 2016 12:01 am

dunstvangeet wrote: I was actually looking for a case discussing it which happened before the 14th Amendment happened. Minor v. Happersett is there, along with U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. However, I wouldn't expect JSG to look past the date, and say, "Well, those happened after the 14th Amendment" and look towards the actual logic of the decision.
well there is also this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthrigh ... ted_States
1862 opinion of the Attorney General of the United States

In 1862, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase sent a question to Attorney General Edward Bates asking whether or not "colored men" can be citizens of the United States. Attorney General Bates responded on November 29, 1862, with a 27-page opinion concluding, "I conclude that the free man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States, ...[34][italics in original]" In the course of that opinion, Bates commented at some length on the nature of citizenship, and wrote,

... our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.


If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every personborn in a country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the natural born right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance.[35][italics in original]
JSG will cry that it does not matter as he didn;t mention women specifically, but its clear that the AG did not exclude them.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Does a promissory note have

#522

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Aug 24, 2016 12:09 am

Does a promissory note have actual cash value or is it just evidence of citizenship?



User avatar
boots
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: Does a promissory note have

#523

Post by boots » Wed Aug 24, 2016 12:35 am

If I had to guess, patriotdistractions (check out his threads on quatloos for laughs) is confusing womens' suffrage with citizenship. But, it is entirely possible that he could be speaking of something even more crazy and less literate than this. Not sure how any of that relates to promissory notes... :confused:



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Does a promissory note have

#524

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Aug 24, 2016 12:52 am

SO he's been trolling this D=SovCit bullshite for 2 years and still thinks he is smart?

http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=10189

The guy is definitely on Government assistance. I feel sorry for the wife and homeschooled kids.



User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 11358
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Re: Does a promissory note have

#525

Post by Whatever4 » Wed Aug 24, 2016 1:08 am

A little burdy sent me Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449. As I suspected, the quote "One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States" doesn't appear. The case itself concerns liquor licenses and whether or not the statute was valid. As such, the Court went through all sections of the statute including whether or not the license fee was a tax and if liquor sales were allowed on Sundays. It's most definitely NOT a state/federal citizenship case.

The Court did say that in Indiana, a state citizen was a white male over 21 US citizen of good moral character and required a six month residence in the state while a similar foreign born required a declaration that he intended to become a US citizen, but that citizenship didn't matter as the statute concerned inhabitants. (The Indiana Constitution no longer has those requirements for state citizenship as the case was in 1860 and there have been a few amendments to the U.S. Constitution since then.)

As with most of the cites like this, someone (probably the crazy Paul Andrew Mitchel, as most sites that use this quote alse use most of his list) took some obscure state cases that aren't easily accessible and spun them for his agenda. He knew his audience wouldn't look them up.

Ironically, the case DOES say:
The term “citizen” has come to us derived from antiquity. It appears to have been used in the Roman government to designate a person who had the freedom of the city, and the right to exercise all political and civil privileges of the government.


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (R-ME)

Post Reply

Return to “FEMA Camp 7½”