Rights







By Jared M. Held, Sui Juris



"You have rights antecedent to all earthly government; rights that cannot be
repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator
of the Universe."John Adams


I walked into the courtroom and found a seat. As someone who is interested in
the workings of a court, I like to visit them from time to time. Before the
judge came in, the bailiff settled everyone down and began a tape recording of
what he said were our "constitutional rights." Loudspeaker blared the
distorted recording:

    "You have the right to counsel, You have the right to a speedy trial. You
have the right not to be a witness against yourself..."

The information on the tape made it sound as if the government, and the U.S.
Constitution, gaves us these rights.

My mind wandered as I thought of other legal matters. I thought about Rodney
King and all the fuss about his "civil Rights." His fundamental, inalienable
rights as a human being were never mentioned. [See " Inalienable Rights"]

Civil rights, human rights, natrual rights, inalienable rights, constitutional
rights, sovereign rights . . . Which do we have? Which of these protect us?
Which do we want. Are the rights of a U.S. citizen different than those of
someone whose political status and Citizenship, like mine, are that of a
California Citizen, or of any state?

The difference lies in one's status, or citizenship. Citizenship is a
political status.[See; Ex parte(ng) Fung Sing, U.S. Supreme Court; D.C. 6
F.R.D.] As a California Citizen, a different set of laws and rights apply to
me than to those who are "citizen of the United States" (i.e. citizen of the
District of Columbia, or federal government)

Historical Perspective

In 1783, after the Revolutionary War, the Treaty of Peace was signed by the
King of England and our founding fathers. The power of this treaty, which
profoundly affected American Law, as the couts latter stated:

The people of the state, as the successors of its former soverereign, are
entitled to all the rights that formerly belonged to the king by his own
prerogative. Lansing v. Smith, 21 Dall. (21 U.S.) 89 (1829)

Since all citizens, at that time were citizens of their respective states, it
was the people of the states who possessed those rights, not the "citizens of
the United States." When the U.S. Constitution was written, "technically ans
abstractly there [was] no such thing" [See; Ex parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. 300
(1855)] as a citizen of the United States.

State Citizens, through  the power vested in them by the sovereign declaration
in the Treaty of Peace, created states and state Constitution as restriction
and limitation on the State government, and through the states came the
Federal Constitution creating the Federal Governement. This Constitution was
also a restrictions and limitations on the federal government. In this way,
the power flows from the people to thegovernment, not at all the way the
courtroom's tape had explained it, there version made it sound that the power
flowed from the government to the people.[See: U.S. Constitution Amedments
9,10]

This why the opening words of the Constitution are "We the People." No less an
authority than the U.S. Supreme Court has written:

The question is not what power the federal Government ought to have but what
powers in fact have been given by the people . . . . The federal union is a
government of delegated powers. It has only such as are expressly confered
upon it and such as are resonably to be implied from those granted.

U.S. v. Butler, 297, Us. 1 (1935)

Civil Rights

The "citizens of the United States" did not exist until after the Civil
War.[See: Cory et al. v. Carter, Indiana Supreme Court ruling (1874)] In 1866,
as the forerunner of the 14th Amedment, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act.
Through this law, Congress created a new class of rights for freed former
slaves who were not included with those sovereign rights by the Treaty of
Peace and who, therefore, had no access to the courts. These newly classified
"person" [i.e. not people] were thereby given civil rights 

Civil rights were said to be the same as those that the state Citizen already
had, by virue of his/her birth and blood. Through the alleged "ratification"
of the 14th Amendment[See: Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641 to
15646; Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439 P.2d 266 (1968)] and latter
through the Social Security Act, these civil rights extended, through
deliberate non-disclosure, to almost everyone in America. As one request a
Social Security (account) number, one claims to be a U.S. citizen; all
benefits and civil rights then become part of the now converted "person's"
life In this way, nearly everyone in the states has "voluntarily" gave up
their inalienable rights, God given fundamental rights and sovereign status to
granted the "privileges and immunities" of civil rights as subjects of
Congress, i.e., U.S. citizens.

Civil rights are "privileges" given to the U.S. citizens and are "protected by
Congress." as stated in Title 42 of the United States Code Annotated(USCA) at
Section 1983, note 853:

Rights under 42 USC Sec. 1983 are for citizens of the United States and not of
state[Emphasis added]

When enjoys civil right, then he or she is regulated by the body that gave
those rights. as the California Court of Appeals stated:

A civil right is a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment
therefore is regulated entirely by the law that created it.[Emphasis added]

Nickell v. Rosenfield, 82 Cal.App. 369, 375 (1927)

In other words, one's civil rights, unlike one's inalienable rights, are
regulated by the government(Congress), who grants them and who, therefore, can
take them away. In this way, even the protections secured by the Bill of
Rights become "privileges" granted by the 14th Amendment, which apply to all
U.S. citizens.

Inalienable Rights

Because only one class of people existed when America was founded, the
following rights, protected by the Bill of Rights, were considered
inalienable:





the rights of religious freedom, freedoms of speech and press ;

the right to bear arms;

no quarting of soldiers;

the right to privvacy and security against unreasonable searches and seizures;

the right no to be a witness against oneself (commonly referred to as "self
incrimination"), and to due process of law;

the right to a speedy and public trial;

the right to an impartial jury and assistance of counsel (not necessarily a
licensed attorney);

the right to trial by jury; excessive bail, fines and punishment prohibited;

rights beyond the Bill of Rights belong to the people; and

undeligated powers belong to the people, unless given by the people to the
states.



People in the courtroom were informed of their civil rights, not of their
inalienable rights or sovereign rights, because most Americans have been
tricked into believing they are "citizens of the United States." Most have no
idea that by claiming U.S. citizenship, they voluntarily choose civil rights
instead of their natural birhtright.

For the U.S. citizen the Bill of Rights, then, becomes merely a list of
granted privileges offered through the 14th Amendment, whereas, for the state
Citizen, they are fundamental rights of a free government.

Differences in Citizenship

In 1908, the Supreme Court spelled out some of the differences between the
rights of national citizenship and those of state Citizenship:

The distinction between national and state citizenship [sic] and their
respective priviledges there drawn has come to be firmly established. And so
it was held that the right of peaceable assembly for a lawful purpose (it not
appearing that that the purpose had any reference to the national government)
was not a right secured by the Constitution of the United States, although it
was said that the right existed before the adoption of the Constitution of the
United States, and that is and always has been one of the attributes of
citizenship under a free government.

Twining v. State of New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14(1908)

The opinion goes on to say:

If,then it be assumed, without deciding the point, that an exemption from
self-incrimination is what is described as a fundamental right belonging to
all who live under a free government, and inccapable of impairment by
legislation or judicial decision, it is so far as the states are conserned, a
fundamental right inharent in state citizenship [sic], and is a privilege or
immunity of that citizenship only. Privileges and immunities of citizens of
the United States, on the other hand are only such that arise out of the
nature and esential character of the national government, or are specifically
granted by the Constitution of the United States. (i.e., 14th
Amendment)[Emphasis added] 

Twining (Ibid.)

Privileges

The Supreme Court then listed the following "Six Privileges of National
citizenship"(i.e., U.S. citizenship)

Thus, among the rights and privileges of national citizenship recognized by
this are:




the right to pass freely from state to state;

the right to petition Congress for redress of grievances;

the right to vote for national officers;

the right to enter the public lands;

the right to be protected against violance while in the lawful custody of a
United States marshal;and

and the right to inform the United States authorities of violation of its law.


[M]ost of these cases (citations omitted were indictments against individuals
for conspiracies to deprive persons of rights secured by the Constitution of
the United States, and met with a different fate in this court from the
indictments in United States v. Cruikshank and Hodges v. United States,
because the rights in these case were rights of state, and not of national
citizenship. We can assume it to be true, then, that the exemption from
self-incrimination is not a fundamental right of national citizenship,
included in the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United
States.Twining (Ibid.)

The protection of the Fifth Amendment is, in fact a fundamental right of state
Citizenship and that Citizenship only.Remembr that the state constitutions
were written before the federal Constitution. These rights were enumerated in
the state constitutions and "existed before the adoption of the Constitution
of the United States." (Ibid.)

Obviously, a court of law, through it can inspire many useful insights, has
little to do with where or what our rights truly are, or can be. State
Citizenship adds a whole new persective to what we have been led to believe
and is certainly something that needs to more widely understood.

 Back to Article Index






Created: 30 Aug, 1995

Updated: Wednesday, April 16, 1997 2:50:36 PM



© copyright 1995 Jah Red Productions