Custom Search
U.S. Supreme Court Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) Argued April 28, 1884
Jan. 13, 2010
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
Argued April 28, 1884
Decided November 3rd 1884
112 U.S. 94
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/112/94/case.html
NOTE: This is an 1884 Sup Ct. case. In 1884 Common Law existed as the Law Of The Land upon which the Constitution was founded. In 1933 the Common Law was abandoned for commercial law. There is no such thing as dual citizenship as this case (and many others) clearly state. You are either an American or an United States Citizen but you cannot be both. If you are an United States Citizen, please do not claim yourself to be an American because you are NOT. Also keep in mind that I did not write this stuff and I would appreciate it if I do not get any shit about it.
Because you are 'born' on this North American Continent, between Canada, Mexico, the Pacafic and Atlantic Oceans does NOT make you a United States Citizen. It requires an act by someone else to make you a U.S. Citizen. I do not teach anymore on this subject. If you want to be 'free' you figure it out.
Lastly, you DO NOT have Constitutional Rights, period. You are NOT a party to the Constitution nor does it apply to you.
Note highlighted areas below.
I am a 'Neutral', if you do not know what this is, research it.
Thank you.
Excerpts:
"No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,"
Chief Justice Taney, in the passage cited for the plaintiff
Page 112 U. S. 101
from his opinion in @ 60 U. S. 404, did not affirm or imply that either the Indian tribes, or individual members of those tribes, had the right, beyond other foreigners, to become citizens of their own will, without being naturalized by the United States. His words were:
"They [the Indian tribes] may without doubt, like the subjects of any foreign government, be naturalized by the authority of Congress and become citizens of a state and of the United States, and if an individual should leave his nation or tribe, and take up his abode among the white population, he would be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would belong to an emigrant from any other foreign people."
......to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.
Charlie Parker