Answer: There are two (2) classes of citizens: State Citizens and federal citizens. The first class originates in the Qualifications Clauses in the U.S. Constitution, where the term “Citizen of the United States” is used. (See 1:2:2, 1:3:3 and 2:1:5.) Notice the UPPER-CASE “C” in “Citizen”.
The pertinent court cases have defined the term “United States” in these Clauses to mean “States United”, and the full term means “Citizen of ONE OF the States United”. See People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870); Judge Pablo De La Guerra signed the California Constitution of 1849, when California first joined the Union. Similar terms are found in the Diversity Clause at Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, and in the Privileges and Immunities Clause at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1. Prior to the Civil War, there was only one (1) class of Citizens under American Law. See the holding in Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914-915 (1918), for definitive authority on this key point.
The second class originates in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, where the term “citizen of the United States” is used. This Act was later codified at 42 U.S.C. 1983. Notice the lower-case “c” in “citizen”. The pertinent court cases have held that Congress thereby created a municipal franchise primarily for members of the Negro race, who were freed by President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation (a war measure), and later by the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude. Compelling payment of a “tax” for which there is no liability statute is tantamount to involuntary servitude, and extortion.
Instead of using the unique term “federal citizen”, as found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, it is now clear that the Radical Republicans who sponsored the 1866 Civil Rights Act were attempting to confuse these two classes of citizens. Then, they attempted to elevate this second class to constitutional status, by proposing a 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As we now know, that proposal was never ratified. (See Answer to Question 6 above.)
Numerous court cases have struggled to clarify the important differences between the two classes. One of the most definitive, and dispositive cases, is Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914-915 (1918), which clearly held that federal citizens had no standing to sue under the Diversity Clause, because they were not even contemplated when Article III in the U.S. Constitution was first being drafted, circa 1787 A.D.
Another is Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855) in which the California Supreme Court ruled that there was no such thing as a “citizen of the United States” (as of the year 1855 A.D.). Only federal citizens have standing to invoke 42 U.S.C. 1983; whereas State Citizens do not. See Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F. 941 (C.C. Cal. 1905).
Many more cases can be cited to confirm the existence of two classes of citizens under American Law. These cases are thoroughly documented in the book entitled “The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue” by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., now in its eleventh edition. See also the pleadings in the case of USA v. Gilbertson, also in the Supreme Law Library.
11.Can one be a State Citizen, without also being a federal citizen?
Answer: Yes. The 1866 Civil Rights Act was municipal law, confined to the District of Columbia and other limited areas where Congress is the “state” government with exclusive legislative jurisdiction there. These areas are now identified as “the federal zone.” (Think of it as the blue field on the American flag; the stars on the flag are the 50 States.) As such, the 1866 Civil Rights Act had no effect whatsoever upon the lawful status of State Citizens, then or now.
Several courts have already recognized our Right to be State Citizens without also becoming federal citizens. For excellent examples, see State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889) and Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909). The Maine Supreme Court also clarified the issue by explaining our “Right of Election” or “freedom of choice,” namely, our freedom to choose between two different forms of government. See 44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting.
Since the Guarantee Clause does not require the federal government to guarantee a Republican Form of Government to the federal zone, Congress is free to create a different form of government there, and so it has. In his dissenting opinion in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 at 380 (1901), Supreme Court Justice Harlan called it an absolute legislative democracy.
But, State Citizens are under no legal obligation to join or pledge any allegiance to that legislative democracy; their allegiance is to one or more of the several States of the Union (i.e. the white stars on the American flag, not the blue field).
12. Who was Frank Brushaber, and why was his U.S. Supreme Court case so important?
Answer: Frank Brushaber was the Plaintiff in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the first U.S. Supreme Court case to consider the so-called 16th amendment. Brushaber identified himself as a Citizen of New York State and a resident of the Borough of Brooklyn, in the city of New York, and nobody challenged that claim.
The Union Pacific Railroad Company was a federal corporation created by Act of Congress to build a railroad through Utah (from the Union to the Pacific), at a time when Utah was a federal Territory, i.e. inside the federal zone.
Brushaber’s attorney committed an error by arguing that the company had been chartered by the State of Utah, but Utah was not a State of the Union when Congress first created that corporation.
Brushaber had purchased stock issued by the company. He then sued the company to recover taxes that Congress had imposed upon the dividends paid to its stockholders. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Frank Brushaber, and upheld the tax as a lawful excise, or indirect tax.
Cont ...