Comment: In order to make the argument

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: So your argument (see in situ)

In order to make the argument

In order to make the argument that you made above, you MUST know what the term "People" as used in the Constitution means!! Blacks were not the "People" protected by the Constitution, neither were natives, women, Chinese, etc.

    ... citizens of the District of Columbia were not granted the

    privilege of litigating in the federal courts on the ground of

    diversity of citizenship. Possibly no better reason for this

    fact exists than such citizens were not thought of when the

    judiciary article [III] of the federal Constitution was drafted.

    ... citizens of the United States ... were also not thought of;

    but in any event a citizen of the United States, who is not a

    citizen of any state, is not within the language of the [federal]


    [Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914]

"It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia"
[U.S. Supreme Court, COHENS v. COM. OF VIRGINIA, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) 19 U.S. 264 (Wheat.)]

so today "persons" (not "People") that have declared themselves to be "citizens OF the UNITED STATES" are not the State Citizens, aka "People" protected by the Constitution of the United States of America, and instead are 14th Amendment persons subject to "civil rights", and limited Constitutional protection where the courts or congress have granted such rights.