Black’s Law Dictionary Capitulates with Us and Defines “U.S. Citizen” as a “national”!

SOURCE: https://sedm.org/blacks-law-dictionary-capitulates-with-us-and-defines-u-s-citizen-as-a-national/

Black’s Law Dictionary 11th Edition, p. 1853 now adds a DECEPTIVE definition of “U.S. citizen” and agrees PARTIALLY with us on its definition:

The above:

Is consistent with the definition found in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22), which defines a STATUTORY citizen and NOT a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen.
Is also consistent with the Department of State Regulations at 22 C.F.R. 51.1, which says:
“22 C.F.R. Part 51 Passports
§ 51.1 Definitions.
U.S. national means a U.S. citizen or a U.S. non-citizen national.”
Fails to recognize the TWO types of “nationals of the United States”, which are mutually exclusive and non-overlapping:
3.1 “national of the United States OF AMERICA under the Articles of confederation and the constitution” This is the United States*** on this website.
3.2 “national of the United States** (federal territory). This is the United States** on this website.

HOWEVER, nowhere in Title 8 of the U.S. Code is a CONSTITUTIONAL or Fourteenth Amendment or “national of the United States*** OF AMERICA” even MENTIONED. Under the rules of statutory construction, that means they are PURPOSEFULLY excluded:

“Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100.Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another. When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 581]

“When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term’s ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) (“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term”); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 (“As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term “means” . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'”); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read “as a whole,” post at 998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General’s restriction — “the child up to the head.” Its words, “substantial portion,” indicate the contrary.”

[Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)]

Further, the D.C. Circuit Court has held that Title 8 statutes ARE NOT NECESSARY in the case of CONSTITUTIONAL citizens, thus implying that these statutes DO NOT RELATE to CONSTITUTIONAL citizens.

Finally, this Court is mindful of the years of past practice in which territorial citizenship has been treated as a statutory [PRIVILEGE!], and not a constitutional, right. In the unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, birthright citizenship was conferred upon their inhabitants by various statutes many years after the United States acquired them. See Amicus Br. at 10-11. If the Citizenship Clause guaranteed birthright citizenship in unincorporated territories, these statutes would have been unnecessary. While longstanding practice is not sufficient to demonstrate constitutionality, such a practice requires special scrutiny before being set aside. See, e.g., Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U.S. 22, 31 (1922) (Holmes, J.) (“If a thing has been practiced for two hundred years by common consent, it will need a strong case for the Fourteenth Amendment to affect it[.]”); Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970) (“It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use . . . . Yet an unbroken practice . . . is not something to be lightly cast aside.”). And while Congress cannot take away the citizenship of individuals covered by the Citizenship Clause, it can bestow citizenship upon those not within the Constitution’s breadth. See U.S. Const, art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 (“Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory belonging to the United States[**].”); id. at art. I, § 8, cl. 4 (Congress may “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . ..”). To date, Congress has not seen fit to bestow birthright citizenship upon American Samoa, and in accordance with the law, this Court must and will respect that choice.16

[Tuaua v. U.S.A, 951 F.Supp.2d. 88 (2013)]

Thus, the STATUTORY “citizen” in Title 8 is for territories and possessions, such as Puerto Rico, which used to be a territory and is now a possession, but its inhabitants are STILL STATUTORY but not CONSTITUTIONAL citizens under 8 U.S.C. 1401. Puerto Ricans, when they come to the states, STILL have to be naturalized in order to VOTE in the states.

So, Black’s is merely adding to the confusion, not removing it. They are EQUIVOCATING to make you believe that all people who call themselves “nationals” are ALSO STATUTORY “citizens” if they are born or naturalized anywhere in the COUNTRY, but they are not. A “citizen” is a NATIONAL who CONSENTS to be civilly government by the civil statutory law. Those who DO NOT consent to be CIVILLY governed or to receive any PRIVILEGES incident to the civil statutory law REMAIN common law “nationals” but not STATUTORY “citizens”.

There are TWO ways to acquire NATIONALITY at birth that are MUTUALLY exclusive and NON-OVERLAPPING. Blacks Law definition of “citizen” wants you to ASSUME they are the SAME THING.:

Birth in a CONSTITUTIONAL state of the Union, under the Fourteenth Amendment. This is a CONSTITUTIONAL “citizen of the United States” AT BIRTH.
Birth in a territory or possession under 8 U.S.C. 1401. This is a STATUTORY “U.S. citizen”.

Even item 1 above is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment AT BIRTH. He is NOT OBLIGATED TO REMAIN one and can declare “national” status thereafter if he or she does NOT seek privileges or the STATUTORY obligations attached to them.

Further, STATUTORY “citizen” civil status under 8 U.S.C. 1401 and 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c) are both VOLUNTARY privileges. This MUST be so, because they come with obligations, and slavery is unconstitutional everywhere in the COUNTRY, not just in the states. If you were born or naturalized in a constitutional state and don’t want the OBLIGATIONS, then you avoid declaring or invoking the “benefits” of the STATUTORY “citizen” privilege and just call yourself a NATIONAL who is NOT a STATUTORY “citizen” described in 8 U.S.C. 1401 or 26 CFR 1.1-1(c). Such a party is described in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(21).

Even the statutory “citizen” in 8 U.S.C. 1401 IS NOT the same “citizen” as the one who the income tax liability is imposed upon in 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c). The Rules of Statutory Construction require that a word within ONE TITLE such as Title 26 CANNOT be presumed to be the same as that in ANOTHER title such as Title 8. THE “STATUTORY citizen” upon whom the income tax is imposed in 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c) is a Department of Treasury Employee who works for the Secretary of the Treasury! For proof, see:

How American Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf

States of the Union are, instead, LEGISLATIVELY but not CONSTITUTIONALY “foreign states” as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(14). This so because they are self-governing and have their own constitutions and laws that REPLACE those of the national government. None of the Subject matters mentioned in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution allow the national government to legislate against those domiciled in the exclusive jurisdiction of a state of the Union. They can manage ONLY their PROPERTY within the states under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2. PEOPLE are not property, nor is there any constitutional authority to CREATE new public offices (such as “citizen”) by loaning or granting government property or “benefits”, including CIVIL statuses such as “person”, “citizen”, “resident”, etc. Doing so would violate 4 U.S.C. 72 as well.