The subordination of unalienable rights

President Andrew Johnson tried to stop it, but only delayed it.

Ever scream at the TV because you see someone repeat something they think they know but in fact they are just naive or ignorant of the details? For me, that something is the concept of unalienable rights which are inherent and fundamental to our State and Federal Constitutions. I have researched the legal aspects of this extensively and actually do know the critical details. Unless you’ve read the court cases surrounding this issue — what I am about to describe in detail — it is not what you think it’ll be.

Yes, we’ve all been taught the concept of unalienable rights, and go on about our lives thinking that is all we needed to know — that *IF* there ever came a time where you are standing in a courtroom, and truly needed them, that they would be there — after all, they’re unalienable, right! Well, that’s not necessarily the case… and to understand ‘why’ requires one to dive into what the courts have decided. Last time I checked only one case, Colgate v. Harvey, was overruled, but on other grounds than what I was citing it for. First, some housekeeping…

Here is the SCOTUS ruling that subordinates unalienable rights to civil rights:

"While the 14th Amendment does not create a national citizenship, it has the effect of making that citizenship 'paramount and dominant' instead of 'derivative and dependent' upon state citizenship."
- Colgate v Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935)

There it is, clear as day… U.S. citizenship is PARAMOUNT and DOMINANT over state citizenship.

Now the details of HOW unalienable rights have been subordinated, but first...

My Goal is to educate the masses on how to peacefully rein-in the federal government, since Congress won’t

Wow, that’s a tall order! But it comes from having spent 10 years of my life intensely studying a very narrow thread of legal adjudication in my spare time, and another ten a bit less intensely. I didn’t have kids to raise, so what to do with my spare time!

I would be happy to just go on with my life had the situation in this country not deteriorated so horribly. Given the current state of politics, the collusion between media, Big Tech and government to censor free speech, the seeming inability of people to compromise and the lack of respect for differing opinions, I now feel the only peaceful way out is to educate the masses about the difference between unalienable rights and civil rights, determined by which citizenship you claim.

I truly believe my articles hold the legal foundation that could result in a more balanced sharing of power between State and federal governments.

What’s it cost you? Just some of your time…

I am not looking for anything in return. There must be NO reason for you NOT to read what follows, therefore, the knowledge is freely given. I only ask that you spread the word, send this link to all your contacts, and most importantly, ASK QUESTIONS!
Your question is likely in the head of other readers, so you asking will guarantee that the question actually gets asked, and we all learn from that.

It is much more important that everyone learn what took me countless hours, over 20 years, spent going to the law library to research what the courts have said, and then munging it all together into a coherent picture that withstood the devil’s advocate.

Let’s dive in…

There are two citizenships in the united¹ States of America:

• State citizenship

• United States citizenship, also referred to as a ‘citizen of the United States’.

I’ll let the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) convince you:

"We have in our political system a government of the United States [aka, the District of Columbia] and a government of each of the several States.  Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and EACH HAS CITIZENS OF ITS OWN..."
U.S. v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

This case has been cited by other cases over 1100 times, and never been overruled — translation, pay attention because it has stood the test of time and countless judicial proceedings. At the time I was researching this issue, it had been cited as late as 1993, and one would be a fool to challenge its rulings.

Fact #1:
There are two types of citizenship status in this country: state and federal [UScit]

Do not get these confused with temporary statuses like Green cards and work VISAs; those have nothing to do with permanent citizenship which is the topic of this article.

Okay, so two citizenships… what’s the difference?

State citizenship was the original and only citizenship prior to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. When the Declaration of Independence used the term ‘unalienable’ rights, those rights were only ‘claimable’ by being a citizen of one of the states of the union — there was no other type of citizenship. Prior to the 14th Amendment, when both state and U.S. Constitutions mention rights, they are ONLY referring to the rights that come from being a state citizen.

A clarification is needed… unalienable rights do not ‘come from’ state citizenship. I just cannot seem to find the proper language to convey things accurately. Yes, the Declaration of Independence states, “…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. Although that quote by itself sounds like it applies automatically to all people in the country, legally speaking, there are two ‘requirements’ in order for you to ‘claim’ those rights:

• being human

AND

• being a citizen of one of the 50 states.

I.e., being human and in this country, but not yet a citizen, is NOT enough to claim unalienable rights if you were to end up in a courtroom. So when I say, for convenience, ‘rights that come from state citizenship’, you know what I really mean.

The second difference between state vs federal citizenship has also been established by SCOTUS:

"When a Federal Government was later formed, a Federal citizenship first came into being, not dependent upon the State constitutions, and not equipped with common law rights, ..." Twining v New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)

In Twining, the court also used this statement:

“... fundamental rights inherent in state citizenship.”

Now that’s a biggie… SCOTUS is saying that when it refers to ‘fundamental’, aka, unalienable, rights, those are ONLY inherent in state citizenship — they do NOT come from U.S. citizenship. Does SCOTUS have anything to say about the kind of rights referred to in the Bill of Rights, you know, the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution? Here are two statements by the courts that help to clarify rights from state vs U.S. citizenship:

"We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 176 U.S. 581 (1900)

And this one which was as recent as 1993,

“Privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being citizen of federal government; it does NOT protect those rights which relate to state citizenship." Jones v Temmer, 829 Fed.Supp. 1226 (1993)

The Bill of Rights is only referring to your natural, aka fundamental, aka unalienable, rights, and these are secured by being a state citizen. The 14th Amendment only protects those rights that come from being a citizen of the federal government, aka a citizen of the United States.

Fact #2:
The rights accruing from state citizenship are different than those that come via U.S. citizenship. When you refer to your unalienable rights, you are stating that as a citizen of one of the fifty states, NOT as a U.S. citizen.

US citizenship = civil rights,

State citizenship = unalienable rights

Citizenship in this country has evolved as explained in this article:

The Evolution of Citizenship

The subordination of unalienable rights

Let’s say you have a thing, ThingA. Then you get a ThingB. I tell you that ThingB is ‘paramount and dominant’ over ThingA. What does that mean? This is a good explanation² :

Here is the SCOTUS ruling that subordinates unalienable rights to civil rights:

"While the 14th Amendment does not create a national citizenship, it has the effect of making that citizenship 'paramount and dominant' instead of 'derivative and dependent' upon state citizenship."
- Colgate v Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935)

There it is, clear as day… U.S. citizenship is PARAMOUNT and DOMINANT over state citizenship. Substitute the definitions from above:

U.S. citizenship is PARAMOUNT (supreme) and DOMINANT (ruling/governing) over state citizenship. Put in the context of your rights, civil rights are supreme and governing over unalienable rights.

Several important points:

• If you sign something as a ‘US citizen’, then you’ve voluntarily subordinated your unalienable rights to civil rights.

• Note the phrase, “While the 14th Amendment does NOT create a national citizenship…”. That’s interesting… then what kind of citizenship did it create? What are you a citizen of? That’s explained in this article.

• Well, what happened to my state citizenship and my unalienable rights? Did the 14th Amendment abolish state citizenship? NO, your unalienable rights as a state citizen are still there but in a legal proceeding, your civil rights would be the governing ones.

• How do I make my unalienable rights governing? That’s a good question and I’ve read different opinions on that… but just from reading the court’s ruling in Colgate v. Harvey, you would need to only claim state citizenship.

• But you can’t just be a state citizen. On all official docs that you sign, there is no choice for ‘what state are you a citizen of?’ When I apply for a driver’s license, or for employment, there’s always a statement at the bottom stating, “I declare under penalty of perjury that I am a citizen of the United States…”. I am compelled to sign or I don’t get the driver’s license, or I won’t get that job. Would it surprise you that the courts have also ruled that you can be just a state citizen w/o being a US citizen? That’s in this article.

• There are 54 Titles in the federal regulations, the United States Code. What if half of those did not apply to you as a state citizen? We explore that possibility in this article.

The Crux of this country’s dilemma

The fact that there are two citizenships, and that the rights under one are different than the other, is the crux of our dilemma in this country. It is the means that has allowed the power of the federal government to grow way beyond what was intended, because the people have voluntarily subordinated their state citizenship and its unalienable rights to become federal citizens with civil rights. I.e., the federal government has all the citizens in this country! This is what President Andrew Johnson, who assumed the Presidency after Lincoln’s assassination, delayed happening by vetoing several bills in 1865/66. He foresaw the danger… I’ll explain that in this article.

Your thoughts??? Please ask questions… I know all this legalese and court rulings can be tedious, and hard to wrap your head around, but if half the voting population understood the differences explained above, the federal government would get shrunk to the appropriate size.

RE: that spelling detail mentioned at the beginning…

Re: footnote #1… the ‘u’ in ‘united States’ is lower case in the Declaration of Independence.

When Jefferson wrote this document, every word was scrutinized… in the opening line is this phrase, ‘of the thirteen united States’. Wait… back the horse up. Shouldn’t that be United States’? NO! The ‘u’ was NOT capitalized because it is just an adjective describing the kind of relationship between the ‘States’ (capitalized); the States are what this Declaration was all about. The term ‘United States’ only made sense once the States actually were united. A critical element of these first few articles involves the 3, and only 3, LEGAL definitions for the term, ‘United States’ which are covered in this article.

In legal documents/regulations and court rulings, capitalization is important!

I can remember a perfect example of the importance of capitalization <article>… I just have to remember what book it’s in! Another example that involves the unalienable right to travel article, which was recently stated by the illustrious Senator from Nevada,

If I have a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to travel, and a fundamental right can’t be taken away and then charged $ to get it back as a privilege, then why do I need a driver’s license? Gotcha! I must need a traveler’s license and not a driver’s license! Explained here, Down the Obfuscatory rabbit hole - Prepare to be Red-Pilled.

1. * there’s an important spelling detail in this sentence that will be explained at the end

2. https://wikidiff.com/paramount/dominant