The President of the United States of America must be a citizen of a State

 

 

 

 

    One who is President, under the Constitution of the United States of America [Footnote 1], is President of the United States of America [Footnote 2]:

       “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”  Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section 1, Clause 1.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

 

    The United States of America consists of the several States:

       “The power of Congress in respect to the admission of new States is found in the third section of the fourth Article of the Constitution.  That provision is that, ‘new States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.’  The only expressed restriction upon this power is that no new State shall be formed within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of such States, as well as of the Congress.

       But what is this power?  It is not to admit political organizations which are less or greater, or different in dignity or power, from those political entities which constitute the Union.  It is, as strongly put by counsel, a ’power to admit States.’

       The definition of ’a State’ is found in the powers possessed by the original States which adopted the Constitution, a definition emphasized by the terms employed in all subsequent acts of Congress admitting new States into the Union.  The first two States admitted into the Union were the States of Vermont and Kentucky, one as of March 4, 1791, and the other as of June 1, 1792.  No terms or conditions were exacted from either.  Each act declares that the State is admitted ’as a new and entire member of the United States of America.’ 1 Stat.189, 191.  Emphatic and significant as is the phrase admitted as ’an entire member,’ even stronger was the declaration upon the admission in 1796 of Tennessee, as the third new State, it being declared to be ’one of the United States of America,’ ’on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever,’ phraseology which has ever since been substantially followed in admission acts, concluding with the Oklahoma act, which declares that Oklahoma shall be admitted ’on an equal footing with the original States.’  Coyle v. Smith: 221 U.S. 559, at 566 thru 567 (1911).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11905500281632424090

 

Only:

       “On the part of the plaintiffs it has been urged that (the District of) Columbia is a distinct political society; and is therefore ‘a state’ according to the definitions of writers on general law.

       This is true.  But as the act of congress obviously uses the word ‘state’ in reference to the term as used in the constitution, it becomes necessary to inquire whether Columbia is a state in the sense of that instrument.  The result of that examination is a conviction that the members of the American confederacy ONLY are the states contemplated in the Constitution.

       The house of representatives is to be composed of members chosen by the people of the several states; and each state shall have at least one representative.

       The senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state.

       Each state shall appoint, for the election of the executive, a number of electors equal to its whole number of senators and representatives.

       These clauses show that the word ‘state’ is used in the constitution as designating a member of the union, and excludes from the term the signification attached to it by writers on the law of nations.”  Hepburn & Dundas v. Ellzey: 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 445, at 452 thru 453 (1805).

http://books.google.com/books?id=qzkFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA452#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

    In the case of the President of the United States of America, one has to be a natural (native) born citizen:

       “No Person except a natural born Citizen,   . . .   shall be eligible to the Office of President.”  Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. 

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

 

    Before the Fourteenth Amendment, a natural (native) born citizen was a citizen of a State:

       “It has been suggested that the bill contains a prayer that, if the relief sought cannot be had against Andrew Johnson, as President, it may be granted against Andrew Johnson as a citizen of Tennessee.  But it is plain that relief as against the execution of an act of Congress by Andrew Johnson is relief against its execution by the President.  A bill praying an injunction against the execution of an act of Congress by the incumbent of the presidential office cannot be received, whether it describes him as President or as a citizen of a State.”  State of Mississippi v. Johnson: 71 U.S. 475, at 501 (1866). 

http://books.google.com/books?id=EQ0yAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA501#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

    After the Fourteenth Amendment, a natural (native) born citizen is still a citizen of a State, who is not a citizen of the United States: 

       "Joseph A. Iasigi, a native born citizen of Massachusetts, was arrested, February 14, 1897, on a warrant issued by one of the city magistrates of the city of New York, as a fugitive from the justice of the State of Massachusetts."  Iasigi v. Van De Carr: 166 U.S. 391, at 392 (1897).

http://books.google.com/books?id=xuUGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA392#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

    A citizen of the United States, under the Fourteenth Amendment, is not a natural (native) born citizen since such person is not born in a particular State, but born in the United States:

       "Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter.  He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it."  Slaughterhouse Cases:  83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, at 74 (1873).

http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q&f=false

       "The language of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring two kinds of citizenship is discriminating.  It is: '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.'  While it thus establishes national citizenship from the mere circumstance of birth within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, birth within a state does not establish citizenship thereof.  State citizenship is ephemeral.  It results only from residence and is gained or lost therewith."  Edwards v. People of the State of California: 314 U.S. 160, 183 (concurring opinion of Jackson)  (1941).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6778891532287614638

       "That all persons resident in this state, born in the United States, or naturalized, or who shall have legally declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, are hereby declared citizens of the State of Alabama, possessing equal civil and political rights."  (Declaration of Rights) Article I, Section 2  Constitution of the State of Alabama of 1875

       Note: This provision is not in the current constitution of the State of Alabama.

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/misc/history/constitutions/1875/1875_1.html

 

____________

Footnotes:

 

1.  “There appears to be a misunderstanding concerning the proper title of the Constitution.  Some use the label, Constitution of the United States, others choose to call it the Constitution for the United States of America.  However, the correct title is the Constitution of the United States of America”:

http://citizenoftheseveralstates.webs.com/constitutionoftheusa.htm

 

2.  President of the United States of America

(Before the Fourteenth Amendment)

 

       “ ‘   . . .   [N]ow therefore, I, Andrew Jackson, president of the United States of America, in consideration of the premises, divers other good and sufficient reasons me thereunto moving, have pardoned and do hereby pardon the said George Wilson the crime for which he has been sentenced to suffer death, remitting the penalty aforesaid, with this express stipulation, that this pardon shall not extend to any judgment which may be had or obtained against him, in any other case or cases now pending before said court for other offenses wherewith he may stand charged.’ “  United States v. Wilson: 32 U.S. 150, at 153 (1833).

http://books.google.com/books?id=eUQFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA153#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

       “ ‘Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Jackson, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty, do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, as expressed in their resolution of 26th of January, 1836, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof.’ “  United States v. Brooks: 51 U.S. 442, at 452 (1850), quoting attestion of the proclamation of President Andrew Jacckson of February 2, 1836.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Dr4GAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA452#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

(After the Fourteenth Amendment)

 

       “ ‘Now, Therefore, be it Known, that I, Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States of America, in consideration of the premises, divers other good and sufficient reasons me thereunto moving, do hereby grant unto the said George Burdick a full and unconditional pardon for all offenses against the United States which he, the said George Burdick, has committed or may have committed, or taken part in, in connection with the securing, writing about, or assisting in the publication of the information so incorporated in the aforementioned article, and in connection with any other article, matter, or thing, concerning which he may be interrogated in the said grand jury proceeding, thereby absolving him from the consequences of every such criminal act.’ “  Burdick v. United States: 236 U.S. 79, at 86 (1915).

http://books.google.com/books?id=5O4GAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA86#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

       “ ‘Now, therefore I, Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States of America, do hereby determine and proclaim that the increase in rate of duty provided in said act shown by said ascertained differences in said costs of production necessary to equalize the same is as follows:’ “  J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Company v. United States: 276 U.S. 394, at 403 (1928), quoting § 315 of the proclamation of President Calvin Coolidge of May 19, 1924.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18322570170959512562

 

 

 * * * * * * *