Don’t get me started on the gold fringe kooks though!

Dan, you should actually read the Constitution to avoid this foolishness.

References:

Article I Section. 2.
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States”

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union”

Article I, Section 8:
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”

Article 2, Section 2:
“Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States”

And lastly there is Article V which CLEARLY defines that the that there are citizens of each state AND that “citizens of the Several States” means citizens of the United States as a whole

Article V, Section. 2:
“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

There you go Dan, the definition was set LONG before the 14th Amendment. So take your conspiracy theories and half baked opinions and go home please. If you cannot deal in reality you cannot deal here.

As LP stated there always were two types of citizens under the United States Constitution otherwise the concept of state’s rights and the 10th amendment would have been moot. You argue about the 14th amendment by twisting the words into something that they clearly do not mean by any translation of the English language.

The individual states were often referred to as “the several states” and this language was not new under the 14th Amendment. It always meant citizens of the individual states and not what you are interpreting it to mean.

As for secession, you are of course wrong on that too. The very founding document of our nation states quite clearly that whenever the laws and leaders turn against liberty the people have a right to abolish all ties. It is called the Declaration of Independence. Suggesting that the founding fathers would think it was ok to seceded one time that such a thing was true but not another is absurd and you and any source that makes that claim are living in a la la land.

Once more, the 10th amendment makes it clear that all powers NOT vested in the federal government are vested in the people and the states. Secession is not vest in the federal government. Ergo it is a right retained by the people and the states.

Grow up. You are not as smart as you think you are. Just about as bad as those retards that bitch about the gold fringe on the flag if you ask me!

I read your comment (December 23rd 2009 7:00 am).

It appears to me that you are confusing a citizen of a State with a citizen of the several States. They are not the same. A citizen of a State, in contradistinction to a citizen of the United States, is covered in Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment whereas a citizen of the several States, in contradistinction to a citizen of the United States, is covered in Section 1, Clause 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment. On this point:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/81262 .

There are now two citizens under the Constitution of the United States (of America). On this point:

http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16078 .

There is a desire, by many, to overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases, using the McDonald case as the means. The reason centers on the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Those who wish to overturn Slaughterhouse Cases believe: a) that there is only one citizen under the Constitution since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Slaughterhouse Cases, b) that the privileges and immunities of this citizenship should be those described in Corfield v. Coryell. They do not know that there is a second citizenship now under the Constitution (and not the Fourteenth Amendment), and that this citizenship has those privileges and immunities described in Corfield v. Coryell.

The fact there is a citizen of the several States in law is settled! On this point:

http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16289 .

Because of this then there are two state citizens under the Constitution since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, a citizen of the United States under Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and a citizen of the several States under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. On this point:

http://www.faxts.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1414 and

http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17405

The 14th Amendment does states “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Whether it includes the Second Amendment is what the Supreme Court will determined. If it is a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States, then it will have to be one which owes it “existence to the Federal government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws.” Slaughterhouse Cases, page 79.

(I like to say that a State, once in the Union, cannot secede from it. On this point:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/589367/Texas-v-White and

http://books.google.com/books?id=MfY7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA700#v=onepage&q=&f=false

There always were citizens of the United States and state citizens in the United States from the time the Constitution was signed. If there were not then the multiple state experiment where states were able to pass their own laws to cover powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution would have been null and void. No state would have been able to pass a law to pertain only to its own citizens without such being true. Also, without such a designation there would be no way for states to secede from the union just like the colonies seceded from Great Britain because there would be no true states and just a United States.

Your comments really don’t address the issue. The multi-citizenship argument has nothing to do with the clear rights and privileges of United States Citizens.

The 14th amendment clearly states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” and that includes the second amendment.

I wish to state that the Supreme court, in the Slaughterhouse Cases, held that because of the Fourteenth Amendment there were now two separate and distinct citizens under the Constitution of the United States; a citizen of the United States, under the Fourteenth Amendment and a citizen of the several States, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 [FOOTNOTE]:

    “We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment (the 14th Amendment) of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section (first section, second clause), which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several states. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.” 83 U.S. 36 (1873), page 74.

And:

    “In the Constitution of the United States, which superseded the Articles of Confederation, the corresponding provision is found in section two of the fourth article, in the following words: ‘The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several States.’ ” 83 U.S. 36 (1873), page 75.

The last was later reaffirmed in Cole v. Cunningham:

    “The intention of section 2, Article IV (of the Constitution), was to confer on the citizens of the several States a general citizenship.” Cole v. Cunningham: 133 U.S. 107, 113-114 (1890).

The privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states are those described by Corfield, cited in the Slaughterhouse Cases. This is reaffirmed in Hodges v. United States:

    “In the Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 76, in defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, this is quoted from the opinion of Mr. Justice Washington in Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. Cir. Ct. 371, 380.” Hodges v. United States: 203 U.S. 1, at 15 (1906).

So there are now two citizens under the Constitution of the United States. One needs to find out information on both. For a citizen of the United States that is easy. Just about anywhere. For a citizen of the several States one will have to begin here:

http://citizenoftheseveralstates.webs.com/index.htm

____________

FOOTNOTE

The Effects of the Fourteenth Amendment on the Constitution of the United States

http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15882

Also,

A Look At Corfield (On Citizenship)

http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16868

____