Citizenship in America

by
Stephen L. Corrigan
All copyrights reserved

To understand the meaning of citizenship in America, one must first understand from whence it came. The requirement for citizenship in America is based upon a law established by our founders. The following illustrates the context of that law.

Law specifies conduct.  Alexander Hamilton in  Letter #33 of "The Federalist Papers" made the following statement explaining the concept of the "rule of law" in America:

"A LAW, by the very meaning of the term, includes supremacy. It is a rule which those to whom it is prescribed are bound to observe. This results from every political association. If individuals enter into a state of society, the laws of that society must be the supreme regulator of their conduct."

In 1776, The people of 13 small soverign States entered into a political compact and formed a political association, later called "The United States of America". They listed "The Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God" as the foundation for their independence and the reason for the equality of its members. As honorable men claiming the rights connected with those "Laws of Nature", they assumed they too were obligated to follow the same.

To understand the context of the "Laws of Nature", one must first understand the difference between liberty and freedom. "The United States of America" was founded upon the concept of Liberty and not freedom. Freedom is the absence of restraint. Liberty is freedom regulated or restricted to a certain degree by restraints. Sir Walter Blackstone in his "Commentary on Law"  states the following concerning the restraints that are used in the "Law of Nature":

"This will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endured it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws."

"... For he has so intimately connected, so inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual, that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former; and, if the former be punctually obeyed, it cannot but induce the latter. In conse-quence of which mutual connection of justice and human felicity, he has not perplexed the law of nature with a multitude of abstracted rules and precepts, referring merely to the fitness or unfitness of things, as some have vainly surmised; but has graciously reduced the rule of obedience to this one paternal pre-cept, " that man should pursue his own true and substantial "happiness". This is the foundation of what we call ethics, or natural law."

To follow the ditates of one's faith concerning the "Laws of Nature" for the Blessings of liberty, without interference from the government, is the foundation of this nation's Liberty. They are to be seen as supreme in obligation and the supreme regulator of every citizens conduct. Every citizen has the liberty to pursue his own happiness. That happiness, according to Blackstone and our founders, is directly connected to the degree in which he or she honors those "Laws of Nature" which are found in the New Testament of "The Holy Bible".

After stating their foundation, our founders then identified themselves as having certain God given rights. That among these rights was the right to establish constitutions (laws for their government) that would protect their lives, their liberty, and their pursuit of happiness; and that the right or power to govern the people would be limited to the consent given by the people. Under this new form of government, according to the rule of law, the different levels of government that would be formed would be obligated to follow the will of the People so stated  in their constitutions.

In the last paragraph of their Declaration, they pledged certain conduct to each other in order to protect their rights thus forming the republic. When they pledged their stated conduct to one another in the compact, they created law for not only each member present but also for any new member in the future. This law identifies the conduct of the first citizens and the expected allegiance of every new citizen. In return for that allegiance, protection was created for the members of the association.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court made the observation in  Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) declaring the following:


"Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance."

The Court observed correctly that the United States associated themselves by covenant for the promotion of their general welfare. All associations are formed by covenant where the members swear allegiance to the whole in return for its protection. One cannot become a member of an association without first swearing allegiance to the members and the principles upon which the association is formed. Let us now see how the Supreme Court associates this citizenship with the republican form of government that is found only in America.


"For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more."



You will notice that the Court stated that citizen was best applied to one living under a republican form of government such is found in each one of the free States in America.

"To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership. Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States," and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of "the United States of America," entered into a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever."

The Court correctly observed that it wasn't a group of people coming together to form a national association, but rather the People of the several different states coming together as States and entered into a firm league of friendship with each other. (See last paragraph of "The Declaration of Independence") to declare their independence as free states and their association with one another as a sovereign republic. Their allegiance to one another was meant to secure everything listed in blue in the preceding paragraph.

"Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt."

In Section 1. of the fourteenth amendment of the U. S. Constitution, it states the following:

"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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


This amendment simply clarifies who will be recognized as a citizen of the United States.  Their citizenship will be recognized because the requirement of allegiance to the association will have been meet as a result coming from one of two methods. They will be recognized either by having at least one parent at birth who is a member of the association or by entering into a covenant with its citizens by the process called naturalization. Because we are talking about membership in an association which requires allegiance, the phrase can not be construed in any other way.


It must also be construed that one of the benefits of citizenship in the association is that the association recognizes the children as citizens because of at least one parent's allegiance. The allegiance of the parents or parent guarantees protection to the children. But with this protection, it is also understood that this benefit obligates these parents to train their children to give the same allegiance to the People of the Republic as they do. Their children will then know the obligation that they must make to the People as adults if they are to continue enjoying the association's benefits. This obligation includes supporting the association by standing up for the liberty and justice of all members, paying taxes, serving if needed in its defense, and giving the same consent to be governed in the same areas as listed by the founders in the federal constitution.  There are no free lunches. An association cannot continue to exit if it does not have the allegiance of its members.

 
 In concluion, every member of the association has the same civil rights as all the other members of the association. This includes the right to reside in any of the Free States of the association. Their oath of allegiance is the only requirement for their citizenship. By law, no one can legally become a member of this association other than by giving his allegiance to the association. Being born on American soil does meet the requirement for citizenship.The association is a people covenant and not a land contract. Land does not form associations, people do.


Remember that citizenship in America involves reciprocal obligations. Those obligations are allegiance and protection. "The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance".