Why are civil rights needed?

They are ONLY needed if you claim...

I was recently asked the question, paraphrased, "Don't we need civil rights to prevent New York from passing gun control legislation?", or something very similar in intent.

That would be correct…  *if* you are claiming US citizenship.  If you were only a State citizen, then your unalienable rights apply, including the right to bear arms; you DON'T need any civil rights to protect you from hostile legislation of the States or Federal gov.  It should be blatantly obvious from case law and SCOTUS rulings...

"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, ..."  [common law = unalienable rights]
-  Twining v New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)

In Twining, the court also used this statement,

“... fundamental rights inherent in state citizenship.”  
[fundamental rights = unalienable rights]

So we can say, [common law = unalienable rights = fundamental rights].

Continuing with statements by the courts on rights being dependent on your citizenship status. NOTE in these two quoted blocks that,
[citizen of the United States = citizen of federal government = 14th Amend 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)

“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)

Those three court cases clearly state that federal/US citizenship does NOT protect the person from hostile government legislation that would have NORMALLY been secured by the Bill of Rights before the 14^th Amendment. The US citizen can’t argue/claim 2^nd Amendment protection because US citizenship can’t access the first 8 Amendments!!!

Question:
If we all have dual citizenship, State and federal, why can’t a dual US cit/State cit claim protection through their State citizenship to access protections that come from the first 8 Amendments? Can’t one access either civil or unalienable rights equally, or at their discretion? Not according to SCOTUS:

"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)

Bottom Line:

US citizenship is paramount and dominant over State citizenship

Civil rights are paramount and dominant over unalienable rights

Civil rights are needed because…

IF you claim US citizenship, you have voluntarily subordinated your unalienable rights as a State citizen, so you CANNOT rely on your unalienable rights for protection from hostile government legislation, thus, the need for civil rights.

All of the legal issues that involve civil rights, like DEI, LGBTQ+, etc. would be fully covered by unalienable rights – so long as you don’t infringe on someone else’s rights, you can pretty much do what you want, but you would have to be ONLY a State citizen to argue unalienable rights protection.

Several of my articles go into much more detail about issues touched upon in this article. Please read them. The only peaceful path to States reclaiming power from the federal gov is through the courts, and unless voters are more aware of the importance of legal definitions, they will continue to be easily fooled.

Questions:

- Are civil rights considered common law or ‘positive law’, or both?

- Assuming dual citizenship, can a US/State citizen go into a court stating that they are only a Nevada citizen and then claim protection via unalienable rights? I.e., don’t even mention US citizenship. No doubt it would depend on whether State or Federal court, but how would the court respond in both scenarios?