Profile
Channel Views:
114
Total Upload Views:
672
Age:
58
Joined:
Aug 2, 2011
Latest Activity:
2 months ago
Subscribers:
2
About Me:
"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 respective are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause (Section 1, Clause 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment) 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." Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, at 74 (1873).
So now there is a citizen of the United States, and a citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United States:
"We come to the contention that the citizenship of Edwards was not averred in the complaint or shown by the record, and hence jurisdiction did not appear.
In answering the question, whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the controversy, we must put ourselves in the place of the Circuit Court of Appeals, and decide the question with reference to the transcript of record in that court. . . .
As this is an action at law, we are bound to assume that the testimony of the plaintiff contained in the certificate of the Circuit Court of Appeals, and recited to have been given on the trial, was preserved in a bill of exceptions, which formed part of the transcript of record filed in the Circuit Court of Appeals. Being a part of the record, and proper to be resorted to in settling a question of the character of that now under consideration, Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 648, we come to ascertain what is established by the uncontradicted evidence referred to.
In the first place, it shows that Edwards, prior to his employment on the New York Sun and the New Haven Palladium, was legally domiciled in the State of Delaware. Next, it demonstrates that he had no intention to abandon such domicil, for he testified under oath as follows: 'One of the reasons I left the New Haven Palladium was, it was too far away from home. I lived in Delaware, and I had to go back and forth. My family are over in Delaware.' Now, it is elementary that, to effect a change of one's legal domicil, two things are indispensable: First, residence in a new domicil, and, second, the intention to remain there. The change cannot be made, except facto et animo. Both are alike necessary. Either without the other is insufficient. Mere absence from a fixed home, however long continued, cannot work the change. Mitchell v. United States, 21 Wall. 350.
As Delaware must, then, be held to have been the legal domicil of Edwards at the time he commenced this action, had it appeared that he was a citizen of the United States, it would have resulted, by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment, that Edwards was also a citizen of the State of Delaware. Anderson v. Watt, 138 U.S. 694. Be this as it may, however, Delaware being the legal domicil of Edwards, it was impossible for him to have been a citizen of another State, District, or Territory, and he must then have been either a citizen of Delaware or a citizen or subject of a foreign State. In either of these contingencies, the Circuit Court would have had jurisdiction over the controversy. But, in the light of the testimony, we are satisfied that the averment in the complaint, that Edwards was a resident 'of' the State of Delaware, was intended to mean, and, reasonably construed, must be interpreted as averring, that the plaintiff was a citizen of the State of Delaware. Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327, 331; Express Company v. Kountze, 8 Wall. 342." Sun Printing & Publishing Association v. Edwards: 194 U.S. 377, at 381 thru 383 (1904).
A citizen of the United States, under Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, can, by residing in a State of the Union, be also a citizen of a State. Thus, then are two distinct state citizens, a citizen of the United States residing in a State, and a citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United States.
In this video series (11 total) one is taken, with legal authority, to the conclusion that since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, there are now two citizens under the Constitution of the United States, one at Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the other at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 and how they are recognized under international law (law of nations).
One should view each video in the order presented. Each video builds on the knowledge of the preceding video.
Country:
United States
Recent Activity
|
Geeman4561 commented on Dred Scott Case reargued in...
"(1 of 2) It appears that there is a general misunderstanding with regard..."
more
|
|
|
|
Geeman4561 commented on Dred Scott v. Sandford
"(2 of 2) In "Problem Not Solved: Black Citizens and Black Slaves,"..."
more
|
|
|
|
Geeman4561 commented on Dred Scott v. Sandford
"(1 of 2) It appears that there is a general misunderstanding with regard..."
more
|
|
|
|
Geeman4561 commented on The Dred Scott Decision of ...
"(2 of 2) In "Problem Not Solved: Black Citizens and Black Slaves,"..."
more
|
|
|
|
Geeman4561 commented on Supreme Court "Mistakes": D...
"(2 of 2) In "Problem Not Solved: Black Citizens and Black Slaves,"..."
more
|
|
Subscribers
(2)
Channel Comments