Natural allegiance as stated in English Law, "is due from all men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth, which is intrinsic and perpetual, which cannot be divested by ANY ACT of their own."
If this be so, then wouldn't the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution be evidence of a violation of the allegiance due to the king by these men who declared their independence?
Surely it would but for the fact that America and the freemen were already out of the King's dominion and domiciled on their own land. They had already been manumitted by the Charters of King Charles the I & II.
"The civil law reduces the unwilling freedman to his original slavery; but the laws of the Angloes judge once manumitted as ever after free." Maxim of Law
These freeholders were not "contending that our rabble, or all unqualified persons [non-freemen], shall have the right of voting or not be taxed, but that the freeholders and electors [i.e. allodial land owners] whose right accrues to them from the common law, or from charter, shall not be deprived of that right." The Works of Alexander Hamilton, edited by Henry Cabot Lodge, N.Y. 1904, I, 172 Ibid, March 31, 1768
As you can see as early as 1768 in America there were "freemen" called "freeholders" who had the actual possession and absolute ownership of a parcel of land who were, because of their status and ownership of land, "electors" who could vote and could NOT BE TAXED without their consent.
"Freeman" - The possessors of allodial lands. See: Liberi, Blacks 3rd & Oxford Dictionary
Homo Liber. A free man; a freeman lawfully competent to act as juror. An allodial proprietor, as distinguished from a vassal or feudatory. Black's 3rd.
A "freeman" is defined as someone who has a free hold title in land.
In colonial America "The ordinary citizen, living on his farm, owned in fee-simple, untroubled by any relics of Feudalism [such as land tenure] UNTAXED saved by himself, saying his say to all the world in town meetings, had gained a new self-reliance [i.e. independence]. Wrestling with his soul and plow on week days, and the innumerable points of the minister's sermons on Sundays and meeting days, he was becoming a tough nut for any imperial system to crack." History of the U.S. Vol. I - James Truslow Adams, page 176 Not so today.
It was due to the status and estate of "freeman" and being the possessors of allodial lands and their self-reliance or independence that these freeholders could lawfully sign the Declaration of Independence in which they claimed the unwarranted usurpation by the king of those rights that had accrued to them from the common law and from the charters of King Charles I & II. These men were "freemen" and "freeholders" and no longer a subject of the king.
These men had worked for the company for a number of years in order to gain their freedom and a small parcel of land they could call their own. The problem was the king was usurping their hard earned freedom and rights and therefore in dishonor. These men had earned the beneficial use of their own land and property by paying for it with the substances of their own sweat and tears and hardship and no usurping king was going to go back on his word and make them his subjects again. Where are such men today?
One historical account estimates that around 50,000 Americans joined the British to fight against those Americans freeholders seeking independence from the King's abuses of their liberty they had earned by voluntary servitude to the company for those many years. These 50,000 are the "rabble" who would join with the king to fight against the freemen when the revolution began to which Alexander Hamilton referred.
Today "citizenship" in the United States has become a "political obligation" depending NOT on ownership of land as it once was, but on the enjoyment of the protection of government, and it binds the subject citizen to the observance of all laws of his sovereign, not just the common law. This class of citizen is not a sovereign but rather the government is the sovereign and the citizen is a subject thereof.
What happened to the idea that "People of a state are entitled to ALL rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative?" Lansing v. Smith
And, what about this declaration of the court where it declared: "In once sense, the term "sovereign" has for its correlative 'subject.' In this sense, the term can receive NO application; for it has NO object in the Constitution of the United States. Under THAT Constitution there are citizens, but NO subjects." Chishom v. Georgia (1793)
What do we have today?
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called 'ownership' is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg 9, Para 2) April 17, 1933
Of course "necessity" knows no law.
What happened in 1933 that turned the world upside down and made the government sovereign and the people subjects?
It appears to me that the republic existed well before the Constitution for the United States and the problem is that presently there are no freemen and freeholder at home on their land in the republic. Everyone is claiming to be or is presumed to be a 14th amendment federal citizen who is completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States federal government. Such class of subject persons cannot own land absolutely.
Federal citizenship. Rights and obligations accruing by reason of being a citizen of the United States. State or status of being a citizen of the United States. A person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen of the United States and of the State wherein he resides." Black's 6th Also in Black's Fifth edition
This federal citizenship was not defined in Black's 4th edition. Yet some say that the 14th amendment did not create a new citizenship, but that it only clarified who was and is born a citizen of the United States. It certainly made federal citizenship primary and state citizenship derivative. Nevertheless, is it not true that both before and after the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution that 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? How can this be if every person is born a citizen of the United States federal government and subject to its complete and absolute jurisdiction?
3A Am Jur 1420, Aliens and Citizens, - "A person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, IF his birth occurs in territory over which the United States IS sovereign...."
Is the United States sovereign within the exterior limits of the several states?
What is this "territory" in the phrase "The United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof?"
"We are of opinion that it means the regional areas -- of land and adjacent waters -- over which the United States claims and exercises dominion and control as a sovereign power. ".... the term is used in a physical and not a metaphorical sense -- that it refers to areas or districts having fixity of location and recognized boundaries." See United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336, 390, 4L Ed. 404
"It is now settled in the United States and recognized elsewhere that the territory subject to ITS jurisdiction includes land areas under its dominion and control, the ports, harbors, bays and other enclose arms of the sea along its coast and a marginal belt of the sea extending from the coast line outward a marine league, or three geographic miles." Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cranch 187, 234, 2 L. Ed. 249 This we hold is the territory which the amendment designates as its field of operation; and the designation is not of a part of this territory but of 'all' of it." 262 US 100 Cunard Co v. Mellon
Again, does the United States have sovereign dominion and control over the "physical" land areas within the exterior limits of the several states that has not been ceded to it?
From: "Don S,"
To: Cit of USA
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: [citizensoftheUSofA] Re: 1783 treaty of paris........... NW Ordinance, Con-stituion, Territorial Govt, U.S. vs U.S.A.
But, we must understand the context and the lawful meaning of that term.
Yes, they were independent states, but formed into a confederation
that acted as an independent body from the states, acting for them
all in concert.
The Second Continental Congress, acted as a singular body for all the states.