BlundersoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates Part3

2011DanGoodman TheauthorhaswrittenontwoblundersoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates. Recently,theauthordiscoveredanotherone.Theauthororiginallydecidedtowrite ononlytwomistakesmadebytheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates.However, theauthorbelievesthereaderwillunderstandwhyhechosetoincludethisone. ThethirdblunderoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesisinthecaseof UnitedStatesv.WongKimArk(169U.S.649,1898).Theblunderoccursatpages 652thru653: Thefactsofthiscase,asagreedbytheparties,areasfollows:WongKimArk wasbornin1873inthecityofSanFrancisco,intheStateofCaliforniaandUnited StatesofAmerica,andwasandisalaborer.Hisfatherandmotherwerepersonsof Chinesedescent,andsubjectsoftheEmperorofChina;theywereatthetimeofhis birthdomiciledresidentsoftheUnitedStates,havingpreviouslyestablishedand stillenjoyingapermanentdomicilandresidencethereinatSanFrancisco;they continuedtoresideandremainintheUnitedStatesuntil1890,whentheydeparted forChina;andduringallthetimeoftheirresidenceintheUnitedStatestheywere engagedinbusiness,andwereneveremployedinanydiplomaticorofficialcapacity undertheEmperorofChina.WongKimArk,eversincehisbirth,hashadbutone residence,towit,inCalifornia,withintheUnitedStates,andhasthereresided, claimingtobecitizenoftheUnitedStates,andhasneverlostorchangedthat residence,orgainedoracquiredanotherresidence;andneitherhe,norhisparents actingforhim,everrenouncedhisallegiancetotheUnitedStates,ordidor committedanyactorthingtoexcludehimtherefrom.In1890(whenhemusthave beenaboutseventeenyearsofage)hedepartedforChinaonatemporaryvisitand withtheintentionofreturningtotheUnitedStates,anddidreturntheretobyseain thesameyear,andwaspermittedbythecollectorofcustomstoentertheUnited States,uponthesolegroundthathewasanativeborncitizenoftheUnitedStates. Aftersuchreturn,heremainedintheUnitedStates,claimingtobeacitizenthereof, until1894,whenhe(beingabouttwentyoneyearsofage,butwhetheralittleabove oralittleunderthatagedoesnotappear)againdepartedforChinaontemporary visitandwiththeintentionofreturningtotheUnitedStates;andhedidreturn theretobyseainAugust,1895,andappliedtothecollectorofcustomsfor permissiontoland;andwasdeniedsuchpermission,uponthesolegroundthathe wasnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates. 1

 Itisconcededthat,ifheisacitizenoftheUnitedStates,theactsofCongress, knownastheChineseExclusionActs,prohibitingpersonsoftheChineserace,and especiallyChineselaborers,fromcomingintotheUnitedStates,donotandcannot applytohim. ThequestionpresentedbytherecordiswhetherachildbornintheUnitedStates, ofparentsofChinesedescent,who,atthetimeofhisbirth,aresubjectsofthe EmperorofChina,buthaveapermanentdomicilandresidenceintheUnitedStates, andaretherecarryingonbusiness,andarenotemployedinanydiplomaticor officialcapacityundertheEmperorofChina,becomesatthetimeofhisbirtha citizenoftheUnitedStates,byvirtueofthefirstclauseoftheFourteenth AmendmentoftheConstitution,AllpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnited States,andsubjecttothejurisdiction,thereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandof theStatewhereintheyreside.UnitedStatesv.WongKimArk:169U.S.649,at652 thru653(1897).
http://books.google.com/books?id=4sGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA652#v=onepage&q&f=false

Accordingtothiscase,onewhoisborninSanFrancisco,Californiaisacitizenof theUnitedStates,becausebeingbornintheUnitedStates.However,thisisnotso. Section51(1)ofthePoliticalCodeofCaliforniafor1872,VolumeIstates: ThecitizensoftheStateareallpersonsborninthisStateandresidingwithinit, exceptthechildrenoftransientaliensandofalienpublicMinistersandConsuls.

http://books.google.com/books?id=P8k3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA27#v=onepage&q&f=false

And,section51(1)ofthePoliticalCodeofCaliforniafor1874,VolumeIstates: ThecitizensoftheStateareallpersonsborninthisStateandresidingwithinit, exceptthechildrenoftransientaliensandofalienpublicMinistersandConsuls.

http://books.google.com/books?id=xM03AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA27#v=onepage&q&f=false

SincethecityofSanFranciscoisintheStateofCalifornia;andsinceWongKim Arksparentswereresidentaliensandnottransientaliens,thenWongKimArks birthinSanFranciscomadehimacitizenoftheStateofCaliforniaandnotacitizen oftheUnitedStates. IntheSlaughterhouseCases,theSupremeCourtheldthatacitizenofaStatewas 2

separateanddistinctfromacitizenoftheUnitedStates: OftheprivilegesandimmunitiesofthecitizenoftheUnitedStates,andof theprivilegesandimmunitiesofthecitizenoftheState,andwhattheyrespective are,wewillpresentlyconsider;butwewishtostateherethatitisonlytheformer whichareplacedbythisclause(Section1,Clause2oftheFourteenthAmendment) undertheprotectionoftheFederalConstitution,andthatthelatter,whateverthey maybe,arenotintendedtohaveanyadditionalprotectionbythisparagraphofthe amendment.SlaughterhouseCases:83U.S.(16Wall.)36,at74(1873).

http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q&f=false

Inaddition: IntheSlaughterhousecases,16Wall.36,thesubjectoftheprivilegesor immunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates,asdistinguishedfromthoseofa particularState,wastreatedbyMr.JusticeMillerindeliveringtheopinionofthe court.Hestated...thatitwasonlyprivilegesandimmunitiesofthecitizenof theUnitedStatesthatwereplacedbythe[Fourteenth]amendmentunderthe protectionoftheFederalConstitution,andthattheprivilegesandimmunitiesof acitizenofaState,whatevertheymightbe,werenotintendedtohaveany additionalprotectionbytheparagraphinquestion,buttheymustrestfortheir securityandprotectionwheretheyhaveheretoforerested.Maxwellv.Dow:176 U.S.581,at587(1900).
http://books.google.com/books?id=8toGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA587#v=onepage&q&f=false

And: ...Itis,then,totheFourteenthAmendmentthattheadvocatesofthe congressionalactmustresorttofindauthorityforitsenactment,andtothefirst sectionofthatamendment,whichisasfollows:Allpersonsbornornaturalizedin theUnitedStates,andsubjecttothejurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnited States,andoftheStatewhereintheyreside.NoStateshallmakeorenforceanylaw whichshallabridgetheprivilegesorimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates,nor shallanyStatedepriveanypersonoflife,liberty,orproperty,withoutdueprocess oflaw,nordenytoanypersonwithinitsjurisdictiontheequalprotectionofthe laws. Inthefirstclauseofthissection,declaringwhoarecitizensoftheUnitedStates, thereisnothingwhichtouchesthesubjectunderconsideration.Thesecondclause, declaringthatnoStateshallmakeorenforceanylawwhichwillabridgethe privilegesorimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates,islimited,accordingto 3

thedecisionofthiscourtinSlaughterHouseCases,tosuchprivilegesand immunitiesasbelongtocitizensoftheUnitedStates,asdistinguishedfrom thoseofcitizensoftheState.Nealv.StateofDelaware:103U.S.370,at406 (1880).[SeeFootnote1]

http://books.google.com/books?id=Y7wGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA406#v=onepage&q&f=false

SonowthereisacitizenofaStateandthereisacitizenoftheUnitedStates: WecometothecontentionthatthecitizenshipofEdwardswasnotaverredin thecomplaintorshownbytherecord,andhencejurisdictiondidnotappear. Inansweringthequestion,whethertheCircuitCourthadjurisdictionofthe controversy,wemustputourselvesintheplaceoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,and decidethequestionwithreferencetothetranscriptofrecordinthatcourt. HadthetranscriptshownnothingmoreastothestatusofEdwardsthanthe avermentofthecomplaintthathewasaresidentoftheStateofDelaware,assuch anavermentwouldnotnecessarilyhaveimportedthatEdwardswasacitizenof Delaware,anegativeanswerwouldhavebeenimpelledbypriordecisions.Mexican CentralRy.Co.v.Duthie,189U.S.76;Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,155U.S.393; Dennyv.Pironi,141U.S.121;Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.646.Thewholerecord, however,maybelookedto,forthepurposeofcuringadefectiveavermentof citizenship,wherejurisdictioninaFederalcourtisassertedtodependupon diversityofcitizenship,andiftherequisitecitizenship,isanywhereexpressly averredintherecord,orfactsarethereinstatedwhichinlegalintendment constitutesuchallegation,thatissufficient.Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,supra andcasescited. Asthisisanactionatlaw,weareboundtoassumethatthetestimonyofthe plaintiffcontainedinthecertificateoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,andrecitedto havebeengivenonthetrial,waspreservedinabillofexceptions,whichformed partofthetranscriptofrecordfiledintheCircuitCourtofAppeals.Beingapartof therecord,andpropertoberesortedtoinsettlingaquestionofthecharacterof thatnowunderconsideration,Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.648,wecometoascertain whatisestablishedbytheuncontradictedevidencereferredto. Inthefirstplace,itshowsthatEdwards,priortohisemploymentontheNewYork SunandtheNewHavenPalladium,waslegallydomiciledintheStateofDelaware. Next,itdemonstratesthathehadnointentiontoabandonsuchdomicil,forhe testifiedunderoathasfollows:OneofthereasonsIlefttheNewHavenPalladium was,itwastoofarawayfromhome.IlivedinDelaware,andIhadtogobackand forth.MyfamilyareoverinDelaware.Now,itiselementarythat,toeffectachange ofoneslegaldomicil,twothingsareindispensable:First,residenceinanew 4

domicil,and,second,theintentiontoremainthere.Thechangecannotbemade, exceptfactoetanimo.Botharealikenecessary.Eitherwithouttheotheris insufficient.Mereabsencefromafixedhome,howeverlongcontinued,cannotwork thechange.Mitchellv.UnitedStates,21Wall.350. AsDelawaremust,then,beheldtohavebeenthelegaldomicilofEdwardsatthe timehecommencedthisaction,haditappearedthathewasacitizenofthe UnitedStates,itwouldhaveresulted,byoperationoftheFourteenth Amendment,thatEdwardswasalsoacitizenoftheStateofDelaware.Anderson v.Watt,138U.S.694.Bethisasitmay,however,Delawarebeingthelegaldomicilof Edwards,itwasimpossibleforhimtohavebeenacitizenofanotherState,District, orTerritory,andhemustthenhavebeeneitheracitizenofDelawareoracitizen orsubjectofaforeignState.Ineitherofthesecontingencies,theCircuitCourt wouldhavehadjurisdictionoverthecontroversy.But,inthelightofthetestimony, wearesatisfiedthattheavermentinthecomplaint,thatEdwardswasaresidentof theStateofDelaware,wasintendedtomean,and,reasonablyconstrued,mustbe interpretedasaverring,thattheplaintiffwasacitizenoftheStateofDelaware. Jonesv.Andrews,10Wall.327,331;ExpressCompanyv.Kountze,8Wall.342.Sun Printing&PublishingAssociationv.Edwards:194U.S.377,at381thru383(1904).
http://books.google.com/books?id=tekGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA381#v=onepage&q&f=false

AcitizenoftheStateofCaliforniaisrecognizedinthefollowingcasesfromthe SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates: IsaacJ.Lewis,acitizenofNevada,theappellee,onthe15thofJanuary,1881, broughtsuitagainstHarrisLewis,acitizenofCalifornia,forthedissolutionofan allegedpartnershipbetweenthem,andasettlementofthepartnershipaffairs. Shainwaldv.Lewis:108U.S.158,at158(1883).

http://books.google.com/books?id=zb0GAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA158#v=onepage&q&f=false

Thiswasabillinequity,filedbyAngelicaWakelee,acitizenoftheStateof California,againstDavis,acitizenofNewYork,toenforceanestoppel,andenjoin thedefendantfromasserting,indefenceofanysuitwhichmaybebroughtupona certainjudgmentrecoveredbyHenryP.WakeleeagainstDavis,inoneofthestate courtsofCalifornia,thatthedebtsuponwhichsuchjudgmentwasobtainedwere notmergedinsuchjudgment,andfromdenyingthevalidityofthejudgment,asa debtagainstDavis,unaffectedbyhisdischargeinbankruptcy.Statementofthe Case,Davisv.Wakelee:156U.S.680,at681(1895).

http://books.google.com/books?id=gOAGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA681#v=onepage&q&f=false

Inaddition,acitizenofaState,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1ofthe ConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,isonewhoisborninaparticularState: (BeforetheFourteenthAmendment) Itappearsthattheplaintiffinerror,thoughanativeborncitizenofLouisiana, wasmarriedintheStateofMississippi,whileunderage,withtheconsentofher guardian,toacitizenofthelatterState,andthattheirdomicile,duringtheduration oftheirmarriage,wasinMississippi.Connerv.Elliott:59U.S.(Howard18)591,at 592(1855).

http://books.google.com/books?id=RkcFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA592#v=onepage&q&f=false

(AftertheFourteenthAmendment) JosephA.Iasigi,anativeborncitizenofMassachusetts,wasarrested, February14,1897,onawarrantissuedbyoneofthecitymagistratesofthecityof NewYork,asafugitivefromthejusticeoftheStateofMassachusetts.Iasigiv.Van DeCarr:166U.S.391,at392(1897).

http://books.google.com/books?id=xuUGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA392#v=onepage&q&f=false

AcitizenoftheUnitedStates,underSection1,Clause1oftheFourteenth Amendment,isonewhoisbornintheUnitedStates,notaparticularState: Allpersonsborn...intheUnitedStates,andsubjecttothejurisdiction thereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandoftheStatewhereintheyreside. Section1,Clause1oftheFourteenthAmendent.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_1127.html

ThelanguageoftheFourteenthAmendmentdeclaringtwokindsofcitizenship isdiscriminating.Itis:AllpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStates,and subjecttothejurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandoftheState whereintheyreside.Whileitthusestablishesnationalcitizenshipfromthe merecircumstanceofbirthwithintheterritoryandjurisdictionoftheUnited States,birthwithinastatedoesnotestablishcitizenshipthereof.Statecitizenship isephemeral.Itresultsonlyfromresidenceandisgainedorlosttherewith. Edwardsv.PeopleoftheStateofCalifornia:314U.S.160,183(concurringopinionof Jackson)(1941).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6778891532287614638

Thatallpersonsresidentinthisstate,bornintheUnitedStates,or naturalized,orwhoshallhavelegallydeclaredtheirintentiontobecomecitizensof 6

theUnitedStates,areherebydeclaredcitizensoftheStateofAlabama, possessingequalcivilandpoliticalrights.(DeclarationofRights)ArticleI, Section2ConstitutionoftheStateofAlabamaof1875. Note:ThisprovisionisnotinthecurrentconstitutionoftheStateofAlabama.

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/misc/history/constitutions/1875/1875_1.html

AcitizenoftheUnitedStatesisnowacitizenoftheterritoriesandpossessionsof theUnitedStates,includingtheDistrictofColumbiaandthefederalenclavesinthe severalStatesoftheUnion.Suchcitizenshipisbasedonpoliticaljurisdictionofthe UnitedStates(government): Thissection[theopeningsentenceoftheFourteenthAmendment] contemplatestwosourcesofcitizenship,andtwosourcesonly:birthand naturalization.Thepersonsdeclaredtobecitizensareallpersonsbornor naturalizedintheUnitedStates,andsubjecttothejurisdictionthereof.Theevident meaningoftheselastwordsis,notmerelysubjectinsomerespectordegreetothe jurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,butcompletelysubjecttotheirpolitical jurisdiction,andowingthemdirectandimmediateallegiance.Andthewordsrelate tothetimeofbirthintheonecase,astheydotothetimeofnaturalizationinthe other.PersonsnotthussubjecttothejurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesatthetimeof birthcannotbecomesoafterwards,exceptbybeingnaturalized,eitherindividually, asbyproceedingsunderthenaturalizationacts,orcollectively,asbytheforceofa treatybywhichforeignterritoryisacquired.Elkv.Wilkins:112U.S.94,at101 thru102(1884).
http://books.google.com/books?id=rHEUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA101#v=onepage&q&f=false

TobecompletelysubjecttothepoliticaljurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesisto beinnorespectordegreesubjecttothepoliticaljurisdictionofanyother government.UnitedStatesv.WongKimArk:169U.S.649,at(706),725 (dissentingopinionofJusticeFuller,withwhomconcurredJusticeHarlan)(1898).

http://books.google.com/books?id=4sGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA725#v=onepage&q&f=false

EachStateoftheUnionhaspoliticaljurisdictionalso.Bothbeforeandafterthe adoptionoftheFourteenthAmendment: Thefirstpropositiononwhichcounselinsist,insupportofthedemurreris,that thiscourthasnojurisdictionofthecase,becauseitinvolvestheconsiderationof questionspurelypolitical;thatistosay,thatthemainquestiontobedecidedisthe conflictingclaimsofthetwoStatestotheexerciseofpoliticaljurisdictionand sovereigntyovertheterritoryandinhabitantsofthetwocountieswhicharethe 7

subjectofdispute..... Weconsider,therefore,theestablisheddoctrineofthiscourttobe,thatithas jurisdictionofquestionsofboundarybetweentwoStatesofthisUnion,andthatthis jurisdictionisnotdefeated,becauseindecidingthatquestionitbecomesnecessary toexamineintoandconstruecompactsoragreementsbetweenthoseStates,or becausethedecreewhichthecourtmayrender,affectstheterritoriallimitsofthe politicaljurisdictionandsovereigntyoftheStateswhicharepartiestothe proceeding.StateofVirginiav.StateofWestVirginia:78U.S.39,at53and55 (1871).

http://books.google.com/books?id=zMEGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA53#v=onepage&q&f=false

reaffirmedinUnitedStatesv.Texas(143U.S.621,at639thru6401892): InUnitedStatesv.Arredondo,6Pet.691,thecourt,referringtoFosterv.Neilson, 2Pet.253,said:Thiscourtdidnotdeemthesettlementofboundariesajudicialbut apoliticalquestionthatitwasnotitsdutytolead,buttofollowtheactionofthe otherdepartmentsofthegovernment.Thesameprincipleswererecognizedin CherokeeNationv.Georgia,5Pet.1andGarciav.Lee,12Pet.511. Theseauthoritiesdonotcontrolthepresentcase.Theyrelatetoquestionsof boundarybetweenindependentnations,andhavenoapplicationtoaquestionof thatcharacterarisingbetweentheGeneralGovernmentandoneoftheStates composingtheUnion,orbetweentwoStatesoftheUnion.BytheArticlesof Confederation,Congresswasmadethelastresortonappealinalldisputesand differencesthensubsistingorwhichthereaftermightarisebetweentwoormore Statesconcerningboundary,jurisdictionoranyothercausewhatever;theauthority soconferredtobeexercisedbyaspecialtribunaltobeorganizedinthemode prescribedinthoseArticles,anditsjudgmenttobefinalandconclusive.Art.9.At thetimeoftheadoptionoftheConstitutionthereexisted,asthiscourtsaidinRhode Islandv.Massachusetts,12Pet.657,723,724,controversiesbetweenelevenStates, inrespecttoboundaries,whichhadcontinuedfromthefirstsettlementofthe colonies.Thenecessityforthecreationofsometribunalforthesettlementofthese andlikecontroversiesthatmightarise,underthenewgovernmenttobeformed, must,therefore,havebeenperceivedbytheframersoftheConstitution,and, consequently,amongthecontroversiestowhichthejudicialpoweroftheUnited StateswasextendedbytheConstitution,wefindthosebetweentwoormoreStates. AndthatacontroversybetweentwoormoreStates,inrespecttoboundary,isone towhich,undertheConstitution,suchjudicialpowerextends,isnolongeranopen questioninthiscourt.ThecasesofRhodeIslandv.Massachusetts,12Pet.657;New Jerseyv.NewYork,5Pet.284,290;Missouriv.Iowa,7How.660;Floridav.Georgia, 17How.478;Alabamav.Georgia,23How.505;Virginiav.WestVirginia,11Wall.39, 55;Missouriv.Kentucky,11Wall.395;Indianav.Kentucky,136U.S.479;and Nebraskav.Iowa,ante,359,werealloriginalsuits,inthiscourt,forthejudicial 8

determinationofdisputedboundarylinesbetweenStates.InNewJerseyv.New York,5Pet284,290,ChiefJusticeMarshallsaid:Ithasthenbeensettledbyour predecessors,ongreatdeliberation,thatthiscourtmayexerciseitsoriginal jurisdictioninsuitsagainstaState,undertheauthorityconferredbythe ConstitutionandexistingactsofCongress.AndinVirginiav.WestVirginia,78U.S. 39,55,itwassaidbyMr.JusticeMillertobetheestablisheddoctrineofthiscourtthat ithasjurisdictionofquestionsofboundarybetweentwoStatesofthisUnion,andthat thisjurisdictionisnotdefeated,becauseindecidingthatquestionitbecomesnecessary toexamineintoandconstruecompactsoragreementsbetweenthoseStates,or becausethedecreewhichthecourtmayrender,affectstheterritoriallimitsofthe politicaljurisdictionandsovereigntyoftheStateswhicharepartiestothe proceeding.So,inWisconsinv.PelicanIns.Co.,127U.S.265,287,288;Bythe Constitution,therefore,thiscourthasoriginaljurisdictionofsuitsbroughtbyaState againstcitizensofanotherState,aswellasofcontroversiesbetweentwoStates.... AstocontroversiesbetweentwoormoreStates.Themostnumerousclassof whichthiscourthasentertainedjurisdictionisthatofcontroversiesbetweentwo Statesastotheboundariesoftheirterritory,suchasweredeterminedbeforethe RevolutionbytheKinginCouncil,andundertheArticlesofConfederation(while therewasnonationaljudiciary)bycommitteesorcommissionersappointedby Congress.
http://books.google.com/books?id=aAGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA639#v=onepage&q&f=false

AndinStateofMissouriv.StateofIllinois(180U.S.208,at230thru2311901): InVirginiav.WestVirginia,11Wall.39,abillwasfiledinthiscourttosettlethe boundariesbetweenthetwoStates.Therewasademurrertothebill.Indelivering theopinionofthecourtMr.JusticeMillersaid: Thefirstpropositiononwhichcounselinsist,insupportofthedemurreris, thatthiscourthasnojurisdictionofthecase,becauseitinvolvesthe considerationofquestionspurelypolitical;thatistosay,thatthemainquestion tobedecidedistheconflictingclaimsofthetwoStatestotheexerciseof politicaljurisdictionandsovereigntyovertheterritoryandinhabitantsofthe twocountrieswhicharethesubjectofdispute.Thispropositioncannotbe sustainedwithoutreversingthesettledcourseofdecisioninthiscourtand overturningtheprinciplesonwhichseveralwellconsideredcaseshavebeen decided. And,aftercitingRhodeIslandv.Massachusetts,12Pet.651;Missouriv.Iowa,7 How.660;Floridav.Georgia17How.478,andAlabamav.Georgia,23How.505,the conclusionofthecourtwasthusexpressed: Weconsider,therefore,theestablisheddoctrineofthiscourttobethatithas 9

jurisdictionofquestionsofboundarybetweentwoStatesofthisUnion,andthat thisjurisdictionisnotdefeatedbecauseindecidingthatquestionitbecomes necessarytoexamineintoandconstruecompactsandagreementsbetween thoseStates,orbecausethedecreewhichthecourtmayrenderaffectsthe territoriallimitsofthepoliticaljurisdictionandsovereigntyoftheStates whicharepartiestotheproceeding.

http://books.google.com/books?id=l9wGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA230#v=onepage&q&f=false

And,thereisthefollowing: Section1333(a)(3)providesthatadoptionofStatelawasthelawofthe UnitedStatesshallneverbeinterpretedasabasisforclaiminganyinterestinor jurisdictiononbehalfofanyStateforanypurposeovertheseabedandsubsoilofthe outerContinentalShelf,orthepropertyandnaturalresourcesthereoforthe revenuestherefrom.Petitionerarguesthatstatecourtjurisdictionoverthis personalinjurycasewouldcontravenethisprovision.Thisargumentagain confusesthepoliticaljurisdictionofaStatewithitsjudicialjurisdiction.Gulf OffshoreCompanyv.MobilOilCorporation:453U.S.473,at482(1981).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18303575675978186938

Therefore,apersonborninaStateoftheUnionisnotsubjecttothepolitical jurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,butrather,tothepoliticaljurisdictionofa particularState. PoliticaljurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesextendstoonlytheDistrictofColumbia, itsterritoriesandpossessions,andfederalenclaveswiththeseveralStatesofthe Union: ...TheConstitutionprovidesthatCongressshallhavepowertoexercise exclusivelegislationinallcaseswhatsoeveroversuchdistrict,(notexceedingten milessquare,)asmay,bycessionofparticularStatesandtheacceptanceof Congress,becometheseatofthegovernmentoftheUnitedStates,andtoexercise likeauthorityoverallplacespurchasedbytheconsentoftheLegislatureoftheState inwhichthesameshallbe,fortheerectionofforts,magazines,arsenals,dockyards, andotherneedfulbuildings.Art.1,sec.8. Thenecessityofcompletejurisdictionovertheplacewhichshouldbeselectedas theseatofgovernmentwasobvioustotheframersoftheConstitution.Unlessit wereconferredthedeliberationsofCongressmightintimesofexcitementbe exposedtointerruptionswithoutadequatemeansofprotection;itsmembers,and theofficersofthegovernment,besubjectedtoinsultandintimidation,andthe publicarchivesbeindangerofdestruction.TheFederalist,insupportofthisclause intheConstitution,inadditiontothesereasons,urgedthat"adependenceofthe membersofthegeneralgovernmentontheStatecomprehendingtheseatofthe 10

governmentforprotectionintheexerciseoftheirduty,mightbringonthenational councilsanimputationofaweorinfluence,equallydishonorabletothegovernment anddissatisfactorytotheothermembersoftheconfederacy."No.43. Thenecessityofsupremelegislativeauthorityovertheseatofgovernmentwas forciblyimpresseduponthemembersoftheconstitutionalconventionby occurrenceswhichtookplacenearthecloseoftheRevolutionaryWar.Atthattime, whileCongresswasinsessioninPhiladelphia,itwassurroundedandinsultedbya bodyofmutineersoftheContinentalArmy.Ingivinganaccountofthisproceeding, Mr.Rawle,inhisTreatiseontheConstitution,saysoftheactionofCongress:It appliedtotheexecutiveauthorityofPennsylvaniafordefence;but,undertheill conceivedconstitutionoftheStateatthattime,theexecutivepowerwasvestedina council,consistingofthirteenmembers,andtheypossessedorexhibitedsolittle energy,andsuchapparentintimidation,thattheCongressindignantlyremovedto NewJersey,whoseinhabitantswelcomeditwithpromisesofdefendingit.It remainedforsometimeatPrincetonwithoutbeingagaininsulted,till,forthesake ofgreaterconvenience,itadjournedtoAnnapolis.Thegeneraldissatisfactionwith theproceedingsoftheexecutiveauthorityofPennsylvania,andthedegrading spectacleofafugitiveCongress,suggestedtheremedialprovisionsnowunder consideration.Rawle,ConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,113.OfthisproceedingMr. JusticeStoryremarks:"Ifsuchalessoncouldhavebeenlostuponthepeople,it wouldhavebeenashumiliatingtotheirintelligenceasitwouldhavebeenoffensive totheirhonor."2StoryConstitution,1219. Uponthesecondpartoftheclauseinquestion,givingpowertoexerciselike authority,thatis,ofexclusivelegislationoverallplacespurchasedbytheconsent oftheLegislatureoftheStateinwhichthesameshallbe,fortheerectionofforts, magazines,arsenals,dockyards,andotherneedfulbuildings,theFederalist observesthatthenecessityofthisauthorityisnotlessevident.Thepublicmoney expendedonsuchplaces,itadds,andthepublicpropertydepositedinthem, requirethattheyshouldbeexemptfromtheauthorityoftheparticularState.Nor woulditbeproperfortheplacesonwhichthesecurityoftheentireUnionmay dependtobeinanydegreedependentonaparticularmemberofit.Allobjections andscruplesareherealsoobviatedbyrequiringtheconcurrenceoftheStates concernedineverysuchestablishment.Thepower,saysMr.JusticeStory, repeatingthesubstanceofMr.Madison'slanguage,iswhollyunexceptionable,since itcanonlybeexercisedatthewilloftheState,andthereforeitisplacedbeyondall reasonablescruple. Thispowerofexclusivelegislationistobeexercised,asthusseen,overplaces purchased,byconsentoftheLegislaturesoftheStatesinwhichtheyaresituated,for thespecificpurposesenumerated.Itwouldseemtohavebeentheopinionofthe framersoftheConstitutionthat,withouttheconsentoftheStates,thenew governmentwouldnotbeabletoacquirelandswithinthem;andthereforeitwas 11

providedthatwhenitmightrequiresuchlandsfortheerectionoffortsandother buildingsforthedefenceofthecountry,orthedischargeofotherdutiesdevolving uponit,andtheconsentoftheStatesinwhichtheyweresituatedwasobtainedfor theiracquisition,suchconsentshouldcarrywithitpoliticaldominionandlegislative authorityoverthem.Purchasewithsuchconsentwastheonlymodethenthought offortheacquisitionbythegeneralgovernmentoftitletolandsintheStates.Since theadoptionoftheConstitutionthisviewhasnotgenerallyprevailed.Suchconsent hasnotalwaysbeenobtained,norsupposednecessary,forthepurchasebythe generalgovernmentoflandswithintheStates.Ifanydoubthaseverexistedastoits powerthustoacquirelandswithintheStates,ithasnothadsufficientstrengthto createanyeffectivedissentfromthegeneralopinion.TheconsentoftheStatesto thepurchaseoflandswithinthemforthespecialpurposesnamedis,however, essential,undertheConstitution,tothetransfertothegeneralgovernment,withthe title,ofpoliticaljurisdictionanddominion.Wherelandsareacquiredwithoutsuch consent,thepossessionoftheUnitedStates,unlesspoliticaljurisdictionbeceded totheminsomeotherway,issimplythatofanordinaryproprietor.Thepropertyin thatcase,unlessusedasameanstocarryoutthepurposesofthegovernment,is subjecttothelegislativeauthorityandcontroloftheStatesequallywiththe propertyofprivateindividuals.FortLeavenworthRailroadCompanyv.Lowe:114 U.S.525,at528thru531(1885).
http://books.google.com/books?id=jN8GAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA528#v=onepage&q&f=false

...ThisbringsustothequestionwhetherCongresshaspowertoexercise exclusivelegislationovertheseenclaveswithinthemeaningofArt.I,8.cl.17,of theConstitution,whichreadsinrelevantpart:TheCongressshallhavePower... ToexerciseexclusiveLegislationinallCaseswhatsoeverovertheDistrictof ColumbiaandtoexerciselikeAuthorityoverallPlacespurchasedbytheConsentof theLegislatureoftheStateinwhichtheSameshallbe,fortheErectionofForts, Magazines,Arsenals,dockYards,andotherneedfulBuildings. ThepowerofCongressoverfederalenclavesthatcomewithinthescopeofArt.I, 8,cl.17,isobviouslythesameasthepowerofCongressovertheDistrictof Columbia.Thecasesmakeclearthatthegrantofexclusivelegislativepowerto CongressoverenclavesthatmeettherequirementsofArt.I,8,cl.17,byitsown weight,barsstateregulationwithoutspecificcongressionalaction.Thequestion wassquarelypresentedinPacificCoastDairyv.DepartmentofAgriculture,318U.S. 285,whichinvolved,asdoesthepresentlitigation,California'sActandanattemptto fixthepricesatwhichmilkcouldbesoldatMoffettField.Weheldthatsales consummatedwithintheenclavecannotberegulatedbyCaliforniabecauseofthe constitutionalgrantofexclusivelegislationrespectinglandspurchasedbythe UnitedStateswiththeconsentoftheState(id.,at294),eventhoughtherewasno conflictingfederalRegulation. 12

Thusthefirstquestionhereiswhetherthethreeenclavesinquestionwere purchasedbytheConsentoftheLegislatureofCaliforniawithinthemeaningofArt. I,8,cl.17. ThepoweroftheFederalGovernmenttoacquirelandwithinaStatebypurchase orbycondemnationwithouttheconsentoftheStateiswellestablished.Kohlv. UnitedStates,91U.S.367,371.ButwithouttheState'sconsenttheUnitedStates doesnotobtainthebenefitsofArt.I,8,cl.17,itspossessionbeingsimplythatofan ordinaryproprietor.Jamesv.DravoContractingCo.,302U.S.134,141142.Inthat event,however,itwasheldinFt.LeavenworthR.Co.v.Lowe,114U.S.525,541,542, thataStatecouldcompletetheexclusivejurisdictionoftheFederalGovernment oversuchanenclavebyacessionoflegislativeauthorityandpoliticaljurisdiction. ThusiftheUnitedStatesacquireswiththeconsentofthestatelegislatureland withinthebordersofthatStatebypurchaseorcondemnationforanyofthe purposesmentionedinArt.I,8,cl.17,orifthelandisacquiredwithoutsuch consentandlatertheStategivesitsconsent,thejurisdictionoftheFederal Governmentbecomesexclusive.Paulv.UnitedStates:371U.S.245,at263thru 264(1963).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15445050255793327933

Thequestionpresentedfordeterminationinthiscaserelatestotheeffectof proceedingstakenundertheactofMarch3,1851,toascertainandsettleprivate landclaimsinCalifornia,upontheclaimsofpartiesholdingconcessionsoflandsin thatStateundertheSpanishortheMexicangovernment.Bythecessionof CaliforniatotheUnitedStates,therightsoftheinhabitantstotheirpropertywere notaffected.Theyremainedasbefore.Politicaljurisdictionandsovereigntyover theterritoryandpublicpropertyalonepassedtotheUnitedStates.UnitedStatesv. Percheman,7Pet.51,87.Morev.Steinbach:127U.S.70,at78(1888).

http://books.google.com/books?id=cWcUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA78#v=onepage&q&f=false

ThepurposeoftheLandsAct(theOuterContinentalShelfLandsActof1953,67 Stat.462,43U.S.C.761et.seq)wastodefineabodyoflawapplicabletothe seabed,thesubsoil,andthefixedstructuressuchasthoseinquestionhereonthe outerContinentalShelf.ThatthislawwastobefederallawoftheUnitedStates, applyingstatelawonlyasfederallawandthenonlywhennotinconsistentwith applicablefederallaw,ismadeclearbythelanguageoftheAct.Section3makesit thepolicyoftheUnitedStatesthattheaffectedareasappertaintotheUnited Statesandaresubjecttoitsjurisdiction,control,andpowerofdisposition.Section 4makestheConstitutionandlawsandcivilandpoliticaljurisdictionoftheUnited StatesapplytothesameextentasiftheouterContinentalShelfwereanareaof exclusiveFederaljurisdictionlocatedwithinaState.Rodriguev.AetnaCasualty& 13

SuretyCompany:395U.S.352,at355thru357(1969).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14913666495146396286

Thus,acitizenoftheUnitedStatesisacitizenoftheDistrictofColumbia,the territoriesandpossessionsoftheUnitedStates,andfederalenclaveswithinthe severalStatesoftheUnion. ________________________ Footnotes: 1.PrivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizenofaStatearelocatedintheconstitutionand lawsofanindividualState: ...Whatevermaybethescopeofsection2ofarticleIVandweneednot,in thiscaseenteruponaconsiderationofthegeneralquestiontheConstitutionof theUnitedStatesdoesnotmaketheprivilegesandimmunitiesenjoyedbythe citizensofoneStateundertheconstitutionandlawsofthatState,themeasureofthe privilegesandimmunitiestobeenjoyed,asofright,byacitizenofanotherState underitsconstitutionandlaws.McKanev.Durston:153U.S.684,at687(1894).
http://books.google.com/books?id=mmkUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA687#v=onepage&q=&f=false

14