HOW THE SUBJUGATION OF STATE NATIONAL STATUS CAME ABOUT
This information was displayed on Wikipedia until, for some unknown reason, it was deleted. It was submitted by LB Bork of the People’s Awareness Coaltion. The entry explains how our country was transformed from a Constitutional Republic of independent states into a federal corporation.
State National Origin
The premise for the State National is inherent to the Law of Nations and the Principles of Natural Law. Emerich de Vattel noted that every 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. 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, 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.
The Federation State
The Law 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.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The Several States’ International Agent
The 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, which is the nature of a 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 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 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.” 
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. The latter body politic conforms to the principles of the Law of Nations and the Principles of Natural Law in regard to a people.
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. Prior to the War Between the States and its Reconstruction Acts and 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. 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, 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 and 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.
Subjugation of State National Status
On July 9, 1868 it is chronicled that the United States implemented the Fourteenth 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 Amendment, the federal government (specifically Congress) could not interfere with the people (representatives) of the American republics/countries. After its implementation, men and women are considered to have dual 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.
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 that are granted, and therefore by definition can be revoked, while the former maintains rights and immunities that are unalienable, 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, 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 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 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 (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. Unfortunately, slavery was common in the North, just not as economically viable as in the agricultural South. In fact the border states remained slave states after the war had ceased. Notwithstanding that the settled 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. However, the original constitutional government for the United States was a voluntary creation of the several states and contractually provides for peaceful 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.
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 and wherefore maintain their peaceful existence in private societies. The operative distinction is that of nationality by lawful right (de jure) verses nationality of fact (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 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 and are legal entities over being men and women under the principles of natural law.
Nationality is a Natural Right
Nationality is a guaranteed natural right by virtue of International law and the Law of Nations. Bouvier’s 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. 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 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 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 in rebellion of the de jure bodies politic who can assure and protect the very liberties they seek.
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. Title 8 of the United States Code (USC) codifies the constitutionally recognized status under “Aliens and Nationality”, which is quasi-public law. The definitions of of Title 8 (Chapter 12, Section 1101) defines a “national” as a person owing permanent allegiance to a state; and further goes on to define that an “alien” is any person not a citizen or national of the United States, which establishes that one is foreign to the political system (under the Fourteenth Amendment). Furthermore, the 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:
- “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.
United States’ Nationality is Effectively Genocide
Finally we are to consider the concepts of genocide and of 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 nonAmerican force.
Vattel, The Law of Nations (from the French translation)
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Edition
Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition
Webster’s Dictionary, 1828
- 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.
 Vattel, Book I, Chapter I § 4
 Vattel, Book I, Chapter XI § 122
 Vattel, Book I, Chapter I § 10
 From the term, United States of America —Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856
 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
 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.
 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.
 See issues with the violation of the lawful ratification of amendments to the Constitution under Article V.
 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
 In 1828, Noah 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.
 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.
 Dyett v Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, Download Case
 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.
 See Title 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.
 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.
 Within Chapter 12 of Title 8 USC §1101(a)(21)
 Within Chapter 12 of Title 8 USC §1101(a)(3)
 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
 Style Manual: An Official Guide to the Form and Style of Federal Government Printing for 2008, Download File http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2008_style_manual&docid=f:chapter5.pdf
More information: People’s Awareness Coalition
What about God’s people who have been regenerated by the sovereign power of the Holy Spirit and converted from “natural men” “natural persons” into spiritual men which changed their “standing” in relation to others in the community who are unregenerate men and women human beings.
Isn’t their citizenship now in Heaven? Isn’t their “standing” now that of “sojourners” and “pilgrims” a.k.a. foreigners in relation to others in the community?
Are they not now referred to as “ambassadors” for Christ? Isn’t their allegiance and fidelity to King Jesus rather than to the earthly nation or country into which they were born sinners?
As such how can God’s people possibly owe allegiance to some earthly country? Aren’t God’s people living under the perfect Law of Liberty?
Proverbs, Isaiah 11 2, Roman’s 7 14 all show “God’s Law is his Spirit”
I argue that the preamble to the constitution framed us all as US citizens to begin with.
Firstly The agents at the conventions (especially philadelphia and it’s secret meetings and what not) were never tasked with forming a new government. But to amend the Articles.
Then these agents used the LANGUAGE of WE THE PEOPLE to frame a founding document, 1st line WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.
first line of jurisdiction, effectually erased
USC TITLE 28 SEC 3002 UNITED STATES means a FEDERAL CORPORATION
This is all interesting information, but in my research, on this topic, I’ve yet to piece together exactly who to implement a remedy to take back my unalienable rights under the organic constitution. It’s very possible im just missing a piece somewhere. In fact, that’s my biggest worry. With pieces found here and more over there, both with good information yet both in part with contradictions to the other this subject is every bit the snake pit it was designed to be. Still, I’m another step closer so it’s not for naught. I’ll be marking this site for my favorites and spending a good bit of time here
Excellent Work to all
I’m glad to see this info spreading, it is vital to the true education of our history and roots of the de jure American system. I would like to add to Warren’s comment above about there being two status’ within this federation.
This except is from James G. Blaine, a major proponent in regards to the 14th Amendment:
“And in making this extension of citizenship, we are not confining the breadth and scope of our efforts to the negro. It is for the white man as well. 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 citizenship-”
-Political Discussions, Legislative, Diplomatic, and Popular, 1856-1886, James Gillespie Blaine, pg. 64
 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States” federal status
 State national (citizen) status
The entry was probably deleted because it asserts that since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, there are now two citizens in the country of the United States: a citizen of the United States, under Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and a citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United States, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States.
Which is true! There are two citizens. Refer to these works:
“Two Distinct State Citizens For Purposes Of Diversity Of Citizenship”
“Diversity of Citizenship: The Basics”
I thought the author’s work very informative.