What RIGHTS do you have?Submitted by juliusbragg on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 23:58
Do you have "Civil Rights" or "Human Rights"?
- "A 'civil right' is a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by law that creates it." Nickell v. Rosenfield (1927), 255 P. 760
- "A 'civil right' is considered a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it."
82 CA 369, 373, 255, P 760.
- civil rights
–plural noun ( often initial capital letters )
rights to personal liberty established by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and certain Congressional acts, esp. as applied to an individual or a minority group.
the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality extended to blacks.
- human right
(law) any basic right or freedom to which all human beings are entitled and in whose exercise a government may not interfere (including rights to life and liberty as well as freedom of thought and expression and equality before the law)
Claim the wrong one, and the governments and courts don't have to recognize or protect it.
Only "Human Rights" are required to be recognized and protected by Government......here's the catch, "citizens of the United States" ONLY have "civil Rights", because being a "citizen of the United States" itself is a privilege...
Status of citizenship of United States is privilege, and Congress is free to attach any preconditions to its attainment that it deems fit and proper. In re Thanner, D.C.Colo.1966, 253 F.Supp. 283. See, also, Boyd v. Nebraska, Neb.1892, 12 S.Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 162, 36 L.Ed. 103; Application of Bernasconi, D.C.Cal.1953, 113 F.Supp. 71; In re Martinez, D.C.Pa.1947, 73 F.Supp. 101; U.S. v. Morelli, D.C.Cal.1943, 55 F.Supp. 181; In re De Mayo, D.C.Mo.1938, 26 F.Supp. 696; State v. Boyd, 1892, 51 N.W. 602, 31 Neb. 682.
State Citizens, on the other hand, have Human Rights...
"United States citizenship does not entitle citizens to rights and privileges of state citizenship."
[K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236, 256 P. 545 (1927), 48 Supreme Court. 527.]
"We might say that such regulations were unjust, tyrannical, unfit for the regulation of an intelligent state; but, if rights of a citizen are thereby violated, they are of that fundamental class, derived from his position as a citizen of the state, and not those limited rights belonging to him as a citizen of the United States; and such was the decision in Corfield v. Coryell."
[The United States v. Susan B. Anthony (11 2nd. Jud. Cir.] 200, 1873)
"The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment."
[Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99]