ForPurposesofInternationalLawthereare TwocitizensinthecountryoftheUnitedStates

2012DanGoodman Inhiswork,TheGovernmentoftheUnitedStates:National,State,andLocal, (1919),WilliamBennettMunro(ProfessorofMunicipalGovernmentatHarvard University)[Footnote1],statesatpage73: Sofarastherulesofinternationallawareconcerned,onlyonecitizenshipis recognized,namely,citizenshipoftheUnitedStates.Inrelationswithforeign powersallcitizensoftheUnitedStates,whereverresident,arealike;theyare equallyentitledtotheprotectionofthenationalgovernment;theycarrythesame sortofpassport;theyhavethesameprivilegesandimmunitiesabroad.But constitutionallaw,thesupremelawoftheUnitedStates,stillrecognizesthedual natureofAmericancitizenship,theFourteenthAmendmentbeingexplicitonthat pointwhenitusesthewordscitizensoftheUnitedStatesandofthestateswherein theyreside,althoughnoonecannowpossessoneformofcitizenshipwithoutthe other.Apartfromthequestionofdeterminingthecourtsinwhichsuitsshallbe brought,however,thedualityisnotofanypracticalimportancebecausecitizensof theUnitedStateshavethesameprivilegesandimmunitiesinallthestates.
http://books.google.com/books?id=klsvAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA73#v=onepage&q&f=false

Section1,Clause1oftheFourteenthAmendmentisquotedbyMunroasfollows: citizensoftheUnitedStatesandoftheSTATESwhereintheyreside. However,Section1,Clause1oftheFourteenthAmendmentprovides: citizensoftheUnitedStatesandoftheSTATEwhereintheyreside. Thismistakeisintentionalasintheparagraphbeforethisparagraphhewrites: ButtheFourteenthAmendment,adoptedin1868,reversedthisdoctrine, assertingthatallpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStates,andsubjectto thejurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandoftheSTATESwherein theyreside.ThisamendmentdeclaredcitizenshiptobeprimarilyoftheUnited 1

Statesandonlyconsequentiallyoftheseveralstates.CitizenshipoftheUnited Stateswasmadefundamental.Since1868anycitizenoftheUnitedStatesbybirth ornaturalizationbecomesacitizenofastatebymerelytakinguphisresidence there.NostatecaneitherbestowAmericancitizenshiporwithholdit.

http://books.google.com/books?id=klsvAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA72#v=onepage&q&f=false

MunroschangingofthewordStateintothewordStateschangesthemeaning oftheFourteenthAmendment.InsteadofonewhoisacitizenoftheUnitedStates beingacitizenofaStatealsobyresidinginaState,onewhoisacitizenoftheUnited States,isaccordingtoMunros,acitizenoftheseveralStatesalsobyresidingina State.Thisheadmits: ButtheFourteenthAmendment,adoptedin1868,reversedthisdoctrine, assertingthatallpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStates,andsubjectto thejurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandofthestateswherein theyreside.ThisamendmentdeclaredcitizenshiptobeprimarilyoftheUnitedStates andonlyconsequentiallyoftheseveralstates. However,thisisnotthecase.WhenacitizenoftheUnitedStatesisresiding withinaState,acitizenoftheUnitedStatesisalsoacitizenofaState: TheFourteenthAmendmentdeclaresthatcitizensoftheUnitedStatesare citizensofthestatewithintheyreside;thereforetheplaintiffwasatthetimeof makingherapplication,acitizenoftheUnitedStatesandacitizenoftheStateof Illinois. Wedonotheremeantosaythattheremaynotbeatemporaryresidenceinone State,withintenttoreturntoanother,whichwillnotcreatecitizenshipinthe former.Buttheplaintiffstatesnothingtotakehercaseoutofthedefinitionof citizenshipofaStateasdefinedbythefirstsectionofthefourteenthamendment. Bradwellv.StateofIllinois:83U.S.130,at138(1873).
http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA138#v=onepage&q=&f=false

WilliamMunroconcludedthat:Sofarastherulesofinternationallaware concerned,onlyonecitizenshipisrecognized,namely,citizenshipoftheUnited States. Thisisincorrect.Thispaperwillshowthattherearetwocitizens,notone,inthe countryoftheUnitedStates,undertheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica. 2

InthecountryoftheUnitedStatestherearenowtwocitizenssincetheadoption oftheFourteenthAmendmentandtheSlaughterhouseCases:acitizenoftheUnited States,underSection1,Clause1oftheFourteenthAmendment,andacitizenofa StatewhoisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1of theConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica.[Footnote2]Thefollowingcases ondiversityofcitizenshipshowthatthereisacitizenoftheUnitedStates,anda citizenofaStatewhoisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates: Thepetitionavers,thattheplaintiff,RichardRaynalKeene,isacitizenofthe stateofMaryland;andthatJamesBrown,thedefendant,isacitizenorresidentof thestateofLouisiana,holdinghisfixedandpermanentdomicilintheparishofSt. Charles.Thepetition,then,doesnotaverpositively,thatthedefendantisacitizen ofthestateofLouisiana,butinthealternative,thatheisacitizenoraresident. Consistentlywiththisaverment,hemaybeeither. ...AcitizenoftheUnitedStatesmaybecomeacitizenofthatstateinwhich hehasafixedandpermanentdomicil;butthepetitionDOESNOTAVERthatthe plaintiffisacitizenoftheUnitedStates.... Thedecisionsofthiscourtrequire,thattheavermentofjurisdictionshallbe positive,andthatthedeclarationshallstateexpresslythefactonwhichjurisdiction depends.Itisnotsufficientthatjurisdictionmaybeinferredargumentativelyfrom itsaverments. TheanswerofJamesBrownasserts,thatbothplaintiffanddefendantare citizensoftheStateofLouisiana. Withoutindicatinganyopiniononthequestion,whetheranyadmissioninthe pleacancureaninsufficientallegationofjurisdictioninthedeclaration,weareallof opinionthatthisanswerdoesnotcurethedefectofthepetition.Iftheavermentof theanswermaybelookedinto,thewholeavermentmustbetakentogether.Itis thatbothplaintiffanddefendantarecitizensofLouisiana.Brownv.Keene:33U.S. (Peters8)112,at115thru116(1834).
http://books.google.com/books?id=DUUFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA115#v=onepage&q&f=false

Syllabus: Thefacts,whichinvolvedthesufficiencyofavermentsandproofofdiverse citizenshiptomaintainthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesCircuitCourt,arestated intheopinionofthecourt. Opinion: WecometothecontentionthatthecitizenshipofEdwardswasnotaverredin thecomplaintorshownbytherecord,andhencejurisdictiondidnotappear. 3

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 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,Delawarebeingthelegal domicilofEdwards,itwasimpossibleforhimtohavebeenacitizenofanother 4

State,District,orTerritory,andhemustthenhavebeeneitheracitizenof DelawareoracitizenorsubjectofaforeignState.Ineitherofthese contingencies,theCircuitCourtwouldhavehadjurisdictionoverthe controversy.But,inthelightofthetestimony,wearesatisfiedthattheavermentin thecomplaint,thatEdwardswasaresidentoftheStateofDelaware,wasintended tomean,and,reasonablyconstrued,mustbeinterpretedasaverring,thatthe plaintiffwasacitizenoftheStateofDelaware.Jonesv.Andrews,10Wall.327, 331;ExpressCompanyv.Kountze,8Wall.342.SunPrinting&Publishing Associationv.Edwards:194U.S.377,at381thru383(1904).

http://books.google.com/books?id=tekGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA381#v=onepage&q&f=false

ThebillfiledintheCircuitCourtbytheplaintiff,McQuesten,allegedhertobe acitizenoftheUnitedStatesandoftheStateofMassachusetts,andresidingat TurnerFallsinsaidState,whilethedefendantsSteiglederandwifewerealleged tobecitizensoftheStateofWashington,andresidingatthecityofSeattleinsaid State.StatementoftheCase,Steiglederv.McQuesten:198U.S.141(1905).{After theFourteenthAmendment} TheavermentinthebillthatthepartieswerecitizensofdifferentStates wassufficienttomakeaprimafaciecaseofjurisdictionsofarasitdependedon citizenship.Opinion,Steiglederv.McQuesten:198U.S.141,at142(1905).{After theFourteenthAmendment}
http://books.google.com/books?id=ceIGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA141#v=onepage&q&f=false

AcitizenoftheUnitedStates,sincetheadoptionoftheFourteenthAmendment, isnolongeracitizenoftheUnion;thatis,theUnitedStatesofAmerica,butnowisa citizenoftheUnitedStates(FourteenthAmendment),thatis,acitizenofthe territoriesandpossessionsoftheUnitedStates,includingtheDistrictofColumbiaas wellasfederalenclaveswiththeseveralStates.[Footnote4]Thus,acitizenofthe UnitedStateshasadomicileintheterritoriesandpossessionsoftheUnitedStates, includingtheDistrictofColumbiaaswellasfederalenclaveswiththeseveralStates, butnotinanyoftheseveralStates. AcitizenofaState,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution,isone whoisborninanindividualStateoftheUnion,bothbeforeandaftertheadoptionof theConstitution: (BeforetheFourteenthAmendment) Itappearsthattheplaintiffinerror,thoughanativeborncitizenofLouisiana, wasmarriedintheStateofMississippi,whileunderage,withtheconsentofher guardian,toacitizenofthelatterState,andthattheirdomicile,duringtheduration 5

oftheirmarriage,wasinMississippi.Connerv.Elliott:59U.S.(Howard18)591,at 592(1855).
http://books.google.com/books?id=RkcFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA592#v=onepage&q&f=false

(AftertheFourteenthAmendment) JosephA.Iasigi,anativeborncitizenofMassachusetts,wasarrested, February14,1897,onawarrantissuedbyoneofthecitymagistratesofthecityof NewYork,asafugitivefromthejusticeoftheStateofMassachusetts.Iasigiv.Van DeCarr:166U.S.391,at392(1897).

http://books.google.com/books?id=xuUGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA392#v=onepage&q&f=false

AcitizenoftheUnitedStatescanbecomeacitizenofaState,underSection1, Clause1oftheFourteenthAmendment,byresidinginaState: TheFourteenthAmendmentdeclaresthatcitizensoftheUnitedStatesare citizensofthestatewithintheyreside;thereforetheplaintiffwasatthetimeof makingherapplication,acitizenoftheUnitedStatesandacitizenoftheStateof Illinois. Wedonotheremeantosaythattheremaynotbeatemporaryresidenceinone State,withintenttoreturntoanother,whichwillnotcreatecitizenshipinthe former.Buttheplaintiffstatesnothingtotakehercaseoutofthedefinitionof citizenshipofaStateasdefinedbythefirstsectionofthefourteenth amendment.Bradwellv.StateofIllinois:83U.S.130,at138(1873).
http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA138#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Resides,asusedinSection1,Clause1oftheFourteenthAmendment,hasbeen presumedtomeanpermanentresidence.[Footnote5]However,inthe SlaughterhouseCases,theSupremeCourtstatesthatresidesmeansbonafide residence: Oneoftheseprivilegesisconferredbytheveryarticle(Fourteenth Amendment)underconsideration.ItisthatacitizenoftheUnitedStatescan,ofhis ownvolition,becomeacitizenofanyStateoftheUnionbyabonafideresidence therein,withthesamerightsasothercitizensofthatState.SlaughterhouseCases: 83U.S.(16Wall.)36,at80(1873).

http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA80#v=onepage&q&f=false

Bonafideresidencedoesnotmeandomicile: ...Theverymeaningofdomicilisthetechnicallypreeminentheadquarters thateverypersoniscompelledtohaveinorderthatcertainrightsanddutiesthat havebeenattachedtoitbythelawmaybedetermined.Bergner&EngelBrewingCo. v.Dreyfus,172Massachusetts,154,157.Initsnatureitisone,andifanycasetwo arerecognizedfordifferentpurposesitisadoubtfulanomaly.Dicey,Conflictof Laws,2ded.98.Williamsonv.Osenton:232U.S.619,at625(1914).

http://books.google.com/books?id=2u4GAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA625#v=onepage&q&f=false

Apersonmaymaintainmorethanoneresidenceandthefactthatoneis maintainedforpoliticalpurposesdoesnotitselfpreventtheresidencefrombeing actualandbonafide.Intenttomaintainaresidenceisanimportantfactor,butintent alonedoesnotestablishabonafideresidence.Theremustbeactual,physicaluseor occupationofquartersforlivingpurposesbeforeresidenceisestablished.Williamson v.VillageofBaskin:339So.2d474(1976).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13547316696383020452

Ourstatute65.02,FloridaStatutes1941,F.S.A.reads,Inordertoobtaina divorcethecomplainantmusthaveresided(emphasisnotmine)ninetydaysinthe StateofFloridabeforethefilingofthebillofcomplaint.Itisobviousthattheword resided(emphasisnotmine)couldnotproperlybeconstruedtoencompass citizenshipinalegalsense[domicile]becauseonemaycometothisState,establish abonafideresidenceofninetydays,thereafterinstituteadivorceactionandhave itheardandconclusivelyadjudicatedonitsmeritsbeforehecouldunderthelaw becomeacitizenandenjoyalltheprivilegesofcitizenship.Ontheotherhand,a personmightresideinFloridamanyyearsandneverbecomeacitizenofthisState orrenouncehiscitizenshipinaforeignjurisdiction.Indeed,failuretorenouncepre existingcitizenshipisnothingmorethanacircumstancetobeconsideredin connectionwiththequestionofthebonafides(emphasisnotmine)oftheplaintiffs residencewhichistherealtestunderourstatutorylaw.Itisnecessary,asprovided in98.01,FloridaStates1941,F.S.A.,thataperson...shallhaveresided(emphasis notmine)ANDhadhishabitation,domicile,home,andplaceofpermanentabode inFloridaforoneyear,andinthecountyforsixmonths,...inordertoqualify asavoterandforfullfledgedcitizenship.Citizenshipisnotastatutory jurisdictionalprerequisitefordivorceandneitherofthewordscitizenand citizenshipcanbereadintoourstatute.Pawleyv.Pawley:46So.2d464,at471 (1950).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15312812472711174511

Thedurationalresidencyrequirementunderattackinthiscaseisapartof Iowascomprehensivestatutoryregulationofdomesticrelations,anareathathas

longbeenregardedasavirtuallyexclusiveprovinceoftheStates.Casesdecidedby thisCourtoveraperiodofmorethanacenturybearwitnesstothishistoricalfact. InBarberv.Barber,21How.582,584(1859),theCourtsaid:Wedisclaim altogetheranyjurisdictioninthecourtsoftheUnitedStatesuponthesubjectof divorce....InPennoyerv.Neff,95U.S.714,734735(1878),theCourtsaid:The State...hasabsoluterighttoprescribetheconditionsuponwhichthemarriage relationbetweenitsowncitizensshallbecreated,andthecausesforwhichitmay bedissolved,andthesameviewwasreaffirmedinSimmsv.Simms,175U.S.162, 167(1899).... Theimpositionofadurationalresidencyrequirementfordivorceisscarcely uniquetoIowa,since48Statesimposesucharequirementasaconditionfor maintaininganactionofdivorce.Asmightbeexpected,theperiodsvaryamong Statesandrangefromsixweekstotwoyears.TheoneyearperiodselectedbyIowa isthemostcommonlengthoftimeprescribed. AppellantcontendsthattheIowarequirementofoneyearsresidenceis unconstitutionalfortwoseparatereasons:...and,second,becauseitdeniesa litiganttheopportunitytomakeanindividualizedshowingofbonafideresidence andthereforedeniessuchresidentsaccesstotheonlymethodoflegallydissolving theirmarriage.Vlandisv.Kline,412U.S.441(1973);Boddiev.Connecticut,401U.S. 371(1971)..... Wethereforeholdthatthestateinterestinrequiringthatthosewhoseeka divorcefromitscourtsbegenuinelyattachedtotheState.... Norareweoftheviewthatthefailuretoprovideanindividualized determinationofresidencyviolatestheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenth Amendment.Vlandisv.Kline,412U.S.441(1973),relieduponbyappellant,held thatConnecticutmightnotarbitrarilyinvokeapermanentandirrebuttable presumptionofnonresidenceagainststudentswhosoughttoobtaininstatetuition rateswhenthatpresumptionwasnotnecessarilyoruniversallytrueinfact.Butin VlandistheCourtwarnedthatitsdecisionshouldnotbeconstruedtodenyaState therighttoimposeonastudent,asoneelementindemonstratingbonafide residence,areasonabledurationalresidencyrequirement.Id.,at452.SeeStamsv. Malkerson,326F.Supp.234(Minn.1970),affd,401U.S.985(1971).An individualizeddeterminationofphysicalpresenceplustheintenttoremain,which appellantapparentlyseeks,wouldnotentitlehertoadivorceevenifshecouldhave madesuchashowing.ForIowarequiresnotmerelydomicileinthatsense,but (actual)residenceintheStateforayearinorderforitscourtstoexercisetheir divorcejurisdiction.Sosnav.StateofIowa:419U.S.393,at404,405,409thru410 (1975).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4796843726517835120

Therefore,acitizenoftheUnitedStates,underSection1,Clause1ofthe FourteenthAmendment,whenresidinginaparticularState,isnotadomiciliary,but anactualresidentoftheparticularState.However,becauseoftheFourteenth Amendment,heorsheismadeacitizenofthatparticularState. Thus,acitizenoftheUnitedStatesisacitizenandresidentofaparticularState andnotacitizenanddomiciliaryofaparticularState.HoweveracitizenofaState, underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution,canbecomeacitizenand domiciliaryofaparticularState: AstowhoarecitizensoftheState.TheFourteenthAmendmenttothe ConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesprovidesthat AllpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStatesandsubjecttothe jurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandtheStatewherein theyreside. ThereforewhenapersonwhoisacitizenoftheUnitedStatesbybirthor naturalization,comestothisStateandresides(emphasisnotmine)hereheisa citizenofthisState.... WhereacitizenofanotherStatecomestothisStateandresidesinsometownfor atemporarypurpose,thoughsuchstaybeprotracted,hedoesnottherebybecomea citizenofthisState.Easterlyv.Goodwin,35Conn.,286. Withsuchaperson,hisresidenceheremustbeinthesenseofmakingitahome whichhehasnopresentintentionofabandoning.Ithinkthatitmustbea domiciliaryresidence.TheResidenceofaMaleCitizen,OpinionsoftheAttorney General;StateofConnecticut;Hartford,February1,1909;ReportoftheTax CommissionerforBiennialPeriod1909and1910,pages52thru53.[Footnote6]
http://books.google.com/books?id=Eb9JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q&f=false

AcitizenofaState,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitutionisa citizenoftheseveralStates,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution. [Footnote3]andisentitledtoprivilegesandimmunitiesofacitizenoftheseveral States,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesof America: TherecanbenodoubtthatBalk,asacitizenoftheStateofNorthCarolina,had therighttosueHarrisinMarylandtorecoverthedebtwhichHarrisowedhim. BeingacitizenofNorthCarolina,hewasentitledtoalltheprivilegesand immunitiesofcitizensoftheseveralStates,oneofwhichistherighttoinstitute 9

actionsinthecourtsofanotherState.Harrisv.Balk:198U.S.215,at223(1905).
http://books.google.com/books?id=ceIGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA223#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Inspeakingofthemeaningofthephraseprivilegesandimmunitiesof citizensoftheseveralStates,undersectionsecond,articlefourth,ofthe Constitution,itwassaidbythepresentChiefJustice,inColev.Cunningham,133U.S. 107,thattheintentionwastoconferonthecitizensoftheseveralStatesageneral citizenship,andtocommunicatealltheprivilegesandimmunitieswhichthe citizensofthesameStatewouldbeentitledtounderthelikecircumstances,andthis includestherighttoinstituteactions.Maxwellv.Dow:176U.S.581,at592 (1900).[Footnote7]

http://books.google.com/books?id=8toGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA592#v=onepage&q&f=false

PrivilegesandimmunitiesofacitizenoftheUnitedStatesarenotthesameas privilegesandimmunitiesofacitizenoftheseveralStates:

Wethinkthisdistinctionanditsexplicitrecognitioninthisamendmentofgreat weightinthisargument,becausethenextparagraphofthissamesection(Section1, Clause2oftheFourteenthAmendment),whichistheonemainlyreliedonbythe plaintiffsinerror,speaksONLYofprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensofthe UnitedStates,anddoesnotspeakofthose(privilegesandimmunities)ofcitizensof theseveralStates.SlaughterhouseCases:83U.S.(16Wall.)36,at74(1873). [Footnote8]

http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q=&f=false

AcitizenofaStatewhoisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates,isconsideredacitizen oftheseveralStateswhenonthehighseas: Actiontohaveacertainmarriagebetweenplaintiffanddefendantdeclared validandbindingupontheparties.Asecondamendedcomplaintalleged:Thaton August2,1897,defendantwasaminoroftheageof15yearsand10months,and thatherfather,oneA.C.Thomson,washernaturalandonlyguardian.Plaintiffwas oftheageof21yearsand10months,andbothplaintiffanddefendantwere citizensandresidentsofLosAngelescounty,Cal.Onsaiddayplaintiffand defendant,atLongBeach,onthecoastofCalifornia,boardedacertainfishingand pleasureschooner,of17tonsburden,calledtheJ.Willey,dulylicensedunderthe lawsoftheUnitedStates,ofwhichW.L.Piersonwascaptain,andwasenrolledas masterthereof,andhadfullchargeofsaidvessel.Saidvesselproceededtoapoint onthehighseasaboutninemilesfromthenearestpointfromtheboundaryofthe stateandoftheUnitedStates.Thepartiesthenandthereagreed,inthepresenceof 10

saidPierson,tobecomehusbandandwife,andthesaidPiersonperformedthe ceremonyofmarriage,and,amongotherthings,theypromisedinhispresenceto takeeachotherforhusbandandwife,andhepronouncedthemhusbandandwife. Neitherpartyhadtheconsentofthefatherormotherorguardianofdefendantto saidmarriage.... Appellantcontends(1)thatthemarriageisvalidbecauseperformeduponthe highseas;and(2)thatitwouldhavebeenvalidifperformedwithinthisstate, becausethereisnolawexpresslydeclaringittobevoid.Respondentpresentsthe caseupontwopropositions,claiming(1)thatnovalidmarriagecanbecontractedin thisstate,exceptincompliancewiththeprescribedformsofthelawsofthisstate, andcontractavalidmarriage. Sections4082,4290,722,Rev.St.U.S.,arecitedbyappellantasrecognizing marriagesatseaandbeforeforeignconsuls,andthatsection722declaresthe commonlawastomarriagetobeinforceonthehighseasonboardAmerican vessels.Wehavecarefullyexaminedthestatutesreferredto,anddonotfindthat theygivetheslightestsupporttoappellantsclaim.Thelawofthesea,asitmay relatetothemarriageofcitizensoftheUnitedStatesdomiciledinCalifornia,cannot bereferredtothecommonlawofEngland,anymorethanitcantothelawofFrance orSpain,oranyotherforeigncounty.Wecanfindnolawofcongress,andnone hasbeenpointedoutbyappellant,inwhichthegeneralgovernmenthas undertakenorassumedtolegislategenerallyuponthesubjectofmarriageon thesea.Nor,indeed,canwefindinthegrantofpowerstothegeneral governmentbytheseveralstates,asexpressedinthenationalconstitution,any provisionbywhichcongressisempoweredtodeclarewhatshallconstitutea validmarriagebetweencitizensoftheseveralstatesuponthesea,[seeNote] eitherwithinorwithouttheconventionalthreemilelimitoftheshoreofanystate; andclearlydoesnosuchpowerrestincongresstoregulatemarriagesonland, exceptintheDistrictofColumbiaandtheterritoriesoftheUnitedStates,orwhere ispowerofexclusivejurisdiction.Wemustlookelsewherethantotheactsof congressforthelawgoverningthecaseinhand.Normanv.Norman:54Pac.Rep. 143,143thru144(1898).
http://books.google.com/books?id=QwLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA143#v=onepage&q&f=false

(Note:...[I]tiscertainthattheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesconfersno powerwhateveruponthegovernmentoftheUnitedStatestoregulatemarriagein theStatesoritsdissolution.Andrewsv.Andrews:188U.S.14,at32(1903).

http://books.google.com/books?id=Gd4GAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q&f=false)

11

Assuch,acitizenofaStatewhoisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates,isacitizenof theseveralStates,underinternationallawforpurposesofnationality: FromtheUnitedStatesNavalInstituteProceedings,Volume45,No.7,July1919, atpage1790thru1791thereisthefollowing:

http://books.google.com/books?id=kEELP3wiHvAC&pg=PA1790#v=onepage&q&f=false

MerchantMarine... Thenationalityofthoseshippedasofficers(excludingmasters)andmen (countingrepeatedshipments)beforeUnitedStatesShippingCommissioners,as returnedtotheBureauofNavigation,DepartmentofCommerce,wasasfollowsfor 1914and1919: Nationality19141919 Others11,44238,811 ThoseclassedasothersaremainlyfromthecountriesofSouthAmerica, citizensoftheseveralstateswhichhavebeencreatedbythewar,andSwiss shippingasstewards.U.S.Bulletin,9/8. ThisreportoftheNationalityofCrewscanbeseenfortheyears1907through 1922,inclusive,attheselinks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=8y0pAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=oC4pAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false

(onpage15) AscanbeseenOthersappearsinallofthemunderNationality. Therefore,inthecountryoftheUnitedStates,sincetheadoptionofthe FourteenthAmendment,therearenowtwocitizens;acitizenoftheUnitedStates, underSection1oftheFourteenthAmendment,andacitizenofaState,underArticle IV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution.ForpurposesofInternationalLaw,there aretwocitizens;acitizenoftheUnitedStates,underSection1oftheFourteenth Amendment,andacitizenoftheseveralStates,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1 oftheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica. 12

________________________ Footnotes: 1.TheGovernmentoftheUnitedStates:National,State,andLocal;William BennettMunro,Ph.D.,LL.B.;(TheMacMillanCompany);Copyright,1919. 2.AcitizenoftheUnitedStatesisrecognizedinSection1,Clause1ofthe FourteenthAmendment.AcitizenofaStatewhoisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates isrecognizedatArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates ofAmerica: ...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).[Footnote3]
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ehg4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA973#v=onepage&q&f=false

3.AcitizenofaStatewhoisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStatesisalsoacitizenofthe severalStatesunderArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution.Seemywork TwoDistinctStateCitizensForPurposesOfDiversityOfCitizenship. 4.SeemyworkBlundersoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates,Part3;where Ishowthatthepoliticaljurisdiction(completejurisdiction)oftheUnitedStates extendsONLYtotheDistrictofColumbia,theterritoriesandpossessionsofthe 13

UnitedStates,andfederalenclaveswithintheseveralStatesoftheUnion.Thus,a citizenoftheUnitedStates,underSection1oftheFourteenthAmendment,isone whoisbornintheUnitedStates,nottheUnitedStatesofAmerica;thatis,inan individualStateoftheUnion. InthisworkIalsoshowthatanindividualStatealsohaspoliticaljurisdiction. Thus,onewhoisborninanindividualStateisacitizenofthatState,andnota citizenoftheUnitedStates: ThelanguageoftheFourteenthAmendmentdeclaringtwokindsofcitizenshipis discriminating.Itis:AllpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStates,and subjecttothejurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandoftheState whereintheyreside.Whileitthusestablishesnationalcitizenshipfromthemere circumstanceofbirthwithintheterritoryandjurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,birth withinastatedoesnotestablishcitizenshipthereof.Statecitizenshipis ephemeral.Itresultsonlyfromresidenceandisgainedorlosttherewith.Edwards v.PeopleoftheStateofCalifornia:314U.S.160,183(concurringopinionofJackson) (1941).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6778891532287614638

5....ButsincetheadoptionoftheFourteenthAmendment,whichspecifically providesthatAllpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStatesandsubjecttothe jurisdictionthereofarecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandofthestatewhereinthey reside,itisASSUMEDthatcitizenshipinastateisacquiredbypermanentresidence thereinofanypersonwhobybirthornaturalizationhasbecomeacitizenofthe UnitedStates;andstatecitizenshipisthereforedeterminedbythistest. ConstitutionalLawintheUnitedStates;EmlinMcClain,L.L.D.;(NewYork: Longmans,Green,andCompany);1907;Section193,Page276.

http://books.google.com/books?id=z7VCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA276#v=onepage&q&f=false

6.Residenceanddomiciliaryresidencearenotthesame: ThiscasepresentsanotherphaseoftheIndianaGrossIncomeTaxActof1933, whichhasbeenbeforethisCourtinaseriesofcasesbeginningwithAdamsMfg.Co. v.Storen,304U.S.307.TheActimposesataxuponthereceiptoftheentiregross incomeofresidentsanddomiciliariesofIndiana.Freemanv.Hewit:329U.S.249, at250(1946).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2416015038270473786

14

...Domicileisnotnecessarilysynonymouswithresidence,Perriv. Kisselbach,34N.J.84,87,167A.2d377,379(1961),andonecanresideinoneplace butbedomiciledinanother,DistrictofColumbiav.Murphy,314U.S.441(1941);In reEstateofJones,192Iowa78,80,182N.W.227,228(1921).MississippiChoctaw Indiansv.Holyfield:490U.S.30,at48(1989).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2358461186912284415

Residenceinfact,coupledwiththepurposetomaketheplaceofresidence oneshome,aretheessentialelementsofdomicile.Mitchellv.UnitedStates,21Wall. 350;Pannillv.RoanokeTimesCo.,252F.910;Beekmanv.Beekman,53Fla.858,43 So.923;Babcockv.Slater,212Mass.434,99N.E.173;MatterofNewcomb,192N.Y. 238,84N.E.950;Beale,ConflictofLaws,15.2.StateofTexasv.StateofFlorida: 306U.S.398,424(1939).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9265522746177498247

7.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

8....TheprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates protectedbythefourteenthamendment,areprivilegesandimmunitiesarisingout ofthenatureandessentialcharacterofthefederalGovernment,andgrantedor securedbytheConstitution.Duncanv.Missouri(1904)152U.S.377,14Sup.Ct.570, 38L.Ed.485;SlaughterHouseCases,16Wall.36,21L.Ed.394. Theprovisionsofsection2,art.4,ofthefederalConstitution,thatcitizensof eachstateshallbeentitledtoprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensoftheseveral states,areheldtobesynonymouswithrightsofthecitizens.Corfieldv.Coryell, supra.Thissectionisakintotheprovisionofsection1ofthefourteenth amendment,asrespectsprivilegesandimmunities,buttheformerisheldnotto maketheprivilegesandimmunities(therights)enjoyedbycitizensoftheseveral statesthemeasureoftheprivilegesandimmunities(therights)tobeenjoyedasof 15

right,byacitizenofanotherstate,underitsConstitutionandlaws.McKanev. Durston,153U.S.684,14Sup.Ct.913,38L.Ed.867.Thisrulenecessarilyclassifies citizensintheirrightstotheextentthatacitizenofonestatewheninanotherstate mustbegovernedbythesameruleswhichapplytothecitizensofthatstateasto matterswhichareofthedomesticconcernofthestate.Colev.Cunningham,133U.S. 107,10Sup.Ct.269,33L.Ed.538;Peoplev.Gallagher,93N.Y.438,45Am.Rep.232; ButchersUnionv.CrescentCity,Mo.,111U.S.746,4SupCt.652,28L.Ed.585;Ex parteKinney,14Fed.Cas.602;Douglasv.Stephens,1Del.Ch.465.Strangev.Board ofCommission:91N.E.242,at246(1910).

http://books.google.com/books?id=T_QKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA246#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Also: Williamswasarresteduponawarrantcharginghimwiththeoffenseofacting asemigrantagentwithoutalicense.Hemadeapplicationtothejudgeofthe superiorcourtoftheOcmulgeecircuitforawritofhabeascorpus,allegingthatthe warrantunderwhichhewasarrestedchargedhimwithaviolationofthatprovision ofthegeneraltaxactof1898whichimposeduponeachemigrantagent,or employeroremployeofsuchagents,doingbusinessinthisstate,thesumoffive hundreddollarsforeachcountyinwhichsuchbusinessisconducted.Acts1898,p. 24.Hefurtherallegedthatthelawwhichhewaschargedwithhavingviolatedwas inconflictwithcertainprovisionsoftheconstitutionsoftheUnitedStatesandofthe stateofGeorgia,enumeratingintheapplicationthevariousclausesofwhichtheact wasallegedtobeviolative.... Isthelaw(thegeneraltaxactof1898)aregulationorrestrictionofintercourse amongthecitizensofthisstateandthoseofotherstates?Underthisbranchof commercethestatesareprohibitedfrompassinganylawwhicheitherrestrictsthe freepassageofthecitizensoftheUnitedStatesthroughtheseveralstates,orwhich undertakestoregulateorrestrictfreecommunicationbetweenthecitizensofthe severalstates.Ataxontherightofacitizentoleavethestate,orontherightofa citizenofanotherstatetocomeintothestate,isaregulationofinterstate commerce,andvoid.Crandallv.Nevada,6Wall.35,18L.Ed.744;Hendersonv. Mayor,etc.,92U.S.259,23L.Ed.543;Peoplev.CompagnieGeneraleTransatlantique, 107U.S.59,2Sup.Ct.87,27L.Ed.383;PassengerCases,7How.282,12L.Ed.702. Norcanastatepassalawwhichattemptstoregulateorrestrictcommunication betweenthecitizensofdifferentstates.TelegraphCo.v.Pendleton,122U.S.347,7 Sup.Ct.1126,30L.Ed.1187;PensacolaTel.Co.v.W.U.Tel.Co.,96U.S.1,24L.Ed. 708.Butthelawunderconsiderationinthepresentcaseneitherregulatesnor restrictstherightofcitizensofthisstatetoleaveitsterritoryatwill,nortoholdfree communicationwiththecitizensofotherstates.Williamsv.Fears:35S.E.699,at 699,701(1900).
http://books.google.com/books?id=DhwLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA701#v=onepage&q&f=false

16