Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Diversity of Citizenship Includes A Citizen of A State Who Is Not A Citizen of The United States

    Загружено:

    Dan Goodman
    62 просмотров9 страниц
    There is a citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United States. This is shown in the case of Sun Printing & Publishing Association v. Edwards (194 U.S. 377, 1904). Too, United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company (164 U. S. 686, 1897). Such citizen is recognized at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Slaughterhouse Cases, a citizen of a State, is still a citizen of a State, or more appropriately a citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United States. This can be seen in the area of diversity of citizenship. A general rule for removal in a diversity of citizenship case is that the proper citizenship must exist both when the action is commenced at the state level and when the petition for removal is filed at the federal level. A citizen of a State (who is not a citizen of the United States) can be seen in the following case of Bible Society v. Grove (101 U.S. 610). The suit was begun of March 6, 1868; approximately four months before ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. The petition for removal was filed on September 21, 1875; after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the case of Bible Society v. Grove, the Supreme Court made no comment on the averments on citizenship made on the petition for removal as no longer being in existence; that is, a citizen of a State (who is not a citizen of the United States), but that: “. . . As the plaintiffs are not shown to have been citizens of Missouri, it is clear that the defendants were not entitled to take the case to the courts of the United States ON THIS GROUND.” Bible Society v. Grove: 101 U.S. 610, at 612 (1879). In addition, Bible Society v. Grove (101 U.S. 610) is cited in Young v. Parker’s Administrator (132 U.S. 267). Therefore, diversity of citizenship includes a citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United States.

    Оригинальное название

    Diversity of Citizenship Includes a Citizen of a State who is not a Citizen of the United States

    Авторское право

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Доступные форматы

    PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    There is a citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United States. This is shown in the case of Sun Printing & Publishing Association v. Edwards (194 U.S. 377, 1904). Too, United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company (164 U. S. 686, 1897). Such citizen is recognized at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Slaughterhouse Cases, a citizen of a State, is still a citizen of a State, or more appropriately a citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United States. This can be seen in the area of diversity of citizenship. A general rule for removal in a diversity of citizenship case is that the proper citizenship must exist both when the action is commenced at the state level and when the petition for removal is filed at the federal level. A citizen of a State (who is not a citizen of the United States) can be seen in the following case of Bible Society v. Grove (101 U.S. 610). The suit was begun of March 6, 1868; approximately four months before ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. The petition for removal was filed on September 21, 1875; after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the case of Bible Society v. Grove, the Supreme Court made no comment on the averments on citizenship made on the petition for removal as no longer being in existence; that is, a citizen of a State (who is not a citizen of the United States), but that: “. . . As the plaintiffs are not shown to have been citizens of Missouri, it is clear that the defendants were not entitled to take the case to the courts of the United States ON THIS GROUND.” Bible Society v. Grove: 101 U.S. 610, at 612 (1879). In addition, Bible Society v. Grove (101 U.S. 610) is cited in Young v. Parker’s Administrator (132 U.S. 267). Therefore, diversity of citizenship includes a citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United States.

    Авторское право:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Скачайте в формате PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    62 просмотров9 страниц

    Diversity of Citizenship Includes A Citizen of A State Who Is Not A Citizen of The United States

    Загружено:

    Dan Goodman
    There is a citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United States. This is shown in the case of Sun Printing & Publishing Association v. Edwards (194 U.S. 377, 1904). Too, United States v. Northwestern Express, Stage & Transportation Company (164 U. S. 686, 1897). Such citizen is recognized at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Slaughterhouse Cases, a citizen of a State, is still a citizen of a State, or more appropriately a citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United States. This can be seen in the area of diversity of citizenship. A general rule for removal in a diversity of citizenship case is that the proper citizenship must exist both when the action is commenced at the state level and when the petition for removal is filed at the federal level. A citizen of a State (who is not a citizen of the United States) can be seen in the following case of Bible Society v. Grove (101 U.S. 610). The suit was begun of March 6, 1868; approximately four months before ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. The petition for removal was filed on September 21, 1875; after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the case of Bible Society v. Grove, the Supreme Court made no comment on the averments on citizenship made on the petition for removal as no longer being in existence; that is, a citizen of a State (who is not a citizen of the United States), but that: “. . . As the plaintiffs are not shown to have been citizens of Missouri, it is clear that the defendants were not entitled to take the case to the courts of the United States ON THIS GROUND.” Bible Society v. Grove: 101 U.S. 610, at 612 (1879). In addition, Bible Society v. Grove (101 U.S. 610) is cited in Young v. Parker’s Administrator (132 U.S. 267). Therefore, diversity of citizenship includes a citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United States.

    Авторское право:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Скачайте в формате PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 9

    DiversityofCitizenshipincludesa CitizenofaStatewhoisnot aCitizenoftheUnitedStates

    2012DanGoodman ThereisacitizenofaStatewhoisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates: WecometothecontentionthatthecitizenshipofEdwardswasnotaverredin thecomplaintorshownbytherecord,andhencejurisdictiondidnotappear. Inansweringthequestion,whethertheCircuitCourthadjurisdictionofthe controversy,wemustputourselvesintheplaceoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,and decidethequestionwithreferencetothetranscriptofrecordinthatcourt. HadthetranscriptshownnothingmoreastothestatusofEdwardsthanthe avermentofthecomplaintthathewasaresidentoftheStateofDelaware,assuch anavermentwouldnotnecessarilyhaveimportedthatEdwardswasacitizenof Delaware,anegativeanswerwouldhavebeenimpelledbypriordecisions.Mexican CentralRy.Co.v.Duthie,189U.S.76;Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,155U.S.393; Dennyv.Pironi,141U.S.121;Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.646.Thewholerecord, however,maybelookedto,forthepurposeofcuringadefectiveavermentof citizenship,wherejurisdictioninaFederalcourtisassertedtodependupon diversityofcitizenship,andiftherequisitecitizenship,isanywhereexpressly averredintherecord,orfactsarethereinstatedwhichinlegalintendment constitutesuchallegation,thatissufficient.Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,supra andcasescited. Asthisisanactionatlaw,weareboundtoassumethatthetestimonyofthe plaintiffcontainedinthecertificateoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,andrecitedto havebeengivenonthetrial,waspreservedinabillofexceptions,whichformed partofthetranscriptofrecordfiledintheCircuitCourtofAppeals.Beingapartof therecord,andpropertoberesortedtoinsettlingaquestionofthecharacterof thatnowunderconsideration,Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.648,wecometoascertain whatisestablishedbytheuncontradictedevidencereferredto. Inthefirstplace,itshowsthatEdwards,priortohisemploymentontheNew YorkSunandtheNewHavenPalladium,waslegallydomiciledintheStateof 1

    Delaware.Next,itdemonstratesthathehadnointentiontoabandonsuchdomicil, forhetestifiedunderoathasfollows:OneofthereasonsIlefttheNewHaven Palladiumwas,itwastoofarawayfromhome.IlivedinDelaware,andIhadtogo backandforth.MyfamilyareoverinDelaware.Now,itiselementarythat,toeffect achangeofoneslegaldomicil,twothingsareindispensable:First,residenceina newdomicil,and,second,theintentiontoremainthere.Thechangecannotbe made,exceptfactoetanimo.Botharealikenecessary.Eitherwithouttheotheris insufficient.Mereabsencefromafixedhome,howeverlongcontinued,cannotwork thechange.Mitchellv.UnitedStates,21Wall.350. AsDelawaremust,then,beheldtohavebeenthelegaldomicilofEdwardsatthe timehecommencedthisaction,haditappearedthathewasacitizenofthe UnitedStates,itwouldhaveresulted,byoperationoftheFourteenth Amendment,thatEdwardswasalsoacitizenoftheStateofDelaware.Anderson v.Watt,138U.S.694.Bethisasitmay,however,Delawarebeingthelegaldomicilof Edwards,itwasimpossibleforhimtohavebeenacitizenofanotherState,District, orTerritory,andhemustthenhavebeeneitheracitizenofDelawareoracitizen orsubjectofaforeignState.Ineitherofthesecontingencies,theCircuitCourt wouldhavehadjurisdictionoverthecontroversy.But,inthelightofthetestimony, wearesatisfiedthattheavermentinthecomplaint,thatEdwardswasaresidentof theStateofDelaware,wasintendedtomean,and,reasonablyconstrued,mustbe interpretedasaverring,thattheplaintiffwasacitizenoftheStateofDelaware. Jonesv.Andrews,10Wall.327,331;ExpressCompanyv.Kountze,8Wall.342.Sun Printing&PublishingAssociationv.Edwards:194U.S.377,at381thru383(1904).
    http://books.google.com/books?id=tekGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA381#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Also: TheactwasconsideredinJohnsonv.UnitedStates,160U.S.546,andwethere heldthatapersonwhowasnotacitizenoftheUnitedStatesatthetimeofan allegedappropriationofhispropertybyatribeofIndianswasnotentitledto maintainanactionintheCourtofClaimsundertheactinquestion.Therewasnot inthatcase,however,anyassertionthattheclaimantwasacitizenofaStateas distinguishedfromacitizenoftheUnitedStates....[U]ndoubtedlyinapurely technicalandabstractsensecitizenshipofoneoftheStatesmaynotinclude citizenshipoftheUnitedStates...Unquestionably,inthegeneralandcommon acceptation,acitizenoftheStateisconsideredassynonymouswithcitizenofthe UnitedStates,andtheoneisthereforetreatedasexpressiveoftheother.This flowsfromthefactthattheoneisnormallyandusuallytheother,andwhere suchisnotthecase,itispurelyexceptionalanduncommon.UnitedStatesv. NorthwesternExpress,Stage&TransportationCompany:164U.S.686,688(1897).
    http://books.google.com/books?id=xOQGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA688#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    SuchacitizenisrecognizedatArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitutionof theUnitedStatesofAmerica: ...Thereisnoinherentrightinacitizentothussellintoxicatingliquorsby retail.ItisnotaprivilegeofacitizenoftheStateorofacitizenoftheUnited States.Crowleyv.Christensen:137U.S.86,at91(1890).


    http://books.google.com/books?id=htIGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA91#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Anotherobjectiontotheactisthatitisinviolationofsection2,art.4,ofthe constitutionoftheUnitedStates,andofthefourteenthamendment,inthatthisact discriminatesbothastopersonsandproducts.Section2,art.4,declaresthatthe citizensofeachstateshallbeentitledtoalltheprivilegesandimmunitiesofthe citizensoftheseveralstates;andthefourteenthamendmentdeclaresthatnostate shallmakeorenforceanylawwhichshallabridgetheprivilegesandimmunitiesof citizensoftheUnitedStates.Butwehaveseenthatthesupremecourt,inCrowleyv. Christensen,137U.S.91,11Sup.Ct.Rep.15,hasdeclaredthatthereisnoinherent rightinacitizentosellintoxicatingliquorsbyretail.Itisnotaprivilegeofacitizen ofastateorofacitizenoftheUnitedStates.Cantiniv.Tillman:54Fed.Rep.969, at973(1893).
    http://books.google.com/books?id=Ehg4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA973#v=onepage&q&f=false

    AcitizenoftheUnitedStatescanbecomealsoacitizenofaState,underSection1, Clause1oftheFourteenthAmendment.AcitizenoftheUnitedStatesisthena citizenoftheUnitedStatesANDacitizenofaState: Thequestionispresentedinthiscase,whether,sincetheadoptionofthe fourteenthamendment,awoman,whoisacitizenoftheUnitedStatesANDtheState ofMissouri,isavoterinthatState,notwithstandingtheprovisionoftheconstitution andlawsoftheState,whichconfinetherightofsuffragetomenalone.... Thereisnodoubtthatwomenmaybecitizens.Theyarepersons,andbythe fourteenthamendmentallpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStatesand subjecttothejurisdictionthereofareexpresslydeclaredtobecitizensofthe UnitedStatesandoftheStatewhereintheyreside.Minorv.Happersett:88U.S. (21Wall.)162,at165(1874).
    http://books.google.com/books?id=IEsGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA165#v=onepage&q&f=false

    TheFourteenthAmendmentdeclaresthatcitizensoftheUnitedStatesare citizensofthestatewithintheyreside;thereforetheplaintiffwasatthetimeof makingherapplication,acitizenoftheUnitedStatesANDacitizenoftheStateof Illinois. 3

    Wedonotheremeantosaythattheremaynotbeatemporaryresidenceinone State,withintenttoreturntoanother,whichwillnotcreatecitizenshipinthe former.Buttheplaintiffstatesnothingtotakehercaseoutofthedefinitionof citizenshipofaStateasdefinedbythefirstsectionofthefourteenthamendment. Bradwellv.theStateofIllinois:83U.S.130,at138(1873).


    http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA138#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    SincetheratificationoftheFourteenthAmendmentandtheSlaughterhouseCases, acitizenofaState,isstillacitizenofaState,ormoreappropriatelyacitizenofa StatewhoisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates.Thiscanbeseenintheareaof diversityofcitizenship. Ageneralruleforremovalinadiversityofcitizenshipcaseisthattheproper citizenshipmustexistbothwhentheactioniscommencedatthestateleveland whenthepetitionforremovalisfiledatthefederallevel.Someauthority: InGibsonv.Bruce,108U.S.561,itwasdecidedthatundertheactofMarch3d, 1875,c.137,asuitcouldnotberemovedonthegroundofcitizenshipunlessthe requisitecitizenshipexistedbothwhenthesuitwasbegunandwhenthepetitionfor removalwasfiled.Houston&TexasCentralRailroadCompany&Othersv.Shirley: 111U.S.358,at360(1884).
    http://books.google.com/books?id=HnIUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA360#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Theprovisionsofthatactarereproducedinthethirdsubdivisionofsection639 oftheRevisedStatutes,anditwasandisessential,inordertosuchremoval,where thereareseveralplaintiffsorseveraldefendants,thatallthenecessarypartieson onesidemustbecitizensoftheStatewherethesuitisbrought,andallontheother sidemustbecitizensofanotherStateorStates,andthepropercitizenshipmust existwhentheactioniscommencedaswellaswhenthepetitionforremovalisfiled. SewingMachineCases,18Wall.553;Vannevarv.Bryant,21Wall.41;BibleSocietyv. Grove,101U.S.610;CambriaIronCompanyv.Ashburn,118U.S.54;Hancockv. Holbrook,119U.S.586;Fletcherv.Hamlet,116U.S.408.Youngv.Parkers Administrator:132U.S.267,at270thru271(1889).
    http://books.google.com/books?id=kMQGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA271#v=onepage&q&f=false

    2.Thecasewasnotremovablefromthestatecourt,unlessitappeared affirmativelyinthepetitionforremoval,orelsewhereintherecord,thatatthe commencementoftheaction,aswellaswhentheremovalwasasked,Stevensand MirickwerecitizensofsomeotherStatethantheoneofwhichtheplaintiffwas,at thoserespectivedates,acitizen.Gibsonv.Bruce,108U.S.561,562;Houston&Texas 4

    CentralRailwayv.Shirley,111U.S.358,360;Mansfield,Coldwater&c.Railwayv. Swan,111U.S.379,381;Akersv.Akers,117U.S.197.Stevensv.Nichols:130U.S. 230,at231thru232(1889).


    http://books.google.com/books?id=SsMGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA231#v=onepage&q&f=false

    AcitizenofaState(whoisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates)canbeseeninthe followingcaseofBibleSocietyv.Grove(101U.S.610): Thiswasasuitbegunonthe6thofMarch,1868[Footnote1],inaStatecourt, byapartoftheheirsatlawofJacobE.Grove,tosetasidehiswill.Thedefendants weretheexecutorsofthewill,thelegateesordevisees,andsomeoftheheirs.The casewastriedfourtimesintheStatecourt,andthevenuewaschangedtwice.At threeofthetrialsthejurydisagreed.Attheotheraverdictwasgivenforthe plaintiffs,whichthecourtsetaside.ThelasttrialcommencedApril14,1875,atthe JanuaryadjournedtermoftheCircuitCourtofMaconCounty,Missouri,andresulted inadisagreementofthejury.Atthenextterm,beginningonthethirdMondayin May,thecausewascontinued. Onthe21stofSeptember,1875,theAmericanBibleSociety,oneofthe defendantsinthesuit,aNewYorkcorporation,andalegateeunderthewill,filedits petitionfortheremovalofthecausetotheCircuitCourtoftheUnitedStates.The groundofremovalisthusstatedinthepetition: ThatsaidJohnA.Groveandothers,plaintiffsasaforesaid,areresidentsand citizensoftheStateofOhio[Footnote2],andotherStatesotherthantheStateof NewYork;thatnoneofsaidplaintiffsresideinorarecitizensoftheStateofNew York;thatsaidcontroversyiswhollybetweencitizensofdifferentStates,andcanbe fullydeterminedasbetweenthem;thatpetitionerisactuallyinterestedinsaid controversy(beingtheonlypartywhoseinterestsplaintiffsprofesstodesireto affectinsaidcontroversy);thattheamountinvolvedinsaidcontroversyexceeds $5,000.Petitionerfurtherstatesthatithasreasontobelieve,anddoesbelieve,that fromprejudiceandlocalinfluenceitwillnotbeabletoobtainjusticeinsaidCircuit CourtofMaconCountyaforesaid.Accompanyingthepetitionwasthenecessary bond,andanaffidavitoftheattorneyofthepetitioner,statinghisbeliefofthefacts setforth,andthatfromlocalinfluenceandprejudicethepetitionerwouldnotbe abletoobtainjusticeintheStatecourt.Itnowhereappearsfromthepetitionorthe recordthateitheroftheplaintiffswasacitizenofMissouri.BibleSocietyv.Grove: 101U.S.610,at610thru611(1879).
    http://books.google.com/books?id=GS8GAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA610#v=onepage&q&f=false

    ThecommencementofthiscasewasonMarch6,1868;beforetheratificationof theFourteenthAmendment.CitizenshipoftheUnitedStatesdidnotexist separatelyfromcitizenshipofaState.OnewhowasacitizenofaState,under ArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution,wasalsoacitizenoftheUnited States(forpurposesofinternationallaw[Footnote3])entitledtoprivilegesand immunitiesofcitizensintheseveralStates.OnSeptember21,1875;afterthe adoptionoftheFourteenthAmendment,thepetitionforremovalwasfiled.The FourteenthAmendmentaccordingtotheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates,inthe SlaughterhouseCases,changedcitizenshipundertheConstitution.Citizenshipofa Statewasnowtobeconsideredasseparateanddistinctfromcitizenshipofthe UnitedStates.AcitizenofaStatewastobeconsideredasseparateanddistinctfrom acitizenoftheUnitedStates: OftheprivilegesandimmunitiesofthecitizenoftheUnitedStates,andof theprivilegesandimmunitiesofthecitizenoftheState,andwhattheyrespective are,wewillpresentlyconsider;butwewishtostateherethatitisonlytheformer whichareplacedbythisclause(Section1,Clause2oftheFourteenthAmendment) undertheprotectionoftheFederalConstitution,andthatthelatter,whateverthey maybe,arenotintendedtohaveanyadditionalprotectionbythisparagraphofthe amendment.SlaughterhouseCases:83U.S.(16Wall.)36,at74(1873).[Footnote 4],[Footnote5]
    http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q&f=false

    InthecaseofBibleSocietyv.Grove,theSupremeCourtmadenocommentonthe avermentsoncitizenshipmadeonthepetitionforremovalasnolongerbeingin existence;thatis,acitizenofaState(whoisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates),but that: ...AstheplaintiffsarenotshowntohavebeencitizensofMissouri,itisclear thatthedefendantswerenotentitledtotakethecasetothecourtsoftheUnited StatesONTHISGROUND.BibleSocietyv.Grove:101U.S.610,at612(1879).


    http://books.google.com/books?id=GS8GAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA612#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Inaddition,BibleSocietyv.Grove(101U.S.610)iscitedinYoungv.Parkers Administrator(132U.S.267)above. Therefore,acitizenofaStatewhoisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStatescanpursuea diversityofcitizenshipcauseofaction.Or,inotherwords,diversityofcitizenship includesacitizenofaStatewhoisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates. 6

    ________________________ Footnotes: 1.TheFourteenthAmendmentwasadoptedonJuly28,1868: TheFourteenthAmendmentwhichwasfinallyadoptedJuly28,1868.Holden v.Hardy:169U.S.375,at382(1918).


    http://books.google.com/books?id=4sGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA382#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    OnJuly28,1868,thesecretaryofstateproclaimedthatthefourteentharticleof amendmentstotheconstitutionoftheUnitedStateshadbeenratifiedbythree fourthsofthestatesoftheUnion.UnitedStatesv.Lackey:99F.Rep.952,at995 (1900).


    http://books.google.com/books?id=Slc4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA955#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    2.Plaintiffsinthiscase,inthepetitionforremovalonSeptember21,1875,areaverredto ascitizensofaState,notcitizensoftheUnitedStatesandaState: ThebillfiledintheCircuitCourtbytheplaintiff,McQuesten,allegedhertobe acitizenoftheUnitedStatesandoftheStateofMassachusetts,andresidingat TurnerFallsinsaidState,whilethedefendantsSteiglederandwifewerealleged tobecitizensoftheStateofWashington,andresidingatthecityofSeattleinsaid State.StatementoftheCase,Steigleiderv.McQuesten:198U.S.141(1905). TheavermentinthebillthatthepartieswerecitizensofdifferentStates wassufficienttomakeaprimafaciecaseofjurisdictionsofarasitdependedon citizenship.Opinion,Steigleiderv.McQuesten:198U.S.141,at142(1905).
    http://books.google.com/books?id=ceIGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA141#v=onepage&q&f=false

    AcitizenoftheUnitedStatesistoidentifiedhiscitizenshipinafederalcourtbyaverring thatheorsheisacitizenoftheUnitedStatesANDacitizenofaStateoftheUnion: ThecourtsoftheUnitedStateshavenotjurisdictionincasesbetweencitizens oftheUnitedStates,unlesstherecordexpresslystatesthemtobecitizensof differentstates.Woodv.Wagon:6U.S.(2Cranch)1(1804).


    http://books.google.com/books?id=qzkFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q&f=false

    ThereasonforthisisthatacitizenoftheUnitedStatescanbeacitizenoftheUnited StateswithoutbeingacitizenofaState,asinthecaseoflivingoverseas(aboard). ThatthereisacitizenoftheUnitedStatesandacitizenofaStatewhoisnota citizenoftheUnitedStatesisshowninthefollowingcase: ...IntheConstitutionandlawsoftheUnitedStates,thewordcitizenis generally,ifnotalways,usedinapoliticalsensetodesignateonewhohastherights andprivilegesofacitizenofaStateoroftheUnitedStates.Baldwinv.Franks: 120U.S.678,at690(1887).


    http://books.google.com/books?id=c04GAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA690#v=onepage&q&f=false

    3.Theintercourseofthiscountrywithforeignnationsanditspolicyinregardto them,areplacedbytheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesinthehandsofthe government,anditsdecisionsuponthesesubjectsareobligatoryuponeverycitizen oftheUnion.Heisboundtobeatwarwiththenationagainstwhichthewar makingpowerhasdeclaredwar,andequallyboundtocommitnoactofhostility againstanationwithwhichthegovernmentisinamityandfriendship.This principleisuniversallyacknowledgedbythelawsofnations.Itliesatthe foundationofallgovernment,astherecouldbenosocialorderorpeacefulrelations betweenthecitizensofdifferentcountrieswithoutit.Itis,however,more emphaticallytrueinrelationtocitizensoftheUnitedStates.Forasthesovereignty residesinthepeople,everycitizenisaportionofit,andishimselfpersonallybound bythelawswhichtherepresentativesofthesovereigntymaypass,orthetreaties intowhichtheymayenter,withinthescopeoftheirdelegatedauthority.Andwhen thatauthorityhasplighteditsfaithtoanothernationthatthereshallbepeaceand friendshipbetweenthecitizensofthetwocountries,everycitizenoftheUnited Statesisequallyandpersonallypledged.Thecompactismadebythedepartmentof thegovernmentuponwhichhehimselfhasagreedtoconferthepower.Itishisown personalcompactasaportionofthesovereigntyinwhosebehalfitismade.Andhe candonoact,norenterintoanyagreementtopromoteorencouragerevoltor hostilitiesagainsttheterritoriesofacountrywithwhichourgovernmentispledged bytreatytobeatpeace,withoutabreachofhisdutyasacitizenandthebreachof thefaithpledgedtotheforeignnation.Kennettv.Chambers:55U.S.(Howard14) 38,49thru50(1852). 4.And: ...Itis,then,totheFourteenthAmendmentthattheadvocatesofthe 8

    congressionalactmustresorttofindauthorityforitsenactment,andtothefirst sectionofthatamendment,whichisasfollows:Allpersonsbornornaturalizedin theUnitedStates,andsubjecttothejurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnited States,andoftheStatewhereintheyreside.NoStateshallmakeorenforceanylaw whichshallabridgetheprivilegesorimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates,nor shallanyStatedepriveanypersonoflife,liberty,orproperty,withoutdueprocess oflaw,nordenytoanypersonwithinitsjurisdictiontheequalprotectionofthe laws. Inthefirstclauseofthissection,declaringwhoarecitizensoftheUnitedStates, thereisnothingwhichtouchesthesubjectunderconsideration.Thesecondclause, declaringthatnoStateshallmakeorenforceanylawwhichwillabridgethe privilegesorimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates,islimited,accordingto thedecisionofthiscourtinSlaughterHouseCases,tosuchprivilegesand immunitiesasbelongtocitizensoftheUnitedStates,asdistinguishedfrom thoseofcitizensoftheState.Nealv.StateofDelaware:103U.S.370,at406 (1880).
    http://books.google.com/books?id=Y7wGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA406#v=onepage&q&f=false

    5.ItistobenotedthatprivilegesandimmunitiesofacitizenofaStateareinthe constitutionandlawsofaparticularState: ...Whatevermaybethescopeofsection2ofarticleIVandweneednot,in thiscaseenteruponaconsiderationofthegeneralquestiontheConstitutionof theUnitedStatesdoesnotmaketheprivilegesandimmunitiesenjoyedbythe citizensofoneStateundertheconstitutionandlawsofthatState,themeasureofthe privilegesandimmunitiestobeenjoyed,asofright,byacitizenofanotherState underitsconstitutionandlaws.McKanev.Durston:153U.S.684,at687(1894).


    http://books.google.com/books?id=mmkUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA687#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    Вам также может понравиться