1. Recognized in the Constitution of the United States of America at Sec 1, Cla 1 of the 14th Amendment and Art IV, Sec 2, Cla 1.
2. Thus, in any State of the Union, there are two State citizens, a citizen of a State, under Art IV, Sec 2, Cla 1 of the Constitution, and also a citizen of a State (and a citizen of the United States), under Sec 1, Cla 1 of the 14th Amendment:
“The bill filed in the Circuit Court by the plaintiff, McQuesten, alleged her to be ‘a citizen of the United States and of the State of Massachusetts, and residing at Turner Falls in said State,’ while the defendants Steigleder and wife were alleged to be ‘citizens of the State of Washington, and residing at the city of Seattle in said State.’ “ Statement of the Case, Steigledger v. McQuesten: 198 U.S. 141 (1905).
“The averment in the bill that the parties were citizens of different States was sufficient to make a prima facie case of jurisdiction so far as it depended on citizenship.” Opinion, Id, at 142.
3. The only difference between them is that a citizen of a State, under Art IV, Sec 2, Cla 1 of the Constitution, is one born in a State of the Union; that is a native born citizen:
“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).
2. Thus, in any State of the Union, there are two State citizens, a citizen of a State, under Art IV, Sec 2, Cla 1 of the Constitution, and also a citizen of a State (and a citizen of the United States), under Sec 1, Cla 1 of the 14th Amendment:
“The bill filed in the Circuit Court by the plaintiff, McQuesten, alleged her to be ‘a citizen of the United States and of the State of Massachusetts, and residing at Turner Falls in said State,’ while the defendants Steigleder and wife were alleged to be ‘citizens of the State of Washington, and residing at the city of Seattle in said State.’ “ Statement of the Case, Steigledger v. McQuesten: 198 U.S. 141 (1905).
“The averment in the bill that the parties were citizens of different States was sufficient to make a prima facie case of jurisdiction so far as it depended on citizenship.” Opinion, Id, at 142.
3. The only difference between them is that a citizen of a State, under Art IV, Sec 2, Cla 1 of the Constitution, is one born in a State of the Union; that is a native born citizen:
“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).
Usage
I am a citizen of a State; under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America, domiciled in the State of California.
I am a citizen of a State; under Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, residing in the State of Georgia.
I am a citizen of a State; under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America, domiciled in the State of California.
I am a citizen of a State; under Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, residing in the State of Georgia.
by Big Generator January 8, 2011
1. One of two citizens under the Constitution of the United States. The other is a citizen of the United States. (Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. 36, at p. 74 and p. 75 1873)
2. A corporation is not a 'citizen' within Const. U. S. art. 4, §2, providing that the “citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several states,” nor within the Fourteenth Amendment, §1. providing 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 state wherein they reside, and that no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
2a. "Section 1770b has been several times considered by this court, and upheld to the full extent of its terms. It is enacted under the undoubted power of every state to impose conditions in absolute discretion upon granting the privilege of doing business in this state to any foreign corporation. Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 168, 19 L. Ed. 357; Chicago T. & T. Co. v. Bashford, 120 Wis. 281, 97 N. W. 940. That power is not restrained by section 2, art. 4, of the federal Constitution, providing that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several states, nor by section 1, Amend. 14, to that Constitution, providing that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, because foreign corporations are not citizens. Paul v. Virginia, supra; Chicago T. & T. Co. v. Bashford, supra." Loverin & Browne Company v. Travis: 115 N.W. 829, 831 (1908)
2b. "It bas been repeatedly held, by the supreme court of the United States, that corporations were not citizens of the several states in such sense as to bring them within the protection of that clause in the constitution of the United States (section 2, article IV), which declares that ‘the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several states;’ Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Peters, 586; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wallace, 177.
Are corporations citizens of the United States within the meaning of the constitutional provision now under consideration? It is claimed in argument that, before the adoption of the 14th amendment, to be a citizen of the United States, it was necessary to become a citizen of one of the states, but that since the 14th amendment this is reversed, and that citizenship in a state is the result and consequence of the condition of citizenship of the United States.
Admitting this view to be correct, we do not see its bearing upon the question in issue. Who are citizens of the United States, within the meaning of the 14th amendment, we think is clearly settled by the terms of the amendment itself. ‘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.’ No words could make it clearer that citizens of the United States, within the meaning of this article, must be natural, and not artificial persons; for a corporation cannot be said to be born, nor can it be naturalized. I am clear, therefore, that a corporate body is not a citizen of the United States as that term is used in the 14th amendment." The Insurance Company v. The City of New Orleans: 1 5th. Jud. Cir. 85, 86 thru 88 (1870).
2c. “But in no case which has come under our observation, either in the State or Federal courts, has a corporation been considered a citizen within the meaning of that provision of the Constitution which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several States.” Paul v. State of Virginia: 75 U.S. 168, 178 (1868).
3. Privileges and immunities of a citizen of the several states are provided for in Corfield v. Coryell, decided by Mr. Justice Washington in the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania in 1823. Hodges v. United States: 203 U.S. 1, at p. 15 (1906).
2. A corporation is not a 'citizen' within Const. U. S. art. 4, §2, providing that the “citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several states,” nor within the Fourteenth Amendment, §1. providing 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 state wherein they reside, and that no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
2a. "Section 1770b has been several times considered by this court, and upheld to the full extent of its terms. It is enacted under the undoubted power of every state to impose conditions in absolute discretion upon granting the privilege of doing business in this state to any foreign corporation. Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 168, 19 L. Ed. 357; Chicago T. & T. Co. v. Bashford, 120 Wis. 281, 97 N. W. 940. That power is not restrained by section 2, art. 4, of the federal Constitution, providing that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several states, nor by section 1, Amend. 14, to that Constitution, providing that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, because foreign corporations are not citizens. Paul v. Virginia, supra; Chicago T. & T. Co. v. Bashford, supra." Loverin & Browne Company v. Travis: 115 N.W. 829, 831 (1908)
2b. "It bas been repeatedly held, by the supreme court of the United States, that corporations were not citizens of the several states in such sense as to bring them within the protection of that clause in the constitution of the United States (section 2, article IV), which declares that ‘the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several states;’ Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Peters, 586; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wallace, 177.
Are corporations citizens of the United States within the meaning of the constitutional provision now under consideration? It is claimed in argument that, before the adoption of the 14th amendment, to be a citizen of the United States, it was necessary to become a citizen of one of the states, but that since the 14th amendment this is reversed, and that citizenship in a state is the result and consequence of the condition of citizenship of the United States.
Admitting this view to be correct, we do not see its bearing upon the question in issue. Who are citizens of the United States, within the meaning of the 14th amendment, we think is clearly settled by the terms of the amendment itself. ‘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.’ No words could make it clearer that citizens of the United States, within the meaning of this article, must be natural, and not artificial persons; for a corporation cannot be said to be born, nor can it be naturalized. I am clear, therefore, that a corporate body is not a citizen of the United States as that term is used in the 14th amendment." The Insurance Company v. The City of New Orleans: 1 5th. Jud. Cir. 85, 86 thru 88 (1870).
2c. “But in no case which has come under our observation, either in the State or Federal courts, has a corporation been considered a citizen within the meaning of that provision of the Constitution which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several States.” Paul v. State of Virginia: 75 U.S. 168, 178 (1868).
3. Privileges and immunities of a citizen of the several states are provided for in Corfield v. Coryell, decided by Mr. Justice Washington in the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania in 1823. Hodges v. United States: 203 U.S. 1, at p. 15 (1906).
by Big Generator September 19, 2009