I remember a political cartoon about Iraq writing their own constitution. It had a picture of Uncle Sam handing them our Consitution and saying, “Here. Use this. We don’t use it anymore.”

The problem with an EULA would be that everyone would click ‘agree’ without ever reading the conditions that they are agreeing to–not too different from what we have already.

If it means that one is allowed to select their rulers, in principle all competent individuals are “citizens” for all competent individuals have a right to give their voluntary consent to those who would be their rulers.

If being a “citizen” means that I am subject to greater than 50% confiscation of my wealth, forcefully accepting US Federal Notes due to legal tender laws, participation in the fraud of Social Security, the potential of being drafted to fight in wars of aggression, following tyrannical legislation that violates my liberty, etc. - then I’m not sure that being a “citizen” is such a good thing…

Matt:
At least if they clicked “agree” they would be liable for their end of the agreement. They could be denied the benefits of citizenship if they don’t fulfill their agreement, as stated in the oath of allegience. Of course the current oath of allegience would need to be modified from it’s current state, but …

Jeremy:
The reason we have income tax, fiat currency, Social Security, the draft, “tyrannical legislation that violates [your] liberty, etc.” is because people have been treating the Constitution like an archaic and quaint piece of history rather than a real and binding agreement between them and those to whom they choose to delegate their self-government. Citizenship is more about taking stewardship over your own self-government than about any of the things you listed, including the things you listed as positives.

Having the right to choose your ruler does not, in and of itself, constitute liberty. Unless part of that choice is that you choose to govern yourself, it makes extremely little difference who is your ruler - be it a tyrant like Stalin, Hitler, King Noah, or Amalaki; or be it a just ruler like Jefferson, Washington, King Mosiah or King Benjamin.

Are all men not created equal? Apparently not, if I choose to separate myself from those I deem to be a “bum, lowlife, scoundrel or complete moron,” “inept buffoon,” or “self-serving and morally bankrupt individual.”

These types of categorizations only serve to inhibit, and possibly destroy, my ability to acknowledge my inherent equality with other individuals.

I’m fine with birth as a qualification for citizenship. It might be a derivative of the divine right of kings, but its derivative is comprehensive in its scope and therefore acknowledges our inherent equality; we are all equally able to be “king.” Any citizenship requirement that is more restrictive would limit our freedom and our liberty.

I submit that there are currently too many restrictions on citizenship. Natural law should be the inhibiting factor in our ability to exercise our citizenship, not governmental restrictions - not more restrictive laws.

Well, I don’t know how long these can be or how much you want to read, but here goes:

First of all I found this case:
“I take it then to be established, with a few exceptions not requiring our present notice, that a man, born within the jurisdiction of the common law, is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance, which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land; and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign and to the other rights and advantages, which are included in the term citizenship. The place of birth is coextensive with the dominions of the sovereignty, entitled to the duty of allegiance: and it has been held, that in the event of a partition of these dominions, under distinct sovereignties, the natives remain attached and retain their rights of citizenship, with each portion of the sovereignty; upon this principle, that the right of citizenship in the native soil, and according to the condition of the government at the time of birth is a natural right, not affected by the after changes in the sovereignty. These doctrines are to be found in the decisions upon Calvin’s case reported by Lord Coke.” Theoph. Parsons for the plaintiff vs N. Dane for the defendants.” 2 Mass. 236, 244n.a 1806

In other words, a person being a Citizen of the land upon which he was born is a simple part of nature, a natural right. Man is born free upon the land, because God made the land and God made the man. What government has any right to take that from him?

The EULA in this is a contract between the People of the various States, giving license to those who serve them in office to act for them in the performance of certain of their rights. It strictly limits the performance of those public servants to those areas specified.

The Government has not authority to say who it’s creators and rulers are. The People are sovereigns. The People created their States. The States have the sovereignty that the People have given them. The Union government has no such thing, but it merely a delegation of a few powers to one body of servants of the whole.

In all of the Constitution and first 12 Amendments, the entire focus is on what the government is and is not allowed to do. There is no restriction placed upon the States or People, except in areas where it was first given to the Union government. We formed the union to secure our freedom, thus States are limited to Republics, that form of government which secures freedom. Also, we gave the Union the right to coin money, thus States must not accept anything but gold or silver in payment of debt.

Now let’s consider the Real 13th Amendment. It seems to be directed at the acts of the Citizens: “If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.” So regardless of being directed at “any citizen”, it is directed at protecting the People from having a servant who would be their king. This is directed at the servants of government saying that if they think themselves above the law, they give up their right to hold office.

The “new” 13th is again directed at what the government is allowed or not allowed to do, not the People. Slavery is not to be. The government cannot make slaves of any group of the People.

But all of a sudden in the 14th, it is authoritative. “NO State Shall!” “Jurisdiction”?

Sec.1 “All persons born or naturalized in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the US and of the State in wherein they reside.” Big changes here! First, the gov. is telling the States, not the States telling the gov. Secondly, it is the State in which they reside, when before it was the State in which they were born.

Are the People “subjects” to the jurisdiction of the Fed. or is the government limited to the jurisdiction of the Constitution? Do we not have “rule of law”? Is the United States a Law? Since when do we have rule by United States? Isn’t the Constitution the “ruler” and is the government not subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution? The Supreme Court has jurisdiction only in certain types of cases, not over all the People or all the States as though it’s say extended to the area of the US over all the People and territories. The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the Cases it hears. The Congress has jurisdiction only over the areas where we have given it authority. It has jurisdiction over declarations of War. It does not have jurisdiction over the People, but is subject to their jurisdiction!

So what we see is that by loosing site of just what our government was supposed to be and how precious freedom was, already by 1868 this concept had been muffled in the understanding of the People or those whom they had elected.

It seems to me that in this group particularly, we should understand that this nation was to be a nation of kings, not under the jurisdiction of any but the King of kings. How can you say that citizenship must be earned by a king?

Although, I can certainly understand the temptation to believe that one should have to pass a test or something to have Citizenship, if that means being a governor. The point is that it is governor over one’s self, not others. Maybe instead we need to have a greater test for one who would be a public servant. They are those who need to earn the privileged and honor by some far greater method than a popularity contest.

Joel, actually the whole paragraph about the “bum, lowlife, scoundrel or complete moron,” “inept buffoon,” or “self-serving and morally bankrupt individual.” should have been included in the quote from the Deseret News parody. Those are his words and intended to be part of the parody. I will see if I can get Jason to edit that part. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

I agree with you that these categorizations destroy out ability to relate with and exchange effectively with other individuals.

I’m not sure I see what you’re saying with your view of birth being the only qualification for citizenship. You have made a claim with no data or warrant to back it up. Could you please explain further how anything more restrictive “would limit our freedom and our liberty?”

Citizenship in the US is more than just about the right to Freedom and Liberty. Everybody has the same inalienable rights, regardless of their citizenship. However Citizenship is about engaging in an exchange where I delegate my right to defend my freedom and liberty to someone else who is better equipped to protect them for me and I can spend more time doing what I am better equipped to do.

I am only equal to every other individual in the sense that I have the same right to pursue happiness as he/she does. Otherwise, we are not equal. I have a different combination of talents, interests, preferences, faults, shortcomings and weakness than any other individual. In that sense, I am not equal to anybody else. Being equal does not mean I am entitled to anyone defending my freedoms and liberties. Being born at the right place, under the right circumstances, to the right people does not entitle me to that protection once I am old enough to be a complete steward over my own life. Once I reach that point, I must either freely choose to enter into that exchange, or choose to forfeit the benefits of that exchange.

I agree that there are currently too many restrictions on citizenship, but only for those who did not have the good fortune to be born under the right circumstances. Natural born citizens of the United States need only be born, and this is not a restriction on my citizenship at all since, in mortality, I don’t have any major part in bringing that to pass. It is done to me. I was given life without giving much of anything in return except for existing and giving my parents a whole lot of noise and mess and expenses. Why do they do it then? Ask any parent and you will find out.

In order to bring about true equality under the law, the requirements for citizenship should be the same for all individuals, based on their own merit as an individual, not based at all on the circumstance, and to whom they were born. Let’s make it a whole lot simpler to become a citizen, but let’s make it the same requirements for anyone and dependent on requirements over which they have control.

Sue,

I only have a few more minutes on my lunch break and I just finished reading your whole response. Thank you very much for your input. There is a lot of information there and I don’t want to respond more in depth without giving what you said some serious thought, but I did want to thank you for posting a response.

Done. Thanks for the heads up, Joel and Ammon. My apologies for cutting the blockquote too soon.

Ammon: yes, I can explain further. You may notice that my comment is prefaced by “Comment by …” not by “Argument by …” and I meant it only as a comment, not as an argument. However, if one was to presume my comments were an argument, one might consider the data and warrant for the argument to be inherent in the definitions of the words “restrictive,” “freedom,” and “liberty.” We could debate definitions, but that would be

By definition, as I understand it, anything that is restrictive limits freedom and liberty. Merriam-Webster defines a restriction (something that is restrictive) to be a limitation on the use or enjoyment of property or a facility.

This comment is also not intended to be an argument, merely an answer to a question.

No worries. I didn’t notice it until Joel’s comment.

Ammon, you seem to think that being a Citizen gives one the right to sit back and be defended by the armies of the United States. This does not seem to correspond with what the founders tried to do in the Constitution. They did not create a nation of Citizens and hire an army to defend it. They came together to form a nation that they might defend themselves together, providing a unified strength. I’m not sure what kind of rewards you think that a Citizen is entitled to.

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the US, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

From: http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,militia

“…The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades,with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.”

That says, “the able bodied men”. It doesn’t say the hired men, or the willing men. It doesn’t say a chosen few or the strongest men. It doesn’t say those who want to train for an army.

The point was that instead of having a standing Army, all of our able bodied men would be armed and trained, that the Constitution might be enforced by the Citizens. It is OUR country, not the government’s. We are supposed to be armed and trained, so that WE can keep our Republic, enforce our Law, and put down insurrection, US, the Citizens.

Now I suppose that this has been changed by our modern Constitution, but not without destroying the intent and our ability to defend our Republic from it’s greatest enemies, those “public servants” who decide they are above the law. It has only been changed, because we as a people have forgotten it’s meaning and the principles upon which our freedom is based.

Sue

Instead of putting an x in a box, you show up on Sat. or one month out of every summer or whatever, not just to agree to the bonds of the Constitution, but to exercise with your unit of the militia, to keep fit and trained to defend your RIGHTS and Liberty.

“35 And it came to pass that whomsoever of the Amalickiahites that would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government, he caused to be put to death; and there were but few who denied the covenant of freedom.”

People don’t earn Citizenship. They are sovereigns. And sovereigns must protect their sovereignty.

I have no idea how that got all out of order like it is.

The paragraph just above my name should have been the last.

Thank you, Sue

Joel,
An argument is a type of comment just as a square is a type of rectangle. Your comment included a claim, which makes it an argument. Your claim, “Any citizenship requirement that is more restrictive would limit our freedom and our liberty” however, is not backed up by any data or warrant. It is an interesting claim that I don’t happen to agree with at face value. I would be interested in how you come to that conclusion.

Using your definition of restriction (for which you give no specific citation, only your paraphrase of the definition) your claim cannot be true unless you believe that the laws against murder restrict my freedom and liberty.

Please give a rational argument rather than making an unbased claim.

Sue,
Those are interesting assumptions about what I believe about citizenship. How did you come to the conclusion that I think “being a Citizen gives one the right to sit back and be defended by the armies of the United States?” Being a citizen does legally entitle me to having my rights protected, but I never said anything about “sitting back.” In fact my entire premise is that the US Constitution should require something of natural born citizens more than simply being born under the right set of circumstances.

What exactly do you mean by, “People don’t earn citizenship.” That phrase seems to me to contradict your claim that citizenship is not merely sitting back and having someone protect your freedoms. If I don’t earn my citizenship, am I then entitled to it? What is citizenship if it is not earned by defending it as a sovereign? If I fail to protect my sovereignty do I lose my citizenship?

My whole argument is that we should not be entitled to citizenship simply by being born under the right circumstances to the right people, whether that means citizenship in your respective state, or citizenship of the union of states. That point is irrelevant to this discussion. The truth is that we live in a de facto situation where there are requirements for US citizenship which are separate from citizenship in any individual state. Arguing whether or not that was the intent of the founders is really of no importance to this argument.

I didn’t say exactly what I thought the requirements of citizenship should be on purpose. I’m simply stating that as the law stands today, if you are lucky enough to be born under the right circumstances you are legally entitled to the benefits of citizenship almost regardless of whether you accept and excercise any responsibility for that citizenship.

You use the example of Captain Moroni compelling the Amalakiahites in the Book of Mormon, to defend their freedom; yet the Anti-Nephi-Lehis were also not fighting to defend their “sovereignty”, and Captain Moroni did not compel them to fight under threat of death. I suggest it would be beneficial for us all to contemplate the differences in these two groups which were contemporaries of each other. What principles are involved that we can “liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning?”

Do we affirm our membership in this country when we take the Pledge of Allegiance? The whole birthright thing doesn’t seem fair, does it? But then again we have certain rights being born into families…

Perhaps there should be some official citizenship process if you want to vote or run for office…being constitutionally certified, as Glenn Kimber would say…

Or perhaps there should be some opting-out process? In other words, if you don’t like the responsibilities of being a citizen, you can opt out of the responsibilites as well as the benefits?

But I don’t want more government than is absolutely necessary. Just thinking aloud.

I think the important thing that I am trying to say, is that the rights we enjoy from citizenship are not something to which we are entitled, but they are the results of a voluntary exchange between the individual and those to whom they turn for protection of their inalienable rights.

Where does the idea of “the constitution is outdated” come from? Who said it first? Why did they say it? Who were his mentors? What was his purpose for publishing such an idea?

Just a few questions for our “researchers” out there.

I think something is being missed here. The constitution does not create rights. Nor does the government. The government is empowered to protect our rights so we dont have to spend all our time protecting them. (read “The proper role of Government” by Ezra Taft Benson) The point of the constitution is to lay out principles by which people must coexist with one another and to lay out what government must never do, period. Yes you are entitled to your rights they were given to you by God. Therefore they and your life are the only things you are entitled to and no one has the right to take away. Your citizenship of the United States does not grant you your unailiable rights the fact that they are unailiable grants them. You cannot be servered from that.
The constitution is one of the most important documents in history because for the first time a governing body declared that they did not rule the people, but that the people ruled themselves. You want a user agreement with that, look in the mirror and make your own.

To Jason Wilson, your points are all well taken. we at FreeCapitalist Daily agree with your assessment. I am, however, confused as to why you would make such a statement here, as this article discussed the method of being a member of the United States and not about any unalienable rights.

Thanks for your comments, though.

JKVaughn

Jason Wilson,
You are very correct that your rights are not granted by government. I think if you will look more closely at what has been said you will see that we agree.

It was responding to Ammons comment that: “the rights we enjoy from citizenship are not something to which we are entitled, but they are the results of a voluntary exchange between the individual and those to whom they turn for protection of their inalienable rights.”
Our rights are not a result of citizenship but of being humans.
Thats all.

Huh this is an interesting satire. I am not sure if their point was to bring to light the growing disregard for the constitution or to make fun of George W. Bush, Bill O’Reilly, and Dick Cheney without most readers realizing it…Either way I believe that if you are not willing to stand for freedom in this country you are not worthy of citizenship here.

Jason,
It appears to me that you are confusing two concepts: our inalienable rights, and the rights that we gain by means of entering into an agreement. All rights are not inalienable rights.

When I enter an agreement, I obtain certain rights or privileges that I didn’t have before I entered the agreement. These are separate and of a different nature than my inalienable rights. For example: As a member of the Free Capitalist Project, as long as I keep my end of my membership agreement, I am entitled to the rights and privileges of membership. These are of the same nature as the rights of citizenship and are of a different nature to the inalienable rights. In fact, my inalienable rights are what support and give validity to the rights I obtain through exchange. Perhaps a better word would be to use privilege rather than right. Would that clear things up?

I think it is most useful to separate rights and privileges. Rights are those inalienable things that cannot be taken away from us no matter what other people do. For example, personal agency cannot be taken away even if they throw us in a concentration camp as they did Viktor Frankl. That is what he learned. Rights are not earned, they exist inherently inside our existence.

A privilege is something you have to earn. For example, the privilege of voting in an American election. Contrary to what some people might think, it is not necessary or natural that any one particular person votes. That is something each individual must earn by proving you are a citizen of this country. Right now, granted, it is pretty easy for an individual to be a citizen of this country, but still the idea is that a person is only allowed to vote (legally) when a citizen.

There are many rights and privileges. I think part of the problem in our current society rises from confusing these two items.

I agree with you. The problem arises when people think that the privileges of citizenship are inalienable rights. I guess using the word right instead of privilege is the source of Jason Wilson’s confusion. However, I think the context was sufficient to know that I was referring to privileges of citizenship, not inalienable rights of human beings. After all right and privilege are basically synonymous.

From Dictionary.com
Privilege:
1. a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.
2. a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.
3. a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.
4. the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.
5. any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.
6. an advantage or source of pleasure granted to a person: It’s my privilege to be here.
7. Stock Exchange. an option to buy or sell stock at a stipulated price for a limited period of time, including puts, calls, spreads, and straddles.
–verb (used with object) 8. to grant a privilege to.
9. to exempt (usually fol. by from).
10. to authorize or license (something otherwise forbidden).

——

Notice that the word right is used in half of the definitions of privilege.

——

Right:
I’m not going to list all of the defitions since there are many which are completely irrelevant (They’re clear in “right” field if you’ll excuse the poor attempt at humor.) The most relevant are:

an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature; “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”; “Certain rights can never be granted to the government but must be kept in the hands of the people”- Eleanor Roosevelt; “a right is not something that somebody gives you; it is something that nobody can take away”

That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.

A just or legal claim or title.

——

As you can see, the two terms are used interchangeably in our current vernacular. The etymology can shed some light on the subject for us and show the difference that I think you mean, Jason:

Privilege: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin privilegium law for or against a private person, from privus private + leg-, lex law.

Right: Middle English, from Old English riht; akin to Old High German reht right, Latin rectus straight, right, regere to lead straight, direct, rule, rogare to ask, Greek oregein to stretch out

The connotation that I get from this is that a privilege is something that applies to the individual on an individual basis, and a right is something that applies to all individual regardless of the circumstances.

skills and trades are important to bring with you to America . America is such that when you have some training you are more likely to hit the ground running without looking to welfare for support. lets support getting more trained citizenship. A lot of them .

And now I could not agree with you more.
This is one of the reasons when I’m engaged in a face to face conversation that I get into definitions alot.
Bugs the heck out of my wife. =)

Ah the beauty of imperfect words. Constantly seeking clarification. I long for a perfect language. lol

But what would that “perfect language” look like? sound like? I could conceive of a “language” that would convey complete meaning without syllabic restrictions. However, the thing that I enjoy about the nuances of the English language, is that you cannot assume that how you understand a thought is how it was intended to be conveyed. It begs for further probing for understanding. It allows for discussion and clarification. It gives purpose to conversation and interaction. It is one of the awesome privileges we enjoy as a result of an imperfect language. Just a thought.

That’s an intriguing thought Jason … Hansen. (There seem to be a lot of Jasons commenting on this thread)

We are everywhere

LOL. The omnipresent Jasons.

“No citizen of the United States has to do a darn thing to enjoy the Constitution’s protections!” — I think that this quote is dead wrong. A citizen must know what his rights are and how they are protected by the constitution in order to defend those rights. We must become educated and informed on what our rights are, on what the Constitution says, and then hold those responsible for protecting those rights accountable for their actions. It’s not enough to ‘be a citizen.’ After all, look what has happened to the supposed protections we have over the last 200 years. They have been eroded while we were asleep and dreaming of who the next American Idol would be.

I think too many people wouldn’t know the difference if the country became a “benevolent” tyranny. The don’t see themselves as having any part in the government. It’s just this big thing that sits on the hill and they are subject to it. Having a responsibility towards the government (like Jefferson’s wards and townships model) would go a long ways towards helping people understand government’s responsibility towards them.

Aaron, agreed that in order to protect one’s inalienable rights, one does have to take an active daily part in protecting them, or he will have them violated and they will be de facto non-existent.

However this is not true about the Constitution’s protections. Currently, a person does not even have to know what his Constitutional rights (or privileges to avoid confusion ) are in order to have them protected under the current constitution. A man ignorant of his 5th amendment privileges, for example, does not have to even cure his ignorance in order to have them protected. Under the Constitution it is the obligation of the court and the court officers to protect his 5th amendment privileges. Our Constitutional privileges are not currently protected on condition of active or even passive participation.

Jordon, I agree. A larger portion of those who benefit from US citizenship today believe that the government is some obscure, nameless entity, known only as “the government” to which we have some mystical duty to honor and obey under the justification of the “good of society” or some other “greater good.” In reality, government is not an entity of any kind. It is the stewardship each individual has for his own self-government. What the common vernacular refers to as “the government” is actually just the word we use to describe the agreement between the individual and those to whom he has delegated the responsibility of some of their own self-government, because it is often more effective to combine efforts to protect inalienable rights. According to my own understanding of truth, it is only because of a contractual agreement, into which the individual freely enters, that a moral requirement of “obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” is valid. I believe this is what Thomas Jefferson was writing about in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” Once the consent of the governed is withdrawn, there is no moral ground for any governmental authority. Any authority assumed under any other circumstances is tyranny, and unrighteous dominion.

This is a clever article. I enjoy when someone takes a term and uses it in an unconventional yet strikingly fitting way. I do see how the Constitution could fall into the category of an end-user license agreement. However, I think the conclusion gets it backwards. Who is the end-user that is addressed by the Constitution of the United States? The conclusion states it is “We the people”.
If this is the case and the people are the “end-user” of the Constitution, than who is the grantor of that license? Well it must also be “We the people”. So it gets rather confusing at this point. Who’s really in charge is it “we the people” or is it the other “we the people”.
The real end-users of the Constitution are those individuals whom serve in the three branches of our government. They take an oath to uphold the Constitution and to adhere to the license which it grants them to work within the parameters set by it. By taking the oath of office in any branch of government they swear to protect, defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States (EULA).
“We the people” are the licensed grantor and those who serve in the seats of government are its “end users.”
The main question of this article as I understood it was to ask what does it take to be a citizen of the United States? Or in other words, how does one become “We the people”?
The conclusion stated the following
“Citizenship is something that must be earned.  It is not an entitlement because of our parentage.”
I submit that the Constitution does state that birth is an entitlement for citizenship in the United States and therefore falls under the protection of the Constitution. In the very first paragraph it states
“We the People of the United States, in Order to … secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The only way to have posterity is through birth.
What the real questions should be as how does one become a person as in “We the people”? And what is the difference between a person and a citizen? The way I see it, being a person is necessary and natural. Being a citizen is made and imagined.
That’s why “people” ordained and established the Constitution and not “citizens”.

The concept of citizenship is the concept of belonging to a specific societal group. Such membership has specific benefits and obligations. The benefits are typically the protection of the individual’s unalienable rights, as well as the individual’s civil rights by the group. The obligations are to support the society in the protection of every other citizen’s unalienable and civil rights as well according to the terms of membership or citizenship. In American society, the minimal obligations of a citizen are generally understood to minimally include paying one’s taxes, participating in the judicial process as a juror or witness when called upon to do so, and in every other respect upholding the law. In the most extreme of circumstances, the individual is also obligated to support the defense of his fellow citizens rights including taking an active part in defending one’s country and fellow citizens from its enemies, whether foreign or domestic in origin. This could conceivably include being drafted into military service in the defense of the nation during a time of war.

The benefits of membership are, put simply, the protection of not only their unalienable rights, but more particularly their civil rights — those rights frequently afforded only to those who are citizens of a nation, not merely residents; such as the privilege of casting a vote in electing one’s leaders, the privilege of owning real property (land, buildings, etc.) protected by the society, the privilege of engaging in commerce and trade or operating a business, the privilege of being elected to and holding a public office, etc.

Some suppose that citizenship comes too easily to those who attain it by the happenstance of birth, or with too great difficulty by those of foreign origin who desire it. I tend to disagree with such a notion except where citizenship is granted to the child of foreign nationals for no other reason than because that child is born on U.S. soil. The purpose of a test for citizenship, I believe, is primarily two-fold: to ensure the loyalty of the propsective citizen to their new Nation as fas as is reasonably possible, and to ensure that the prospective citizen has a solid foundational basis for understanding not only their rights, but their duties as members of their new Nation. It is presumed, perhaps erroneously, that those who are natural citizens (by birth) would be indoctrinated in such things by their parents and the educational system they subscribe to by the time they become fully autonomous citizens.

David, thank you for your input. It helped me to see the issue from a different light than I was seeing it when I wrote the article. You make some excellent points. It is not, “We the people” that are the end users. It is the individuals who are elected and appointed as governmental officials that are the end-users. Interesting perspective, thank you.

John, thank you for your insights. I always enjoy what you have to say. It is a sad fact of our current culture that many natural citizens don’t educate their children about their part of the agreement involved in citizenship. As a culture, we have become complacent and apathetic in general. I believe this could be safeguarded against by requiring some active agreement as a requirement of all citizens. Minors would not full citizens, but fall under the protection of their guardians’ citizenship until they are willing and able to take on the full responsibilities of citizenship. There could possibly be a requirement of having their guardians’ approval before the age of 18 in order to enter into that agreement, or something, to allow for more mature young adults, who are ready to assume the responsibilities of citizenship early. What say you?

The apathy and complacency which I see is born of the increasing encroachment on the part of government into every aspect of an individual’s life. I don’t believe legislating a safeguard to be the solution; as this simply works counter to the principle of individual liberty. I believe the only solution to safeguard against apathy and complacency is to nurture the valuing or love of liberty over all else in the majority of society. Unfortunately, I believe most people will not value their liberty until after they have personally experienced a significant and inconvenient loss of it; and then, it may well require the blood of tyrannts and their servants be spilled in order to regain it.

In the meanwhile, however, I will attempt to nurture the love of liberty above all in every way I know how in the hope that my fears will not be realized and we may at least stave off, if not reverse the impending tyranny I foresee. America is increasinly less the nation it was in my childhood just 20 years ago, and though it is an unpopular opinion, it is nevertheless fully supportable by the legislative record that Republicans and Democrats are if not equally guilty, they are nearly so, in bringing to pass the destruction of our Constitutional protections and bringing us ever closer to the tyranny of a combination of socialism and corporate feudalism.

Interesting comment. When I grew up I was taught in my family and even in public school that being born a citizen of the United States was a great privilege and carried with it a great responsibility. My citizenship was never something I took for granted but your comments have given me something to think about. Many certainly do not seem to value their citizenship or understand their stewardship.

Legislating a safeguard is a different concept than requiring that an individual, in order to benefit from protections of citizenship, have an active part in the agreement. This is no different than any other agreement. It could even be self-enforcing if the agreement were held with integrity.

I agree with the concept that you can’t legislate apathy and complacency away. However, you can implement safe guards to prevent the ill effects on others. This is the whole concept behind civilization - combining efforts and resources by entering into agreements to minimize the ill effects of the poor choices (i.e. tyranny, deception, apathy, and complacency) of others. An individual has every right to become complacent and apathetic, just as the individual has the right to have tyranical and deceptive thoughts. However, the moment these thoughts manifest themselves agressively in the lives of others, that is where their rights end. Legislation is simply unable to eliminate undesirable thoughts in anyone. Legislation should only be about protecting every individual from the agression of others.

There’s a huge difference between an EULA and the constitution–an EULA will be upheld by judges in court and recognized as a legal document. :o)

Having an agreement seems like it would eliminate some inequality because anyone willing to accept the constitution would be eligible for citizenship, causing the racism we see towards immigrants from South America to be less relevant.