Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2012DanGoodman Inhiswork,TheGovernmentoftheUnitedStates:National,State,andLocal, (1919),WilliamBennettMunro(ProfessorofMunicipalGovernmentatHarvard University)[Footnote1],statesatpage73: Sofarastherulesofinternationallawareconcerned,onlyonecitizenshipis recognized,namely,citizenshipoftheUnitedStates.Inrelationswithforeign powersallcitizensoftheUnitedStates,whereverresident,arealike;theyare equallyentitledtotheprotectionofthenationalgovernment;theycarrythesame sortofpassport;theyhavethesameprivilegesandimmunitiesabroad.But constitutionallaw,thesupremelawoftheUnitedStates,stillrecognizesthedual natureofAmericancitizenship,theFourteenthAmendmentbeingexplicitonthat pointwhenitusesthewordscitizensoftheUnitedStatesandofthestateswherein theyreside,althoughnoonecannowpossessoneformofcitizenshipwithoutthe other.Apartfromthequestionofdeterminingthecourtsinwhichsuitsshallbe brought,however,thedualityisnotofanypracticalimportancebecausecitizensof theUnitedStateshavethesameprivilegesandimmunitiesinallthestates.
http://books.google.com/books?id=klsvAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA73#v=onepage&q&f=false
MunroschangingofthewordStateintothewordStateschangesthemeaning oftheFourteenthAmendment.InsteadofonewhoisacitizenoftheUnitedStates beingacitizenofaStatealsobyresidinginaState,onewhoisacitizenoftheUnited States,isaccordingtoMunros,acitizenoftheseveralStatesalsobyresidingina State.Thisheadmits: ButtheFourteenthAmendment,adoptedin1868,reversedthisdoctrine, assertingthatallpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStates,andsubjectto thejurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandofthestateswherein theyreside.ThisamendmentdeclaredcitizenshiptobeprimarilyoftheUnitedStates andonlyconsequentiallyoftheseveralstates. However,thisisnotthecase.WhenacitizenoftheUnitedStatesisresiding withinaState,acitizenoftheUnitedStatesisalsoacitizenofaState: TheFourteenthAmendmentdeclaresthatcitizensoftheUnitedStatesare citizensofthestatewithintheyreside;thereforetheplaintiffwasatthetimeof makingherapplication,acitizenoftheUnitedStatesandacitizenoftheStateof Illinois. Wedonotheremeantosaythattheremaynotbeatemporaryresidenceinone State,withintenttoreturntoanother,whichwillnotcreatecitizenshipinthe former.Buttheplaintiffstatesnothingtotakehercaseoutofthedefinitionof citizenshipofaStateasdefinedbythefirstsectionofthefourteenthamendment. Bradwellv.StateofIllinois:83U.S.130,at138(1873).
http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA138#v=onepage&q=&f=false
InthecountryoftheUnitedStatestherearenowtwocitizenssincetheadoption oftheFourteenthAmendmentandtheSlaughterhouseCases:acitizenoftheUnited States,underSection1,Clause1oftheFourteenthAmendment,andacitizenofa StatewhoisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1of theConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica.[Footnote2]Thefollowingcases ondiversityofcitizenshipshowthatthereisacitizenoftheUnitedStates,anda citizenofaStatewhoisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates: Thepetitionavers,thattheplaintiff,RichardRaynalKeene,isacitizenofthe stateofMaryland;andthatJamesBrown,thedefendant,isacitizenorresidentof thestateofLouisiana,holdinghisfixedandpermanentdomicilintheparishofSt. Charles.Thepetition,then,doesnotaverpositively,thatthedefendantisacitizen ofthestateofLouisiana,butinthealternative,thatheisacitizenoraresident. Consistentlywiththisaverment,hemaybeeither. ...AcitizenoftheUnitedStatesmaybecomeacitizenofthatstateinwhich hehasafixedandpermanentdomicil;butthepetitionDOESNOTAVERthatthe plaintiffisacitizenoftheUnitedStates.... Thedecisionsofthiscourtrequire,thattheavermentofjurisdictionshallbe positive,andthatthedeclarationshallstateexpresslythefactonwhichjurisdiction depends.Itisnotsufficientthatjurisdictionmaybeinferredargumentativelyfrom itsaverments. TheanswerofJamesBrownasserts,thatbothplaintiffanddefendantare citizensoftheStateofLouisiana. Withoutindicatinganyopiniononthequestion,whetheranyadmissioninthe pleacancureaninsufficientallegationofjurisdictioninthedeclaration,weareallof opinionthatthisanswerdoesnotcurethedefectofthepetition.Iftheavermentof theanswermaybelookedinto,thewholeavermentmustbetakentogether.Itis thatbothplaintiffanddefendantarecitizensofLouisiana.Brownv.Keene:33U.S. (Peters8)112,at115thru116(1834).
http://books.google.com/books?id=DUUFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA115#v=onepage&q&f=false
Inansweringthequestion,whethertheCircuitCourthadjurisdictionofthe controversy,wemustputourselvesintheplaceoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,and decidethequestionwithreferencetothetranscriptofrecordinthatcourt. HadthetranscriptshownnothingmoreastothestatusofEdwardsthanthe avermentofthecomplaintthathewasaresidentoftheStateofDelaware,assuch anavermentwouldnotnecessarilyhaveimportedthatEdwardswasacitizenof Delaware,anegativeanswerwouldhavebeenimpelledbypriordecisions.Mexican CentralRy.Co.v.Duthie,189U.S.76;Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,155U.S.393; Dennyv.Pironi,141U.S.121;Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.646.Thewholerecord, however,maybelookedto,forthepurposeofcuringadefectiveavermentof citizenship,wherejurisdictioninaFederalcourtisassertedtodependupon diversityofcitizenship,andiftherequisitecitizenship,isanywhereexpressly averredintherecord,orfactsarethereinstatedwhichinlegalintendment constitutesuchallegation,thatissufficient.Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,supra andcasescited. Asthisisanactionatlaw,weareboundtoassumethatthetestimonyofthe plaintiffcontainedinthecertificateoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,andrecitedto havebeengivenonthetrial,waspreservedinabillofexceptions,whichformed partofthetranscriptofrecordfiledintheCircuitCourtofAppeals.Beingapartof therecord,andpropertoberesortedtoinsettlingaquestionofthecharacterof thatnowunderconsideration,Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.648,wecometoascertain whatisestablishedbytheuncontradictedevidencereferredto. Inthefirstplace,itshowsthatEdwards,priortohisemploymentontheNew YorkSunandtheNewHavenPalladium,waslegallydomiciledintheStateof Delaware.Next,itdemonstratesthathehadnointentiontoabandonsuchdomicil, forhetestifiedunderoathasfollows:OneofthereasonsIlefttheNewHaven Palladiumwas,itwastoofarawayfromhome.IlivedinDelaware,andIhadtogo backandforth.MyfamilyareoverinDelaware.Now,itiselementarythat,toeffect achangeofoneslegaldomicil,twothingsareindispensable:First,residenceina newdomicil,and,second,theintentiontoremainthere.Thechangecannotbe made,exceptfactoetanimo.Botharealikenecessary.Eitherwithouttheotheris insufficient.Mereabsencefromafixedhome,howeverlongcontinued,cannotwork thechange.Mitchellv.UnitedStates,21Wall.350. AsDelawaremust,then,beheldtohavebeenthelegaldomicilofEdwardsatthe timehecommencedthisaction,haditappearedthathewasacitizenofthe UnitedStates,itwouldhaveresulted,byoperationoftheFourteenth Amendment,thatEdwardswasalsoacitizenoftheStateofDelaware.Anderson v.Watt,138U.S.694.Bethisasitmay,however,Delawarebeingthelegal domicilofEdwards,itwasimpossibleforhimtohavebeenacitizenofanother 4
ThebillfiledintheCircuitCourtbytheplaintiff,McQuesten,allegedhertobe acitizenoftheUnitedStatesandoftheStateofMassachusetts,andresidingat TurnerFallsinsaidState,whilethedefendantsSteiglederandwifewerealleged tobecitizensoftheStateofWashington,andresidingatthecityofSeattleinsaid State.StatementoftheCase,Steiglederv.McQuesten:198U.S.141(1905).{After theFourteenthAmendment} TheavermentinthebillthatthepartieswerecitizensofdifferentStates wassufficienttomakeaprimafaciecaseofjurisdictionsofarasitdependedon citizenship.Opinion,Steiglederv.McQuesten:198U.S.141,at142(1905).{After theFourteenthAmendment}
http://books.google.com/books?id=ceIGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA141#v=onepage&q&f=false
AcitizenoftheUnitedStates,sincetheadoptionoftheFourteenthAmendment, isnolongeracitizenoftheUnion;thatis,theUnitedStatesofAmerica,butnowisa citizenoftheUnitedStates(FourteenthAmendment),thatis,acitizenofthe territoriesandpossessionsoftheUnitedStates,includingtheDistrictofColumbiaas wellasfederalenclaveswiththeseveralStates.[Footnote4]Thus,acitizenofthe UnitedStateshasadomicileintheterritoriesandpossessionsoftheUnitedStates, includingtheDistrictofColumbiaaswellasfederalenclaveswiththeseveralStates, butnotinanyoftheseveralStates. AcitizenofaState,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution,isone whoisborninanindividualStateoftheUnion,bothbeforeandaftertheadoptionof theConstitution: (BeforetheFourteenthAmendment) Itappearsthattheplaintiffinerror,thoughanativeborncitizenofLouisiana, wasmarriedintheStateofMississippi,whileunderage,withtheconsentofher guardian,toacitizenofthelatterState,andthattheirdomicile,duringtheduration 5
oftheirmarriage,wasinMississippi.Connerv.Elliott:59U.S.(Howard18)591,at 592(1855).
http://books.google.com/books?id=RkcFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA592#v=onepage&q&f=false
AcitizenoftheUnitedStatescanbecomeacitizenofaState,underSection1, Clause1oftheFourteenthAmendment,byresidinginaState: TheFourteenthAmendmentdeclaresthatcitizensoftheUnitedStatesare citizensofthestatewithintheyreside;thereforetheplaintiffwasatthetimeof makingherapplication,acitizenoftheUnitedStatesandacitizenoftheStateof Illinois. Wedonotheremeantosaythattheremaynotbeatemporaryresidenceinone State,withintenttoreturntoanother,whichwillnotcreatecitizenshipinthe former.Buttheplaintiffstatesnothingtotakehercaseoutofthedefinitionof citizenshipofaStateasdefinedbythefirstsectionofthefourteenth amendment.Bradwellv.StateofIllinois:83U.S.130,at138(1873).
http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA138#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Ourstatute65.02,FloridaStatutes1941,F.S.A.reads,Inordertoobtaina divorcethecomplainantmusthaveresided(emphasisnotmine)ninetydaysinthe StateofFloridabeforethefilingofthebillofcomplaint.Itisobviousthattheword resided(emphasisnotmine)couldnotproperlybeconstruedtoencompass citizenshipinalegalsense[domicile]becauseonemaycometothisState,establish abonafideresidenceofninetydays,thereafterinstituteadivorceactionandhave itheardandconclusivelyadjudicatedonitsmeritsbeforehecouldunderthelaw becomeacitizenandenjoyalltheprivilegesofcitizenship.Ontheotherhand,a personmightresideinFloridamanyyearsandneverbecomeacitizenofthisState orrenouncehiscitizenshipinaforeignjurisdiction.Indeed,failuretorenouncepre existingcitizenshipisnothingmorethanacircumstancetobeconsideredin connectionwiththequestionofthebonafides(emphasisnotmine)oftheplaintiffs residencewhichistherealtestunderourstatutorylaw.Itisnecessary,asprovided in98.01,FloridaStates1941,F.S.A.,thataperson...shallhaveresided(emphasis notmine)ANDhadhishabitation,domicile,home,andplaceofpermanentabode inFloridaforoneyear,andinthecountyforsixmonths,...inordertoqualify asavoterandforfullfledgedcitizenship.Citizenshipisnotastatutory jurisdictionalprerequisitefordivorceandneitherofthewordscitizenand citizenshipcanbereadintoourstatute.Pawleyv.Pawley:46So.2d464,at471 (1950).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15312812472711174511
Thedurationalresidencyrequirementunderattackinthiscaseisapartof Iowascomprehensivestatutoryregulationofdomesticrelations,anareathathas
longbeenregardedasavirtuallyexclusiveprovinceoftheStates.Casesdecidedby thisCourtoveraperiodofmorethanacenturybearwitnesstothishistoricalfact. InBarberv.Barber,21How.582,584(1859),theCourtsaid:Wedisclaim altogetheranyjurisdictioninthecourtsoftheUnitedStatesuponthesubjectof divorce....InPennoyerv.Neff,95U.S.714,734735(1878),theCourtsaid:The State...hasabsoluterighttoprescribetheconditionsuponwhichthemarriage relationbetweenitsowncitizensshallbecreated,andthecausesforwhichitmay bedissolved,andthesameviewwasreaffirmedinSimmsv.Simms,175U.S.162, 167(1899).... Theimpositionofadurationalresidencyrequirementfordivorceisscarcely uniquetoIowa,since48Statesimposesucharequirementasaconditionfor maintaininganactionofdivorce.Asmightbeexpected,theperiodsvaryamong Statesandrangefromsixweekstotwoyears.TheoneyearperiodselectedbyIowa isthemostcommonlengthoftimeprescribed. AppellantcontendsthattheIowarequirementofoneyearsresidenceis unconstitutionalfortwoseparatereasons:...and,second,becauseitdeniesa litiganttheopportunitytomakeanindividualizedshowingofbonafideresidence andthereforedeniessuchresidentsaccesstotheonlymethodoflegallydissolving theirmarriage.Vlandisv.Kline,412U.S.441(1973);Boddiev.Connecticut,401U.S. 371(1971)..... Wethereforeholdthatthestateinterestinrequiringthatthosewhoseeka divorcefromitscourtsbegenuinelyattachedtotheState.... Norareweoftheviewthatthefailuretoprovideanindividualized determinationofresidencyviolatestheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenth Amendment.Vlandisv.Kline,412U.S.441(1973),relieduponbyappellant,held thatConnecticutmightnotarbitrarilyinvokeapermanentandirrebuttable presumptionofnonresidenceagainststudentswhosoughttoobtaininstatetuition rateswhenthatpresumptionwasnotnecessarilyoruniversallytrueinfact.Butin VlandistheCourtwarnedthatitsdecisionshouldnotbeconstruedtodenyaState therighttoimposeonastudent,asoneelementindemonstratingbonafide residence,areasonabledurationalresidencyrequirement.Id.,at452.SeeStamsv. Malkerson,326F.Supp.234(Minn.1970),affd,401U.S.985(1971).An individualizeddeterminationofphysicalpresenceplustheintenttoremain,which appellantapparentlyseeks,wouldnotentitlehertoadivorceevenifshecouldhave madesuchashowing.ForIowarequiresnotmerelydomicileinthatsense,but (actual)residenceintheStateforayearinorderforitscourtstoexercisetheir divorcejurisdiction.Sosnav.StateofIowa:419U.S.393,at404,405,409thru410 (1975).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4796843726517835120
Therefore,acitizenoftheUnitedStates,underSection1,Clause1ofthe FourteenthAmendment,whenresidinginaparticularState,isnotadomiciliary,but anactualresidentoftheparticularState.However,becauseoftheFourteenth Amendment,heorsheismadeacitizenofthatparticularState. Thus,acitizenoftheUnitedStatesisacitizenandresidentofaparticularState andnotacitizenanddomiciliaryofaparticularState.HoweveracitizenofaState, underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution,canbecomeacitizenand domiciliaryofaparticularState: AstowhoarecitizensoftheState.TheFourteenthAmendmenttothe ConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesprovidesthat AllpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStatesandsubjecttothe jurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandtheStatewherein theyreside. ThereforewhenapersonwhoisacitizenoftheUnitedStatesbybirthor naturalization,comestothisStateandresides(emphasisnotmine)hereheisa citizenofthisState.... WhereacitizenofanotherStatecomestothisStateandresidesinsometownfor atemporarypurpose,thoughsuchstaybeprotracted,hedoesnottherebybecomea citizenofthisState.Easterlyv.Goodwin,35Conn.,286. Withsuchaperson,hisresidenceheremustbeinthesenseofmakingitahome whichhehasnopresentintentionofabandoning.Ithinkthatitmustbea domiciliaryresidence.TheResidenceofaMaleCitizen,OpinionsoftheAttorney General;StateofConnecticut;Hartford,February1,1909;ReportoftheTax CommissionerforBiennialPeriod1909and1910,pages52thru53.[Footnote6]
http://books.google.com/books?id=Eb9JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q&f=false
actionsinthecourtsofanotherState.Harrisv.Balk:198U.S.215,at223(1905).
http://books.google.com/books?id=ceIGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA223#v=onepage&q=&f=false
PrivilegesandimmunitiesofacitizenoftheUnitedStatesarenotthesameas privilegesandimmunitiesofacitizenoftheseveralStates:
AcitizenofaStatewhoisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates,isconsideredacitizen oftheseveralStateswhenonthehighseas: Actiontohaveacertainmarriagebetweenplaintiffanddefendantdeclared validandbindingupontheparties.Asecondamendedcomplaintalleged:Thaton August2,1897,defendantwasaminoroftheageof15yearsand10months,and thatherfather,oneA.C.Thomson,washernaturalandonlyguardian.Plaintiffwas oftheageof21yearsand10months,andbothplaintiffanddefendantwere citizensandresidentsofLosAngelescounty,Cal.Onsaiddayplaintiffand defendant,atLongBeach,onthecoastofCalifornia,boardedacertainfishingand pleasureschooner,of17tonsburden,calledtheJ.Willey,dulylicensedunderthe lawsoftheUnitedStates,ofwhichW.L.Piersonwascaptain,andwasenrolledas masterthereof,andhadfullchargeofsaidvessel.Saidvesselproceededtoapoint onthehighseasaboutninemilesfromthenearestpointfromtheboundaryofthe stateandoftheUnitedStates.Thepartiesthenandthereagreed,inthepresenceof 10
saidPierson,tobecomehusbandandwife,andthesaidPiersonperformedthe ceremonyofmarriage,and,amongotherthings,theypromisedinhispresenceto takeeachotherforhusbandandwife,andhepronouncedthemhusbandandwife. Neitherpartyhadtheconsentofthefatherormotherorguardianofdefendantto saidmarriage.... Appellantcontends(1)thatthemarriageisvalidbecauseperformeduponthe highseas;and(2)thatitwouldhavebeenvalidifperformedwithinthisstate, becausethereisnolawexpresslydeclaringittobevoid.Respondentpresentsthe caseupontwopropositions,claiming(1)thatnovalidmarriagecanbecontractedin thisstate,exceptincompliancewiththeprescribedformsofthelawsofthisstate, andcontractavalidmarriage. Sections4082,4290,722,Rev.St.U.S.,arecitedbyappellantasrecognizing marriagesatseaandbeforeforeignconsuls,andthatsection722declaresthe commonlawastomarriagetobeinforceonthehighseasonboardAmerican vessels.Wehavecarefullyexaminedthestatutesreferredto,anddonotfindthat theygivetheslightestsupporttoappellantsclaim.Thelawofthesea,asitmay relatetothemarriageofcitizensoftheUnitedStatesdomiciledinCalifornia,cannot bereferredtothecommonlawofEngland,anymorethanitcantothelawofFrance orSpain,oranyotherforeigncounty.Wecanfindnolawofcongress,andnone hasbeenpointedoutbyappellant,inwhichthegeneralgovernmenthas undertakenorassumedtolegislategenerallyuponthesubjectofmarriageon thesea.Nor,indeed,canwefindinthegrantofpowerstothegeneral governmentbytheseveralstates,asexpressedinthenationalconstitution,any provisionbywhichcongressisempoweredtodeclarewhatshallconstitutea validmarriagebetweencitizensoftheseveralstatesuponthesea,[seeNote] eitherwithinorwithouttheconventionalthreemilelimitoftheshoreofanystate; andclearlydoesnosuchpowerrestincongresstoregulatemarriagesonland, exceptintheDistrictofColumbiaandtheterritoriesoftheUnitedStates,orwhere ispowerofexclusivejurisdiction.Wemustlookelsewherethantotheactsof congressforthelawgoverningthecaseinhand.Normanv.Norman:54Pac.Rep. 143,143thru144(1898).
http://books.google.com/books?id=QwLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA143#v=onepage&q&f=false
11
MerchantMarine... Thenationalityofthoseshippedasofficers(excludingmasters)andmen (countingrepeatedshipments)beforeUnitedStatesShippingCommissioners,as returnedtotheBureauofNavigation,DepartmentofCommerce,wasasfollowsfor 1914and1919: Nationality19141919 Others11,44238,811 ThoseclassedasothersaremainlyfromthecountriesofSouthAmerica, citizensoftheseveralstateswhichhavebeencreatedbythewar,andSwiss shippingasstewards.U.S.Bulletin,9/8. ThisreportoftheNationalityofCrewscanbeseenfortheyears1907through 1922,inclusive,attheselinks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=8y0pAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=oC4pAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false
________________________ Footnotes: 1.TheGovernmentoftheUnitedStates:National,State,andLocal;William BennettMunro,Ph.D.,LL.B.;(TheMacMillanCompany);Copyright,1919. 2.AcitizenoftheUnitedStatesisrecognizedinSection1,Clause1ofthe FourteenthAmendment.AcitizenofaStatewhoisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates isrecognizedatArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates ofAmerica: ...Thereisnoinherentrightinacitizentothussellintoxicatingliquorsby retail.ItisnotaprivilegeofacitizenoftheStateorofacitizenoftheUnited States.Crowleyv.Christensen:137U.S.86,at91(1890).
http://books.google.com/books?id=htIGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA91#v=onepage&q&f=false
Anotherobjectiontotheactisthatitisinviolationofsection2,art.4,ofthe constitutionoftheUnitedStates,andofthefourteenthamendment,inthatthisact discriminatesbothastopersonsandproducts.Section2,art.4,declaresthatthe citizensofeachstateshallbeentitledtoalltheprivilegesandimmunitiesofthe citizensoftheseveralstates;andthefourteenthamendmentdeclaresthatnostate shallmakeorenforceanylawwhichshallabridgetheprivilegesandimmunitiesof citizensoftheUnitedStates.Butwehaveseenthatthesupremecourt,inCrowleyv. Christensen,137U.S.91,11Sup.Ct.Rep.15,hasdeclaredthatthereisnoinherent rightinacitizentosellintoxicatingliquorsbyretail.Itisnotaprivilegeofacitizen ofastateorofacitizenoftheUnitedStates.Cantiniv.Tillman:54Fed.Rep.969, at973(1893).[Footnote3]
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ehg4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA973#v=onepage&q&f=false
UnitedStates,andfederalenclaveswithintheseveralStatesoftheUnion.Thus,a citizenoftheUnitedStates,underSection1oftheFourteenthAmendment,isone whoisbornintheUnitedStates,nottheUnitedStatesofAmerica;thatis,inan individualStateoftheUnion. InthisworkIalsoshowthatanindividualStatealsohaspoliticaljurisdiction. Thus,onewhoisborninanindividualStateisacitizenofthatState,andnota citizenoftheUnitedStates: ThelanguageoftheFourteenthAmendmentdeclaringtwokindsofcitizenshipis discriminating.Itis:AllpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStates,and subjecttothejurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandoftheState whereintheyreside.Whileitthusestablishesnationalcitizenshipfromthemere circumstanceofbirthwithintheterritoryandjurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,birth withinastatedoesnotestablishcitizenshipthereof.Statecitizenshipis ephemeral.Itresultsonlyfromresidenceandisgainedorlosttherewith.Edwards v.PeopleoftheStateofCalifornia:314U.S.160,183(concurringopinionofJackson) (1941).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6778891532287614638
14
8....TheprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates protectedbythefourteenthamendment,areprivilegesandimmunitiesarisingout ofthenatureandessentialcharacterofthefederalGovernment,andgrantedor securedbytheConstitution.Duncanv.Missouri(1904)152U.S.377,14Sup.Ct.570, 38L.Ed.485;SlaughterHouseCases,16Wall.36,21L.Ed.394. Theprovisionsofsection2,art.4,ofthefederalConstitution,thatcitizensof eachstateshallbeentitledtoprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensoftheseveral states,areheldtobesynonymouswithrightsofthecitizens.Corfieldv.Coryell, supra.Thissectionisakintotheprovisionofsection1ofthefourteenth amendment,asrespectsprivilegesandimmunities,buttheformerisheldnotto maketheprivilegesandimmunities(therights)enjoyedbycitizensoftheseveral statesthemeasureoftheprivilegesandimmunities(therights)tobeenjoyedasof 15
Also: Williamswasarresteduponawarrantcharginghimwiththeoffenseofacting asemigrantagentwithoutalicense.Hemadeapplicationtothejudgeofthe superiorcourtoftheOcmulgeecircuitforawritofhabeascorpus,allegingthatthe warrantunderwhichhewasarrestedchargedhimwithaviolationofthatprovision ofthegeneraltaxactof1898whichimposeduponeachemigrantagent,or employeroremployeofsuchagents,doingbusinessinthisstate,thesumoffive hundreddollarsforeachcountyinwhichsuchbusinessisconducted.Acts1898,p. 24.Hefurtherallegedthatthelawwhichhewaschargedwithhavingviolatedwas inconflictwithcertainprovisionsoftheconstitutionsoftheUnitedStatesandofthe stateofGeorgia,enumeratingintheapplicationthevariousclausesofwhichtheact wasallegedtobeviolative.... Isthelaw(thegeneraltaxactof1898)aregulationorrestrictionofintercourse amongthecitizensofthisstateandthoseofotherstates?Underthisbranchof commercethestatesareprohibitedfrompassinganylawwhicheitherrestrictsthe freepassageofthecitizensoftheUnitedStatesthroughtheseveralstates,orwhich undertakestoregulateorrestrictfreecommunicationbetweenthecitizensofthe severalstates.Ataxontherightofacitizentoleavethestate,orontherightofa citizenofanotherstatetocomeintothestate,isaregulationofinterstate commerce,andvoid.Crandallv.Nevada,6Wall.35,18L.Ed.744;Hendersonv. Mayor,etc.,92U.S.259,23L.Ed.543;Peoplev.CompagnieGeneraleTransatlantique, 107U.S.59,2Sup.Ct.87,27L.Ed.383;PassengerCases,7How.282,12L.Ed.702. Norcanastatepassalawwhichattemptstoregulateorrestrictcommunication betweenthecitizensofdifferentstates.TelegraphCo.v.Pendleton,122U.S.347,7 Sup.Ct.1126,30L.Ed.1187;PensacolaTel.Co.v.W.U.Tel.Co.,96U.S.1,24L.Ed. 708.Butthelawunderconsiderationinthepresentcaseneitherregulatesnor restrictstherightofcitizensofthisstatetoleaveitsterritoryatwill,nortoholdfree communicationwiththecitizensofotherstates.Williamsv.Fears:35S.E.699,at 699,701(1900).
http://books.google.com/books?id=DhwLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA701#v=onepage&q&f=false
16