(sigh)
Everyone insists on putting more into this sentence than is actually there.
The United States does NOT mean the entire country...if it did, the additional qualifier of 'and of the State wherein they reside' would be redundant, but it's not.
The *United States* and it's jurisdiction is defined by Article I, Section 8,paragraph 17:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
__________________________________________________
Even though the extent of the United States is CAREFULLY outlined in the Constitution, NO politician or anyone else in the federal government will EVER admit to it. To do so would greatly diminish governmental control.
"When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
– Thomas Jefferson
_________________________
Oh.... and claiming to be a *US citizen* is not necessarily a good thing:
"... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State ..."
U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542:
______________________________________________________________________
The US Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 SCt 617, 626:
"In Baldwin v. Franks ... it was decided that the word `citizen' .... was used in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident', `inhabitant', or `person' ..."
______________________________________________________________________
14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122:
"... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."
______________________________________________________________________
125 Fed 322, 325:
"The thirteenth amendment is a great extension of the powers of the national government."
______________________________________________________________________
U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794:
"The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"
______________________________________________________________________
Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520:
"... the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause" [of the fourteenth amendment]
Of course it does.
if it did, the additional qualifier of 'and of the State wherein they reside' would be redundant, but it's not.
No the additional qualifier means that said person is not only a citizen of the United States but also of the State wherein they reside. It's not redundant at all. They didn't want a southern state saying "well the 14th amendment makes blacks, citizens of the US, but they aren't citizens of our state, even though they live here."
The *United States* and it's jurisdiction is defined by Article I, Section 8,paragraph 17:
No, that paragraph only defines where Congress has "exclusive Legislation" rights. That is not the full extend of it's jurisdiction. According to your logic, the Constitution would only apply to Washington DC and Federal property. Clearly, that is not the case.