Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

State National argument needs saved at Wikipedia

Expand Messages
  • Balsaman
    Why not be smarter……………….. State National http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 18, 2010
      Why not be smarter………………..





      State National


      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_National





      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




      This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's
      deletion policy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy> .
      Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_National
      > on the Articles for deletion
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion> page.
      Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this
      notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more
      information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the
      discussion, read the Guide to deletion
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion>
      .%5B%5BWikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion%2FState+National%5D%5DAFD






      This article may contain original research
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research> . Please
      improve
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_National&action=edit> it
      by verifying <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability> the
      claims made and adding references
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:References> . Statements consisting
      only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on
      the talk page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_National> . (November
      2010)





      Contents


      [hide <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National##> ]

      *
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#Foundational_Principles#Foundat
      ional_Principles> 1 Foundational Principles

      *
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#State_National_Origin#State_Nat
      ional_Origin> 1.1 State National Origin
      *
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#The_Federation_State#The_Federa
      tion_State> 1.2 The Federation State

      *
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#The_United_States_of_America#Th
      e_United_States_of_America> 2 The United States of America

      *
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#The_Several_States.27_Internati
      onal_Agent#The_Several_States.27_International_Agent> 2.1 The Several
      States' International Agent
      *
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#State_National_Background#State
      _National_Background> 2.2 State National Background
      *
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#Subjugation_of_State_National_S
      tatus#Subjugation_of_State_National_Status> 2.3 Subjugation of State
      National Status
      *
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#The_State_Nationals_of_the_Unio
      n#The_State_Nationals_of_the_Union> 2.4 The State Nationals of the Union
      *
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#Nationality_is_a_Natural_Right#
      Nationality_is_a_Natural_Right> 2.5 Nationality is a Natural Right
      *
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#United_States.27_Recognition_of
      _Rightful_Nationality#United_States.27_Recognition_of_Rightful_Nationality>
      2.6 United States' Recognition of Rightful Nationality
      *
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#United_States.27_Nationality_is
      _Effectively_Genocide#United_States.27_Nationality_is_Effectively_Genocide>
      2.7 United States' Nationality is Effectively Genocide

      * <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#References#References>
      3 References

      *
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#Authorities#Authorities> 3.1
      Authorities
      * <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#Notations#Notations>
      3.2 Notations
      * <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#Footnotes#Footnotes>
      3.3 Footnotes
      * <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#Other#Other> 3.4 Other



      [edit
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_National&action=edit§io
      n=1> ] Foundational Principles


      [edit
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_National&action=edit§io
      n=2> ] State National Origin


      The premise for the State National is inherent to the Law
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Nations> of Nations and the Principles
      of Natural Law. Emerich <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerich_de_Vattel> de
      Vattel noted that every nation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation> that
      governs itself, under what form so-ever, without dependence on any foreign
      power, is a sovereign state, its rights are naturally the same as those of
      any other state. Such are the moral persons who live together in a natural
      society, subject to the law of nations. To give a nation a right to make an
      immediate figure in this grand society, it is sufficient that it be really
      sovereign and independent, that is, that it govern itself by its own
      authority and laws.[1]
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_note-0#cite_note-0> The
      members of a nation carry a nationality of a state/nation, which is
      considered the international, or external, recognition of a citizen—i.e.,
      the political office or status—as to his or her having belonging to a
      nation. The country of which they are members are considered to be the
      state,[2]
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_note-1#cite_note-1> which
      refers to estate, or status or condition of the society and its dominion.
      The lawful dominion of a nation would be considered legitiums principatus
      (the legitimate owner or principal), from the Latin.


      [edit
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_National&action=edit§io
      n=3> ] The Federation State


      The Law <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Nations> of Nations recognizes
      that several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together
      by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a
      perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint
      deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they
      may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in
      virtue of voluntary engagements. A person, i.e., a citizen—the political
      status, does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to
      fulfill engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.[3]
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_note-2#cite_note-2>




      [edit
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_National&action=edit§io
      n=4> ] The United States of America


      [edit
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_National&action=edit§io
      n=5> ] The Several States' International Agent


      The United States of America
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_America> is considered a
      federal republic under the Law of Nations. In essence, the nature of the
      Constitution for the United States of America is grounded in private
      international law <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_international_law> ,
      which is the nature of a treaty <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty> or an
      international agreement between nations. From its inception, the federal
      government of the United States of America was created to function as a
      constitutionally limited federation
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionally_limited_government> state.
      In practical sense, this contracted state is fundamentally an agent for
      several states of the American union. Accordingly, the original federal
      government—i.e., the United States—did not have nationals of its own. Hence,
      in strict sense, a federation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation>
      state is neither a country nor a nation but is simply a contractually
      created entity functioning as a corporate agent in certain capacities for
      the benefit of its creator(s). Due to the international nature of its
      existence, the United States appears to be a country and a nation but only
      in its external sense in regard to constitutionally specified relations it
      maintains with other nations or federation states. In such regard, Justice
      Marshall of the Supreme Court of the United States had noted that:

      * “The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the
      capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property.” [4]
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_note-3#cite_note-3>

      Thus, the make-up of this of federal republic system, known as the United
      States of America, is a corporation—under the principles of a corporate body
      politic, over being a nation/state or government—in regard to the principles
      of being a government body politic.[5]
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_note-4#cite_note-4> The
      latter body politic conforms to the principles of the Law of Nations and the
      Principles of Natural Law in regard to a people.


      [edit
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_National&action=edit§io
      n=6> ] State National Background


      As to the principles of the Law of Nations, the State National is to be
      considered an inherent status that is attached to each state/nation in the
      Union.[6]
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_note-5#cite_note-5> Prior
      to the War Between the States
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_the_American_Civil_War> and its
      Reconstruction Acts <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Acts> and
      Reconstruction Amendments
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Amendments> , there was absence
      of a status entitled “citizen and/or national of the United States” as
      defined by statute. Generally, before that time, a citizen of the United
      States meant that such people were a citizen and national of one of the
      countries within the federal republic known as the United States of
      America.[7]
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_note-6#cite_note-6> In
      adopting the principles of the Law of Nations and the natural law which is
      attached to it, the American system of law reflected in Bouvier's Law
      Dictionary <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouvier%27s_Law_Dictionary> ,
      Revised 6th Edition, denotes that country means “the state of which one is a
      member.” The reference further goes on to illustrate the rules of jus
      sanguinis <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis> and jus soli
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli> by setting forth that “Every man’s
      country is in general the state in which he happens to have been born.” Such
      reference denotes the nationality of the child being dependent on the
      condition of the father in regard to the nationality of his father.


      [edit
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_National&action=edit§io
      n=7> ] Subjugation of State National Status


      On July 9, 1868 it is chronicled that the United States implemented the
      Fourteenth <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Amendment> Amendment creating
      and defining for the first time in American history the person known as a
      citizen of the United States:

      * “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
      to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
      State wherein they reside.”

      Prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, and embodied in the Tenth
      Article in
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut
      ion> Amendment, the federal government (specifically Congress) could not
      interfere with the people (representatives) of the American
      republics/countries. After its implementation,[8]
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_note-7#cite_note-7> men
      and women are considered to have dual
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_citizenship> citizenship, United States
      citizenship as a primary citizenship, and state citizenship (de facto) as a
      secondary citizenship. Due to the fact that the United States is a corporate
      body and not a bona fide nation under the Law of Nations and the Principles
      of Natural Law, this new status creates the legal entity known as citizen of
      the United States.[9]
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_note-8#cite_note-8>

      Now, in further exploration of the language found in the Fourteenth
      Amendment:

      * “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
      privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...”

      The wording of privileges and immunities upon citizens of the United States
      of the Fourteenth Amendment differs from the privileges and immunities
      clause in the body of the Constitution. Consequently citizens of the United
      States are legally not entitled to constitutionally enumerated rights due to
      the fact that they have been voluntarily relinquished. This is a critical
      element in the distinction between a national of one of the several states
      and a citizen and national of the United States. The latter which maintains
      privileges and immunities
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause> that are
      granted, and therefore by definition can be revoked, while the former
      maintains rights and immunities that are unalienable
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights> , and wherefore
      protected by the Constitution for the United States of America. Therefore,
      back in reference to the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, it is
      also of importance that subjugation to jurisdiction is voluntarily and
      accomplished through the acceptance of benefit through contract
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract> , e.g., registering to vote and
      voting, running for any elected office, working for state or federal
      government, joining the armed forces, registering a child's birth by
      certificate, and obtaining a Social Security Number (which includes
      maintaining bank accounts and credit cards with such number), licenses,
      welfare and food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc. It can therefore be
      concluded that individuals who accept these benefits are by default—as
      evidenced by their overt actions—are acting in rebellion[10]
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_note-9#cite_note-9>
      against the system of government provided under natural law.

      The question as to why American nationality was introduced and aggressively
      promoted by certain factions over state nationality after the War deserves
      consideration:

      * In the years immediately preceding the War Between the States,
      Northern countries held significant economic
      <http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesdivison.htm> advantages while Southern
      countries possessed superior agricultural land and productivity output by
      virtue of their larger, low cost, slave population. Historians and scholars
      opine, therefore, that economic opportunity may have motivated a Northern
      invasion of the Southern countries
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_War_(United_States)> (there is no
      evidence suggesting Southern countries invaded Northern countries and only
      the opposite has ever been established).

      * Other researchers prefer the argument that Northern countries
      fought to end slavery <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War> .
      Unfortunately, slavery was <http://www.slavenorth.com/slavenorth.htm>
      common in the North, just not as economically viable as in the agricultural
      South. In fact the border states remained slave states
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_(American_Civil_War)> after the
      war had ceased. Notwithstanding that the settled
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff> research and chronology of
      fact establishes that the slavery issue was introduced in to the political
      discourse nearing the end of the war, and subsequently not a justification
      for it.

      * Lastly, a popular theory for explaining the war rests with the
      study of Southern countries secession from the Union
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States> . However, the
      original constitutional government for the United States was a voluntary
      creation of the several states and contractually provides for peaceful
      <http://www.etymonline.com/cw/secession2.htm> secession.

      Given the disparity of thought for war justification and general lack of
      consensus for its implementation, it is practical to look at the issue from
      the top down instead of the bottom up.

      * Bottom up: conditions in an otherwise civilized coalition of
      independent countries deteriorated in to an aggressive invasion, total war
      and the deaths of millions.

      * Top down: there was a post-war desired outcome so the specific
      reasons for invasion, battles and war are of secondary, and debatable,
      importance.

      Judging by the punitive nature of congressional acts commonly referred to as
      Reconstruction Law and Reconstruction Amendments enacted pursuant to the War
      (punitive in the sense of deteriorating individual liberties, restrictions
      upon individuals, and congressional jurisdiction over formerly free men), it
      is conceivable that much was pre-written before the war including
      pre-planned objectives. Evidence of this can be no clearer than the
      “conversion” from state nationals—with their unalienable rights (as
      protected by the Constitution)—into the de facto citizens of the United
      States—with their privileges and immunities (as established herein)—within
      the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, it should be noted that the usurpation
      of the lawful governmental system of natural law is found in state
      constitutions where primary allegiance to the United States is
      mandatory.[11]
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_note-10#cite_note-10>


      [edit
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_National&action=edit§io
      n=8> ] The State Nationals of the Union


      The term State National—in reference to the American union of states—is used
      to describe the status of a man or a woman who formally rejects the federal
      citizenship of the United States, its benefits and disabilities and required
      political allegiance. Such people assume the rightful status of a national
      of their nation (commonly referred to as state in American vernacular) of
      domicile. Such people have been politically disenfranchised[12]
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_note-11#cite_note-11> and
      wherefore maintain their peaceful existence in private societies
      <http://www.statenationals.net> . The operative distinction is that of
      nationality by lawful right (de jure <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_jure>
      ) verses nationality of fact (de facto
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto> ) voluntarily accepted in a
      political contract. There are relatively few de jure nationals in America
      due to the fact that most Americans have opted to be citizens and
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_citizen> nationals of the United States
      and contract into its privileges, immunities, and liabilities; by operation
      of law, such people are considered to be in rebellion
      <http://www.pacinlaw.org/error> and are legal entities over being men and
      women under the principles of natural law.

      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ex_Pat_Act.jpg> Ex Pat Act.jpg

      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ex_Pat_Act.jpg>


      [edit
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_National&action=edit§io
      n=9> ] Nationality is a Natural Right


      Nationality is a guaranteed natural right by virtue of International law
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights> and
      the Law <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Nations> of Nations. Bouvier's
      Law Dictionary <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouvier%27s_Law_Dictionary> ,
      Revised 6th Edition, defines nationality as:

      * “The state of a person in relation to the nation in which he was
      born. A man retains his nationality of origin during his minority, but, as
      in the case of his domicile of origin, he may change his nationality upon
      attaining full age; he cannot, however, renounce his allegiance without
      permission of the government.”

      It is understandable, therefore, that the United States Congress had to make
      the new federal nationality and citizenship a voluntary political choice in
      order not to infringe upon the natural rights of men and women and
      consequently in 1868 enacted Public Law 15 United States Statutes at Large,
      Chapter 249, Pages 223-224 (image herein noted). Interestingly, this
      declaration by Congress was put in place the day before implementation of
      the Fourteenth Amendment; therefore providing Congress effective cover
      respecting the guaranteed right of nationality on the eve of the
      introduction of ITS own brand of corporate based citizenship and nationality
      as regulated by the Law of Persons.[13]
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_note-12#cite_note-12> By
      the language noted in the Preamble of this Act, it is obvious that the
      intent of Congress was to strip the allegiance of the citizens/nationals of
      the several states by preying on their ignorance via operation
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_of_law> of law: the 14th Amendment.


      The State National in America today understands the nature of events
      culminating in hundreds of millions of men and women for over 140 years
      volunteering for citizenship status in a de facto governmental system, and
      in rebellion against their de jure political rights and lawful system of
      law. A practical historic reference can be found in history in Roman
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law> Civil Law. The poignant, yet
      unfortunate, irony of the matter is conscientious small-government groups
      whose quest for freedom, liberty and justice is hampered by their own
      voluntary insertion in to the de facto body politic wherein they themselves
      are prima facie insurgents <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency> in
      rebellion of the de jure bodies politic who can assure and protect the very
      liberties they seek.


      [edit
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_National&action=edit§io
      n=10> ] United States' Recognition of Rightful Nationality


      Notwithstanding its successful procurement of citizens by virtue of the
      Fourteenth Amendment, the federal government continues to recognize the
      State National status.[14]
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_note-13#cite_note-13>
      Title 8 of the United States Code (USC) codifies the constitutionally
      recognized status under “Aliens and Nationality”, which is quasi-public
      law.[15]
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_note-14#cite_note-14> The
      definitions of of Title 8 (Chapter 12, Section 1101) defines a “national” as
      a person owing permanent allegiance to a state;[16]
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_note-15#cite_note-15> and
      further goes on to define that an “alien” is any person not a citizen or
      national of the United States,[17]
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_note-16#cite_note-16>
      which establishes that one is foreign to the political system (under the
      Fourteenth Amendment).[18]
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_note-17#cite_note-17>
      Furthermore, the U.S. Government Printing Office
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Government_Printing_Office> lists the
      distinct nationalities of the states in Chapter 5.22-5.23 on page 93:
      Nationalities, etc. Chapter 5.23 shows forms to be used for nouns and
      adjectives denoting the nationalities of the several states of the
      Union:[19]
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_note-18#cite_note-18>

      * “In designating the natives of the States, the following forms
      will be used: Alabamian, Alaskan, Arizonan, Arkansan, Californian,” and so
      on.

      In contrast to the de jure nationality, the de facto nationality can be
      found at Title 8 USC §1101(a)(22) - the term “national of the United States”
      means: (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a
      citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United
      States. Accordingly, such references establish the distinctions between a
      State National and a national of the United States within Title 8 of the
      United States Code.


      [edit
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_National&action=edit§io
      n=11> ] United States' Nationality is Effectively Genocide


      Finally we are to consider the concepts of genocide
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide> and of cultural genocide
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_genocide> representing the
      deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic,
      racial, religious, or national group. Although it cannot be contested that
      national, political and cultural groups formerly known as nationals of the
      several states have been systematically exterminated (or nearly), one should
      independently research the political climate in the District of Columbia
      (1850-1860) to fully understand the federal government's appetite for
      consolidation of power, control over its creator(s) and their resources, and
      the surreptitious influence thereupon by a stealthy influential
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati> nonAmerican force.




      [edit
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_National&action=edit§io
      n=12> ] References


      [edit
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_National&action=edit§io
      n=13> ] Authorities


      * Vattel,
      <http://www.scribd.com/doc/12711673/Vattel-The-Law-of-Nations-or-the-Princip
      les-of-Natural-Law> The Law of Nations (from the French translation)
      * Bouvier's
      <http://books.google.com/books?id=KGg8AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+law+
      dictionary+adapted+to+the+Constitution+and+laws+of+the+United+States+Of+Amer
      ica+And+Of+The+Several+States+Of+The+American+Union#v=onepage&q&f=false>
      Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Edition
      * Ballentine's
      <https://www.lexisnexis.com/start/signin?service=xlink&contractURL=https%3a%
      2f%2fw3.lexis.com%2fresearch2%2fauthResource.do%3f_m%3dfa96f417cad04d30948d7
      53bf6ffa4f3&key=_c8D135DD9-6F18-A04B-0ABD-CD612A8D610F_kED804733-2EEC-64FC-F
      85B-8A66B32E8BDC&event=form> Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition
      * Webster's Dictionary, 1828 <http://machaut.uchicago.edu/websters>


      [edit
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_National&action=edit§io
      n=14> ] Notations


      * In reference to the use of “perpetual” in regard to a federal
      republic by Vattel, the word had this meaning: PERPETUAL. That which is to
      last without limitation as to time; as, a perpetual statute, which is one
      without limit as to time, although not expressed to be so (Bouvier’s Law
      Dictionary, 1856). Wherefore, in law it does not mean forever, per se, but
      means without a specified end to the relationship of the union of nations.
      * It should be noted that prior to the 14th Amendment, the term
      “alien” meant a person that was not a citizen/national of one of the several
      states in reference to the federal system. The term in question has appeared
      in state constitutions (Wisconsin, Bill of Rights, Article I, §15) for
      property ownership, but was never defined to have meaning in regard to each
      state being foreign to each other, i.e., someone being an alien from another
      state in the Union.


      [edit
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_National&action=edit§io
      n=15> ] Footnotes


      1. ^
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_ref-0#cite_ref-0> Vattel,
      Book I, Chapter I § 4
      2. ^
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_ref-1#cite_ref-1> Vattel,
      Book I, Chapter XI § 122
      3. ^
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_ref-2#cite_ref-2> Vattel,
      Book I, Chapter I § 10
      4. ^
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_ref-3#cite_ref-3> From
      the term, United States of America —Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856
      5. ^
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_ref-4#cite_ref-4> BODY
      POLITIC, government, corporations. 1. When applied to the government this
      phrase signifies the state. 2. As to the persons who compose the body
      politic, they take collectively the name, of people, or nation; and
      individually they are citizens, when considered in relation to their
      political rights, and subjects as being submitted to the laws of the state.
      3. When it refers to corporations, the term body politic means that the
      members of such corporations shall be considered as an artificial person.
      —Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856
      6. ^
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_ref-5#cite_ref-5> Article
      I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution expressly gives the
      United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of
      naturalization. The term “uniform” serves are prima facie evidence that
      there is more than one country in regard to naturalization and relates one
      rule for all, i.e., The United States has the ability to create
      naturalizaion law for not only people coming into the United States, but
      also each individual state.
      7. ^
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_ref-6#cite_ref-6> The
      Intent of the 14th Amendment: “We intend to make citizenship National.
      Heretofore, a man has been a citizen of the United States because he was a
      citizen of some-one of the States: now, we propose to reverse that, and make
      him a citizen of any State where he chooses to reside, by defining in
      advance his national [state] citizenship—and our Amendment declares that
      “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
      jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States
      wherein they reside.” —The Reconstruction Problem, speech of James Blaine,
      Skowhegan, Maine (August 29, 1866), Page 64.
      8. ^
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_ref-7#cite_ref-7> See
      issues with the violation of the lawful ratification of amendments to the
      Constitution under Article V.
      9. ^
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_ref-8#cite_ref-8> Citizen
      of a State: A citizen of the United States, residing in any state of the
      Union; Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (see
      citizens resident in the state). Citizens Resident in the State: Natural
      Persons who are citizens and residents, and Corporations chartered in the
      State. —Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, Third Edition
      10. ^
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_ref-9#cite_ref-9> In
      1828, Noah <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster> Webster defined an
      insurgent as a person who rises in opposition to civil or political
      authority and openly and actively resists the execution of laws. He further
      established that an insurgent differed from a rebel; the insurgent opposes
      the execution of a particular law or laws; and a rebel attempts to overthrow
      or change government, or he revolts and attempts to place his country under
      another authority. Also he noted, all rebels are insurgents, but all
      insurgents are not rebels.
      11. ^
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_ref-10#cite_ref-10>
      Allegiance to the United States. Every citizen of this State owes paramount
      allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no
      law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can
      have any binding force. —North Carolina State Constitution. Article
      I-Declaration of Rights, Section 5.
      12. ^
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_ref-11#cite_ref-11> Dyett
      v Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, Download
      <http://www.scribd.com/doc/27797304/Dyett-v-Turner-Utah-Supreme-Court-439-Pa
      cific-Reporter-2d-403-439-P-2d-266-276> Case
      13. ^
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_ref-12#cite_ref-12> See
      The Law of Persons – The Institutes of Roman Law (1892) by Rudolph Sohm.
      Translated from the 4th Edition of the German by: James Crawford Ledlie,
      B.C.L., M.A. of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law and of Lincoln College,
      Oxford.
      14. ^
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_ref-13#cite_ref-13> See
      Title <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001101----000-.html>
      8 USC §1101(a) (21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent
      allegiance to a state. (23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring
      of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means
      whatsoever.
      15. ^
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_ref-14#cite_ref-14> The
      term quasi-public had never been defined in reference to constitutional law,
      but is inherent due to the private international law nature of a federal
      republic.
      16. ^
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_ref-15#cite_ref-15>
      Within Chapter 12 of Title 8 USC §1101(a)(21)
      17. ^
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_ref-16#cite_ref-16>
      Within Chapter 12 of Title 8 USC §1101(a)(3)
      18. ^
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_ref-17#cite_ref-17>
      alien, adj. Owing political allegiance to another country or government;
      foreign: alien residents. n., An unnaturalized foreign resident of a
      country. Also called noncitizen. View Source
      <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alien>
      19. ^
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National#cite_ref-18#cite_ref-18> Style
      Manual: An Official Guide to the Form and Style of Federal Government
      Printing for 2008, Download
      <http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2008_style_manual
      &docid=f:chapter5.pdf> File


      [edit
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_National&action=edit§io
      n=16> ] Other












      State National <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National>



      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      < Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion>



      If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on
      another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a
      discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and
      guidelines <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines>
      regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus> is gauged based on the
      merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

      However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome.
      Remember to assume good faith
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith> on the part of
      others and to sign your posts
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signatures> on this page by adding
      ~~~~ at the end.

      Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account> may be
      tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}}





      State <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_National> National (edit
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_National&action=edit> |talk
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_National> |history
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_National&action=history>
      |links
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/State_Natio
      nal&limit=999> |watch
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_National&action=watch>
      |logs
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=State+National>
      ) – (View log
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_Novem
      ber_17#State_National> ) • Afd
      <http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/afd/State+National.html>
      statistics

      (Find sources:
      <http://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22State+National%22&num=50>
      "State National" – news
      <http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR
      +-release+-wikipedia&q=%22State+National%22> · books
      <http://books.google.com/books?as_brr=0&as_pub=-icon&q=%22State+National%22>
      · scholar <http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22State+National%22> · free
      <http://images.google.com/images?safe=off&as_rights=(cc_publicdomain%7ccc_at
      tribute%7ccc_sharealike%7ccc_noncommercial%7ccc_nonderived)&q=%22State+Natio
      nal%22> images)

      PROD contested by article author. An interesting essay, but pure original
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR> research with some WP:FRINGE
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FRINGE> thrown in for good measure.
      The article title itself appears to be a concept invented by the article
      creator.
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Uncle_Dick&action=edit&redli
      nk=1> Uncle Dick (talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Uncle_Dick> )
      19:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

      * Delete. The author of this article has apparently coined the term
      “State National” and has created a Wikipedia article about this term,
      collecting disjointed materials from various sources, and cobbling together
      his/her theory. As stated in the article, with respect to the United States,
      the author has defined his term "State National" as applying to “the status
      of a man or a woman who formally rejects the federal citizenship of the
      United States, its benefits and disabilities and required political
      allegiance.” The article appears to be overwhelmingly idiosyncratic,
      prohibited original research – a concatenation of various ideas promoting,
      among other things, the author’s fringe theory that “United States’
      Nationality is Effectively Genocide”. This appears to be an essay of the
      opinion of the author of the article. Famspear
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Famspear> (talk
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Famspear> ) 20:00, 17 November 2010
      (UTC)

      * Delete, but not exactly original. It appears to be taken from
      www.pacinlaw.org/pdf/Income_Tax.pdf (although I'll understand if it's
      blacklisted). — Arthur Rubin
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur_Rubin> (talk)
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arthur_Rubin> 20:17, 17 November
      2010 (UTC)

      * Do not delete. Valid Reference. The term "State National" is taken
      directly from the United States Code, as evidenced in the article, and is
      grounded in the principles of the foundational law of the United States of
      America. pacgroups <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pacgroups> (talk
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pacgroups> ) —Preceding unsigned
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signatures> comment added by
      98.125.141.87
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.125.141.87> (talk
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:98.125.141.87> ) 20:21, 17 November
      2010 (UTC) — Pacgroups <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pacgroups> (talk
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pacgroups> • contribs
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pacgroups> ) has made
      few or no other edits
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account> outside
      this topic.

      * Delete. This article seems to be one big advertisement for his
      personal point of view. In his answer to my original post the author accuses
      me of making broad brushed views, but failed to refute my statement
      regarding his incorrect timeline. It has no outside verifiable references
      linked and has no other research noted, outside of his own. I do not believe
      that such an article has a place here.
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wolfstorm000&action=edit&red
      link=1> Wolfstorm000 (talk
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wolfstorm000> ) 20:23, 17 November
      2010 (UTC) —
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wolfstorm000&action=edit&red
      link=1> Wolfstorm000 (talk
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wolfstorm000> • contribs
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wolfstorm000> ) has made
      few or no other edits
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account> outside
      this topic.

      * Delete, This article consists of inaccurate and misleading
      information cobbled together from a fringe viewpoint. It represents
      "original research" as that term is used in wikipedia and appears to be
      entirely the viewpoint of one individual.BBFlatt
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BBFlatt> (talk
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BBFlatt> ) 20:42, 17 November 2010
      (UTC)

      * Delete. The article (and the article's author) is simply wrong on
      his contentions about citizenship. He misinterprets the various sources he
      lists. It is well established law that most persons born within the
      geographic limits of the 50 states and various territories are United States
      citizens at birth. The concept that people who were born within one of the
      fifty states are not citizens of the United States is nonsense.
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ngc6205&action=edit&redlink=
      1> Ngc6205 (talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ngc6205> ) 20:43,
      17 November 2010 (UTC) —
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ngc6205&action=edit&redlink=
      1> Ngc6205 (talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ngc6205> •
      contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ngc6205> ) has
      made few or no other edits
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account> outside
      this topic.

      * Delete. At best, an extremely minority opinion of the facts not
      supported by credible research; at worst, opinion, original research and
      argument. Brett A. Thomas <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_quark>
      (talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_quark> ) 05:13, 18
      November 2010 (UTC)

      * Comment. I disagree with user "pacgroups"' assertion that the term
      "state national" is "taken directly from the United States Code." It
      certainly is not.

      The statute referenced by "pacgroups" (title 8 U.S. Code section
      1101(a)(21)) shows the term "national," not "state national." Further, the
      definition for term "state national" as used in the article is nowhere near
      the definition of "national" as used in the source statute.

      Here is the actual text of the statute:

      The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.

      --see 8 USC section 1101(a)(21), at 8 U.S.C.
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_8_of_the_United_States_Code> §
      <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1101.html> 1101.

      By contrast, the definition for term "state national" as written by user
      "pacgroups" in the article itself is:

      The term State National—in reference to the American union of states—is used
      to describe the status of a man or a woman who formally rejects the federal
      citizenship of the United States, its benefits and disabilities and required
      political allegiance.

      The article is a "cobbling together" of the author's original research and
      personal viewpoints. Famspear <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Famspear>
      (talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Famspear> ) 20:54, 17 November
      2010 (UTC)

      * Delete An interesting read at first. Then the impression grows that
      this is cobbled together. Finally, the impression is that it is a load of
      cobblers. Original research, essay, whatever. Words are, and have been for
      quite some time, my business, but I find it hard to understand exactly what
      this is about. I do understand that it very much smacks of the soapbox
      (WP:SOAPBOX <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOAPBOX> ). Peridon
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peridon> (talk
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peridon> ) 21:33, 17 November 2010
      (UTC)
      * Delete. Original research, and not good research at all. --
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hansm77&action=edit&redlink=
      1> Hansm77 (talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hansm77> ) 21:53,
      17 November 2010 (UTC)
      * Delete. Original research, and not right. Not even wrong.
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wserra&action=edit&redlink=1
      > Wserra (
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wserra&action=edit&redl
      ink=1> talk) 22:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC) —
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wserra&action=edit&redlink=1
      > Wserra (
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wserra&action=edit&redl
      ink=1> talk • contribs
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wserra> ) has made few
      or no other edits
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account> outside
      this topic.
      * Delete An interesting essay on a point of view that does exists out
      there, but that is not backed by reliable and verifiable sources. An article
      on the subject might well be created that meets the standard, but this is
      basically a synthesis based on original research. Alansohn
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alansohn> (talk
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alansohn> ) 22:31, 17 November 2010
      (UTC)
      * Snow delete per, er, absolutely everyone.—
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:S_Marshall> S Marshall T
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:S_Marshall> /C
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/S_Marshall> 00:16, 18
      November 2010 (UTC)
      * Delete as biased <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV>
      article promoting a fringe theory
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FRINGE> , and then redirect to
      Redemption movement#History
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemption_movement#History> where similar
      concepts are already discussed. --Metropolitan90
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Metropolitan90> (talk)
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Metropolitan90> 00:23, 18 November
      2010 (UTC)
      * Delete The article in question is at best an eccentric view with
      little support in treaties, statutes, and court decisions. At worst, it is
      fantastic and incoherent gibberish.
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Evansdb&action=edit&redlink=
      1> Evansdb (talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Evansdb> ) 01:03,
      18 November 2010 (UTC)

      * Notations on Delete Entries. pacgroups
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pacgroups> (talk
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pacgroups> )

      Users/NonUsers with Extreme Prejudice. These seem to be people that want to
      tie this to being an article about Income Tax, i.e., See the original
      flagger's (Arthur Rubin) notation about an article above that has nothing to
      do with the content of the "State National" Wikipedia entry. Furthermore,
      after investigation it is noted that "Famspear", "Wserra", "Evansdb" appear
      to be, or are, attorneys (or tax attorneys) that frequent forums such as
      Quatloos (http://quatloos.com) and Sui Juris Club (http://suijurisclub.net)
      and ridicule people who have alternate viewpoints, right or wrong.

      User

      * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur_Rubin

      * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Famspear

      NonUsers

      * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wolfstorm000

      * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ngc6205

      * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evansdb

      Notations, such as nonUserFamspear submits, "The statute referenced by
      "pacgroups" (title 8 U.S. Code section 1101(a)(21)) shows the term
      "national," not "state national." Further, the definition for term "state
      national" as used in the article is nowhere near the definition of
      "national" as used in the source statute. are ridiculous. Firstly, on its
      face this is an act of sophistry <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophistry>
      as there is sufficient evidence found within the United States Code and
      regulations (aside other references noted in the article) that show that
      citizens of the United States owe allegiance to the United States; secondly,
      the history of America sufficiently shows the progressive transition to the
      current state which exists. This article stands on its own without having to
      insert such history.

      Accordingly, as it is overtly clear there is some agenda, if not a
      disinformation agenda, here, hence their comments should yield no weight
      whatsoever.

      A User without an Account. Sorry, but it appears that this User Acct. has
      been omitted. Please clarify as User:pacgroups
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pacgroups> is new to Wikipedia.

      * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uncle_Dick

      Users. These people have not given any sufficient offer of proof why the
      article should be deleted.

      * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alansohn -Unreliable research,
      you cannot be serious.

      * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BBFlatt -The research of Vattel
      was by one individual, but the Supreme Court uses Vattel. Sorry, your point?


      * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Metropolitan90 -Redemption, you
      have got to be joking. This is pure Constitutional law and has nothing to do
      with that nonsense. Pacgroups <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pacgroups>
      (talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pacgroups> ) 01:08, 18
      November 2010 (UTC)

      * Notation. Evansdb fails to understand that this is a layman's
      environment and things must be explained accordingly; and his(?) use of the
      word "gibberish" is childish insofar as there have been people that have
      said the article is beautiful. Another attempt at sabotage, so it
      appears.Pacgroups <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pacgroups> (talk
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pacgroups> ) 01:30, 18 November 2010
      (UTC)

      * Comment. User Pacgroups may believe other users have an 'agenda',
      but the simple fact is that the article does not meet the wikipedia
      standards as a valid entry. As others have stated, the article reads like
      'original research' and is unsupported by prior research by accepted
      sources.

      From the article's discussion page User Pacgroups said

      BEGIN QUOTE As to the comment by Ngc6205, the Fourteenth Amendment created a
      "dual citizenship" and before that there was none. Soul[sic] state
      citizenship can be evidenced via naturalization acts prior to the
      implementation of the amendment, e.g., “An act to establish an uniform rule
      of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject.
      Approved April 14, 1802. Section 1. Be it enacted, &c, That any alien ...
      may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them..."
      END QUOTE

      Even ignoring the fact that Pacgroups is misinterpreting the Naturalization
      Law of 1802, he is still wrong. Within the Article 1 of the Constitution, it
      specifies the qualifications for a person to be eligible to be a Senator or
      Representative. One aspect of those qualifications is a time frame that a
      representative or senator must have been a citizen of the United States
      before they were eligible. Obviously, the framers believed that a citizen of
      one of the 13 states was a citizen of the United States, otherwise, no one
      would have been eligible for the first Congress under the Constitution.

      Constitutional scholars from before the 14th amendment also had the view
      that citizens of one of the states were also citizens of the United States.
      William Rawle wrote in 1829:

      BEGIN QUOTE OF WILLIAM RAWLE The citizens of each state constituted the
      citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights
      which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths,
      accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which
      ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens
      of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became
      at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every
      person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether
      the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense
      of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges
      appertaining to that capacity. - William Rawle, LL.D. A View of the
      Constitution of the United States of America, 2nd Edition, Chapter 9, pgs.
      85-86. END QUOTE OF WILLIAM RAWLE

      Justice Joseph Story agreed with that interpretation when he wrote, Every
      citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.

      The Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1856) wrote,

      QUOTE THE SUPREME COURT It is true, every person, and every class and
      description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the
      Constitution recognised 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 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. It was the union of those who were at that time
      members of distinct and separate political communities into one political
      family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the
      whole territory of the United States. And it gave to each citizen rights and
      privileges outside of his State which he did not before possess, and placed
      him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to
      rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United
      States.

      END QUOTE THE SUPREME COURT

      Pacgroups may believe that he is right, but he is not. Therefore, the
      article should be deleted because it is in the form of original research and
      because it is wrong.
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ngc6205&action=edit&redlink=
      1> Ngc6205 (talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ngc6205> ) 01:48,
      18 November 2010 (UTC)

      * Notation. Just sophistry above by Ngc6205. The article evidences the
      INTENT by the drafters of the 14th Amendment. And, I would remind all that
      courts render OPINIONS. The fact is, there was no DUAL CITIZENSHIP prior to
      the 14th Amendment so the amendment made it so. Moreover, the naturalization
      act, as noted, is clear in its language "OR ANY OF THEM". According to
      Congress, there the state citizenship was not equal to that of the citizen
      of the United States variety. Those noted arguments FAIL, and have for some
      time now. And far as dead things go, understanding that some of you
      attorneys have issues with not only law but also grammar, in example some
      authorities that show that the current law system moves soulless things
      around:

      * Virginia Code § 10.1-1000. Definitions. "Person" means any
      individual, partnership, firm, association, trust, or corporation or other
      legal entity.

      * Virginia Code § 10.1-1400. Definitions. "Person" includes an
      individual, corporation, partnership, association, a governmental body, a
      municipal corporation or any other legal entity.

      * Virginia Code § 18.2-186.6. "Entity" includes corporations,
      business trusts, estates, partnerships, limited partnerships, limited
      liability partnerships, limited liability companies, associations,
      organizations, joint ventures, governments, governmental subdivisions,
      agencies, or instrumentalities or any other legal entity, whether for profit
      or not for profit. "Individual" means a natural person.

      All those references are within the Law of Persons, which is referenced in
      the article that has been well documented in regard to law authorities. So,
      those are dead things that have no soul [sic]. And speaking of agenda,
      attorneys want people to be dead things so they can funnel money from them.
      It is thought that this is supposed to be an open format for all people, not
      those attempting to protect their "income".

      No one herein has shown (proven) where the article has violated any of the
      criteria to be removed as a Wiki article. Pacgroups
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pacgroups> (talk
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pacgroups> ) 09:32, 18 November 2010
      (UTC)

      * Notation I would ask that the article be deleted under the rules of
      Speedy Deletion. It has become obvious that any post in favor of deletion
      will not be met with an intellectual discussion, facts by a verifiable or
      quoted source, or anything resembling a valid point. Pacgroups will continue
      to use mis-interpreted Laws to make their opinions seem legal and will
      ridicule anyone who does not agree. There has been no proof that the article
      does not fall under the original research clause and has since migrated to
      patent nonsense due to the arguments, for want of a better word. Since the
      poster will not retract the article and edit it to bring it up to standards,
      the decision should be made for them and this topic should be closed
      permanently. The mere fact that it has been only one "person" and or group
      to advocate for the article should verify that it is an individuals idea,
      consisting of original research, and there fore does not meet the criteria.
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wolfstorm000&action=edit&red
      link=1> Wolfstorm000 (talk
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wolfstorm000> ) 03:54, 18 November
      2010 (UTC)

      * Snowy delete quickly please to put a stop to this verbal flood. I
      was going to collapse this, but maybe a friendly admin will do a vote count:
      all but one for delete. Or an argument count, based on WP guidelines and
      policies such as that for verifiability, no original research, no soapboxing
      ("United States' Nationality is Effectively Genocide) etc: all arguments but
      for that of one editor for delete. Pretty please? Drmies
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drmies> (talk
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies> ) 04:00, 18 November 2010
      (UTC)

      * Notation. Again, no one herein has shown (proven) where the article
      has violated any of the criteria to be removed as a Wiki article (see
      below). Like the other "attorneys" that are attempting to have the truth hid
      from the people of the world, Wolfstorm000 has not given any references
      where the article is specifically flawed in law. The references are all
      documented and there has been no evidence to refute them. An arbitrary
      deletion would prove as a miscarriage of justice to all that want to
      understand the constitutional system of law and how it operates.

      Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject
      to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if
      practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):

      * Copyright violations
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violations> and other
      material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria>

      * Vandalism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism> ,
      including inflammatory redirects
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect> , pages that exist only to
      disparage their subject <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attack_page>
      , patent nonsense <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Patent_nonsense> ,
      or gibberish

      * Advertising or other spam
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam> without relevant content (but
      not an article about an advertising-related subject)

      * Content forks
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking> (unless a merger
      or redirect is appropriate)

      * Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources> reliable sources,
      including neologisms
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms> , original
      theories and conclusions
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research> , and articles
      that are themselves hoaxes
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_create_hoaxes> (but not
      articles describing notable hoaxes)

      * Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources> to verify
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability> them have failed

      * Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability
      guideline <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability> (WP:N
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N> , WP:BIO
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO> , WP:MUSIC
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC> , WP:CORP
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP> and so forth)

      * Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living
      persons
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons>

      * Redundant or otherwise useless templates
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates>

      * Categories representing overcategorization
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overcategorization>

      * Files <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files> that are
      unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content> policy

      * Any other use of the article
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Main_namespace> , template
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_namespace> , project
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Project_namespace> , or user
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page> namespace that is
      contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace.

      * Any other content not suitable
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not> for an
      encyclopedia

      Accordingly, Wolfstorm000 is making frivoulous broad brush statements that
      are unfounded and wthout merit. Pacgroups
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pacgroups> (talk
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pacgroups> ) 04:08, 18 November 2010
      (UTC)

      * "Original research" covers it well enough. Another relevant
      guideline: Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Too_long;_didn%27t_read> . Drmies
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drmies> (talk
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies> ) 04:29, 18 November 2010
      (UTC)

      * Comment. I would point out to User:Pacgroups
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pacgroups> that
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Uncle_Dick&action=edit&redli
      nk=1> User:Uncle Dick is hardly "A User without an Account". He has been
      registered as a Wikipedia user for over 4 years as can be seen from his
      contribution history. The fact that his user page is a redlink is
      irrelevant; he isn't required to create a user page to be a valid and
      registered user with an account. --Metropolitan90
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Metropolitan90> (talk)
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Metropolitan90> 04:25, 18 November
      2010 (UTC)
      * Comment. What is nothing short of a coordinated conspiracy to
      suppress factual content supported by paramount references is an
      embarrassment upon some of these protesters. The project called State
      National is founded on deeply researched material over the course of many
      years based on lawful principles, American history and the courts. There is
      no legitimate basis, based on the Wikipedia Deletion policy, for removal of
      this project beyond the self serving desires of some of these protestors
      conducting nothing short of a witch hunt. Some protestors have been
      identified as long-time antagonists of the project’s authors and who have
      demonstrated a disregard for fact. The material presented in the project is
      threatening to the some protestors in that they have most likely built their
      careers, reputations and livelihoods on misdirection, deceit, and
      falsehoods, and the project’s exposure of the true nature of things
      threatens their bidding. The project contains irrefutable references and
      factual content. 04:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signatures> comment added by
      75.190.159.91
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.190.159.91> (talk
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:75.190.159.91> )

      * Did you forget to sign in, Pac? Drmies
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drmies> (talk
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies> ) 05:23, 18 November 2010
      (UTC)

      Do Not Delete: This is clearly an attack by people who wish to see this
      information hidden from the public's viewing, I relate it, to the book
      burning, by the Hitler Administration. On the person who has said, the term
      State National is not defined as the article suggests, here is the copied
      uscode Title 8 (21) The term “national” means a person "owing permanent
      allegiance to a state." The term “national” means a person owing permanent
      allegiance to a state. How does the above poster suggest that this in no way
      means what it says. A state is a Nation. A Nation is a state. My
      state/nation is Rhode Island. My permanent allegiance is to my state of
      Rhode Island. How is this misconstrued at all? Do the US Codes Titles, not
      really mean what they say? For, if they do, then we are all in deep doo-doo.
      If you don't believe that there was a Genocide trying to be committed by the
      United States National, just ask the Indians about a United States National
      Genocide. The people who want this article deleted are clearly upset with
      it's truthful content. As, it could be the end of their de facto laws and
      courts,which could be their demise of stealing off of the peoples that are
      railroaded by this corrupt, deceitful system that only rewards the criminals
      de facto and holds the de jure courts/laws hostage. Please do not delete
      this article, for how are the people ever to learn about the truth, and be
      able to be the judges for themselves, to decide what is best for them, and
      not a bunch of Administrative de facto Courts, who are trying to take away
      our Common Law Courts, with this kind of disinformational rantings. They
      have hidden our true Public Laws within these private laws of US Codes
      Titles of BS. They are trying to remove our true judicial organic
      U.S.Constitution and Bill of Rights. For they cannot continue to rob us, if
      our true laws/history are out here in Wiki land, for people to start
      researching more for themselves to decide. Not a bunch of greedy lawyers,
      who are clearly upset of knowledge getting out about State National
      Status's. Please keep this so people can decide for themselves. —Preceding
      unsigned <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signatures> comment added
      by
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:StateNationals&action=edit&r
      edlink=1> StateNationals (talk
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:StateNationals> • contribs
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/StateNationals> ) 06:18,
      18 November 2010 (UTC) —
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:StateNationals&action=edit&r
      edlink=1> StateNationals (talk
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:StateNationals> • contribs
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributio<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.