This has been reposted with a great many thanks to Pauls excellent works: The URL can be found here: 



A Collection of Court Authorities  in


Two Classes of Citizens

by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

(All Rights Reserved without Prejudice)  


Before the 14th amendment [sic] in 1868:   

A citizen of any one of the States of the union,  is held to   be, and  called a  citizen of  the United  States,  although   technically and  abstractly there  is no  such  thing.    To   conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen   of some  one of  the States, is totally foreign to the idea,   and inconsistent  with the  proper construction  and  common   understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,   which must  be deduced  from its  various other  provisions.   The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power   of naturalization,  was to  make citizens  of the respective   States.

[Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]

[bold emphasis added]    

It is true, every person, and every class and description of   persons, who  were at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the   Constitution recognized  as  citizens in the several States,   became also  citizens of  this new political body;  but none   other;   it was  formed by  them,   and for  them and  their   posterity, but for no one else.  And the personal rights and   privileges  guarantied   [sic]  to   citizens  of  this  new   sovereignty  were intended to  embrace  those only  who were   then members of the several state communities, or who should   afterwards, by  birthright  or  otherwise,  become  members,   according to  the provisions  of the  Constitution  and  the   principles on which it was founded.

[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404 (1856)]                                               

[emphasis added] 


 ... [F]or  it is  certain, that  in the  sense in  which the word"Citizen" is  used in  the federal Constitution, "Citizen of eachState," and  "Citizen of  the United  States***," are convertibleterms;   they mean  the same  thing;   for "the  Citizens of eachState are  entitled to  all Privileges and Immunities of Citizensin the  several States,"  and "Citizens  of the United States***"are, of course, Citizens of all the United States***.  

[44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting]

[italics in original, underlines & C's added] 


As  it   was  the   adoption  of  the  Constitution  by  the Conventions of  nine States that established and created the   United States***,  it is  obvious  there could not then have   existed any person who had been seven years a citizen of the   United  States***,   or  who   possessed  the   Presidential   qualifications of  being thirty-five years of age, a natural   born citizen,  and fourteen  years a  resident of the United   States***.   The United States*** in these provisions, means   the States  united.  To be twenty-five years of age, and for   seven years  to have  been a  citizen of  one of  the States   which  ratifies the Constitution,  is the qualification of a   representative.   To be a natural born citizen of one of the   States which  shall ratify  the Constitution,  or  to  be  a   citizen  of   one  of  said  States  at  the  time  of  such   ratification, and  to have  attained the  age of thirty-five   years, and to have been fourteen years a resident within one   of the  said States,  are the  Presidential  qualifications,   according to the true meaning of the Constitution.  

[People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870)]                           

[bold and underline emphasis added]  


After the 14th amendment [sic] in 1868: It is  quite clear,  then, that  there is  a citizenship  of  theUnited States**  and a citizenship of a State, which are distinctfrom each  other and  which depend upon different characteristicsor circumstances in the individual.

[Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36]                                         

[(1873) emphasis added]  


The  first  clause  of  the  fourteenth  amendment  made  negroescitizens of  the United  States**, and  citizens of  the State inwhich they  reside, and  thereby created two classes of citizens,one of the United States** and the other of the state.                             

[Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327]                             

[(1874) headnote 8, emphasis added]  


We have  in our  political system  a  Government  of  the  UnitedStates** and  a government  of each  of the several States.  Eachone of  these governments  is distinct  from the others, and eachhas citizens of its own ....                               

[U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542]                                         

[(1875) emphasis added]  


One may  be a  citizen of  a State  and yet  not a citizen of theUnited States.  Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449;  Cory v. Carter,48 Ind.  327 (17  Am. R. 738);  McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507;In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443.                            

[McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320, 323]                                       

[(1883) underlines added]


A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a citizen of  the particular  state in  which he  resides.   But  aperson may  be a  citizen of a particular state and not a citizenof the  United States**.   To  hold otherwise would be to deny tothe state  the highest  exercise of its sovereignty, -- the rightto declare who are its citizens.                              

[State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380]                               

[6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]  


The first  clause of  the fourteenth  amendment  of  the  federalConstitution made  negroes citizens  of the  United States**, andcitizens of  the state  in which they reside, and thereby createdtwo classes of citizens, one of the United States** and the otherof the state.   

[4 Dec. Dig. '06, p. 1197, sec. 11]                              

["Citizens" (1906), emphasis added]  


There are,  then, under  our republican  form of  government, twoclasses of  citizens, one  of the  United States** and one of thestate.  One class of  citizenship may  exist in a person, withoutthe other,  as in  the case  of a  resident of  the  District  ofColumbia;  but both classes usually exist in the same person.                   

[Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155]                         

[48 S. 788, 791 (1909), emphasis added]  


There is a distinction between citizenship of the United States**and citizenship  of a  particular state,  and a person may be theformer without being the latter.                              

[Alla v. Kornfeld, 84 F.Supp. 823]                              

[(1949) headnote 5, emphasis added]  


A person  may be  a citizen of the United States** and yet be notidentified or identifiable as a citizen of any particular state.   

                                       [Du Vernay v. Ledbetter]                                   

[61 So.2d 573, emphasis added] 


 ... citizens  of the  District of  Columbia were  not granted theprivilege of  litigating in  the federal  courts on the ground ofdiversity of  citizenship.   Possibly no  better reason  for thisfact exists  than  such citizens were  not  thought of  when  thejudiciary article  [III] of the federal Constitution was drafted.... citizens of the United States** ... were also not thought of;but in  any event  a citizen of the United States**, who is not acitizen of any state, is not within the language of the


[Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914]                                                

[emphasis added]  


That there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenshipof a state,  and the privileges and immunities of one  are not thesame  as the other  is well established  by  the decisions  of thecourts of this country.                         

[Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)]  


No fortifying authority  is necessary  to sustain  the propositionthat  in the United States a double citizenship exists.  A citizenof the United States  is  a citizen of the Federal Government  andat  the  same time  a citizen  of the State  in which  he resides.Determination  of what  is  qualified residence within a State  isnot  here necessary.  Suffice it to say  that  one possessing suchdouble citizenship owes allegiance  and  is entitled to protectionfrom each sovereign to whose jurisdiction he is subject.            

[Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp. 383 (USDC/WDMO 1953)]  


The  privileges and immunities clause  of the  Fourteenth  Amendmentprotects very few rights  because it neither incorporates any of theBill of Rights  nor protects all rights of individual citizens.  SeeSlaughter-House Cases,  83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36,  21 L.Ed. 394 (1873).Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to beinga citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rightswhich relate to state citizenship.               

[Jones v. Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (USDC/DCO 1993)]                              


#  #  #


Related documents:

 “Citizenship for Dummies 

Author’s Comments Clarifying “Citizenship for Dummies” 

Supreme Law Firm Launches Campaign to Amend the U.S. Constitution 

"Before and After the Civil War" 

"BOHICA, Berg and Obama et al.: What are the Feds REALLY Hiding?" 

APPLICATION FOR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF A PROHIBITIONBerg v. Obama et al. (September 15, 2008 A.D.) 


Berg v. Obama et al. (October 14, 2008 A.D.) 

PERSONAL PLEA FOR YOUR COOPERATIONto Consul General of Kenya in Los Angeles (October 18, 2009 A.D.) Chapter 11 in "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue" Appendix Y in "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue" More citations in re: two classes of citizens "State Citizens Stop Voting:  An Outline of Legal Reasons" "State Citizens Cannot Vote" 

"Juries in Check Around the Nation" 

"Citizenship is a Term of Municipal: A Collection of Research Findings


George W. Bush v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board 

"Sedition by Syntax," by Ralph Schwan, The Upright Ostrich (Dec/Jan 1985-86)