Gotta wonder......

ROTFLMAO. Absolutely. The difference between citizen of the US and US citizen comes immediately to my mind. Not that there is anything wrong with that. If it feels good...

ZHawke wrote: Does this make any sense at all to anyone else?

BlazerBob wrote: ROTFLMAO. Absolutely. The difference between citizen of the US and US citizen comes immediately to my mind. Not that there is anything wrong with that. If it feels good...

ZHawke wrote: Does this make any sense at all to anyone else?

LOL! After 22 pages, are we all done "wondering" yet?

BlazerBob wrote: ROTFLMAO. Absolutely. The difference between citizen of the US and US citizen comes immediately to my mind. Not that there is anything wrong with that. If it feels good...

ZHawke wrote: Does this make any sense at all to anyone else?

So, is there a difference between being a citizen of a state and a citizen of the United States? Just "wondering".

ZHawke wrote:
So, is there a difference between being a citizen of a state and a citizen of the United States? Just "wondering".

Time for a linkypoo...

The 14th Amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States. It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state.
United States v. Anthony (1874), 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830.


We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several states. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a state, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other.
U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).

In other words, you do not have to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a state citizen. This was held to be true by the Maryland Supreme Court in 1966 wherein the state:


Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.
Crosse v. Bd. of Supvr,s of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966)

The federal government was never given any authority to encroach upon the private affairs of the citizens in the several states of the union, unless they were involved in import or export activity, neither were they given authority to reach a citizen of Germany living in Germany. In fact, the states could refuse to enforce any act of congress, that they felt was outside the intent of the granting of limited powers to the federal government. This is called interposition or nullification. Several state supreme courts have in the past refused to uphold federal laws within their states.

In fact, in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 54 (c) shows us that Congress knows and understands that federal laws do not apply within anyone of the several states of the union, but do apply in the Federal State (federal enclave) created by the Buck Act.

www.realtruth.biz/freedomstuff/state%20c...r%20us%20citizen.htm

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote: In the "to be fair" category:

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=progressive

The difference here is that a "progressive" refers to him/herself as a progressive or liberal... Hillary does for example. Where as nobody I've ever heard of refers to him/herself as a regressive. To me the word is more in line with the word "retarded" or someone who is devolving.

I don't see it as a "difference". As SC tried to illustrate, the terms, themselves, can be used in both positive and negative ways. The only reason I started using the term "regressive" is in response to derogatory uses of the word "progressive". Personally, I don't like either word because they "label", or try to label, an entire group according to a very narrow description of beliefs and/or values.

As the main "offender" in that regard, let me say that I see nothing at all positive about the "progressive" movement. Their objectives, their beliefs, are almost universally in diametric opposition to individual liberty, self determination and limited government. From its very beginnings straight into today "progressives" seek an activist government, subjugation of the individual to the collective, approve of a growing welfare state and believe that the Constitution is outmoded and should be interpreted according to contemporary society, that its meaning "evolves" and is dynamic with the times.

And while that may indeed be a "narrow description of beliefs and/or values", it is also a description of the core values inherent in the "progressive" movement from its beginnings in Theodore Roosevelt's time straight through to today. And I see not a single positive thing in those core values, not a single thing.

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote:
So, is there a difference between being a citizen of a state and a citizen of the United States? Just "wondering".

Time for a linkypoo...

The 14th Amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States. It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state.
United States v. Anthony (1874), 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830.


We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several states. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a state, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other.
U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).

In other words, you do not have to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a state citizen. This was held to be true by the Maryland Supreme Court in 1966 wherein the state:


Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.
Crosse v. Bd. of Supvr,s of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966)

The federal government was never given any authority to encroach upon the private affairs of the citizens in the several states of the union, unless they were involved in import or export activity, neither were they given authority to reach a citizen of Germany living in Germany. In fact, the states could refuse to enforce any act of congress, that they felt was outside the intent of the granting of limited powers to the federal government. This is called interposition or nullification. Several state supreme courts have in the past refused to uphold federal laws within their states.

In fact, in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 54 (c) shows us that Congress knows and understands that federal laws do not apply within anyone of the several states of the union, but do apply in the Federal State (federal enclave) created by the Buck Act.

www.realtruth.biz/freedomstuff/state%20c...r%20us%20citizen.htm

Y'know, that's all I've ever asked for - a link to a viable site that explains it thus. Thank you.

Well I have to admit I often just assume PS right on this stuff because he usually is.

Rick wrote: Well I have to admit I often just assume PS right on this stuff because he usually is.

You may be right, but that doesn't mean I can't question him, either. All he had to do to "end" the citizenship discussion was actually show me a link to an article like you did. Instead, he chose to drag it out expecting me to "accept" his version of things all the while not backing anything he said up.

PrintSmith wrote: As the main "offender" in that regard, let me say that I see nothing at all positive about the "progressive" movement. Their objectives, their beliefs, are almost universally in diametric opposition to individual liberty, self determination and limited government. From its very beginnings straight into today "progressives" seek an activist government, subjugation of the individual to the collective, approve of a growing welfare state and believe that the Constitution is outmoded and should be interpreted according to contemporary society, that its meaning "evolves" and is dynamic with the times.

And while that may indeed be a "narrow description of beliefs and/or values", it is also a description of the core values inherent in the "progressive" movement from its beginnings in Theodore Roosevelt's time straight through to today. And I see not a single positive thing in those core values, not a single thing.

P, I mean what I'm about to say/ask with all due respect. I grew up in a very conservative community. The church I belonged to while growing up embodied that conservatism to the nth degree. I questioned my elders. I questioned my Pastor. I questioned my parents. I questioned my aunts and uncles. My older brother did the same. All of those listed told us to just have faith. We were both chastised and pretty much told we were going to Hell for even daring to question faith at its most basic level. No definitive answers to the questions we asked - just "have faith" and, if you don't, you're going to Hell.

As time went on, I came to my own realization that Jesus Christ, to me at least, is the embodiment of virtually everything you appear to find so offensive about progressives with the exception of your posit that progressives seek an activist government (I think it's safe to say Jesus was not even close to being anything remotely resembling a supporter of activist government).

So, my question to you (again, with all due respect) is how do you reconcile the tenets of Jesus Christ vs your conservative views of some of the things those of a more "progressive" bent try to do?

Several news stations are confirming that some students cheered after officer was hit by car. Despicable.