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.
Not legally possible. A citizen of any type is, by its nature and artificial or 'political' construction. Artificial constructions have NO rights, only privileges granted by the entity from which they've sprung. Logic dictates that the only thing a political subdivision (or 'legal entity') can create is another of its own kind.
A US citizen is an artificial construction of the statutory 'state', and is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of federal statutory law.
A State citizen is a civil entity under the civil authority of the State. This entity, while not quite human, is protected by the legally binding contract between the States a.k.a. the Constitution.
Natural persons, or residents, are human beings. Unlike artificial creations under 'positive' law, we are subject to natural or 'common' law. The two types of law cannot be mixed. Attempting to do so would be removing the restraints on government so carefully placed there by the Founders and rode the very foundation of the Republic.
What the 14th Amendment attempts to do is create legal entities for everyone without knowledge, consent or full disclosure....the three necessary ingredients for a legally binding contract. This is an illegal act known as an assumption of power and is, from its inception, null and void.
Don't take my word for it. Here are a few court decisions:
"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
(Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383).
______________________________________________________________________
"... 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."
______________________________________________________________________
U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794:
"The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"
______________________________________________________________________
According to your logic, the Constitution would only apply to Washington DC and Federal property. Clearly, that is not the case.
No that is EXACTLY the case. The states created the federal government, and that which you create, you have the right to control. The only power the federal government has over the states is in the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. The federal government has ZERO authority to determine its own jurisdiction or to create anything for anyone.
________________________________________________________
That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774
________________________________________________________
Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind.
Justice James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration, the Constitution, Original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, and the father of the first organized legal training in America.
________________________________________________________
Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Monroe, 1791
________________________________________________________
I consider the war of America against Britain as the country's war, the public's war, or the war of the people in their own behalf, for the security of their natural rights, and the protection of their own property.
Thomas Paine, On Financing the War, 1782
________________________________________________________
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 17, 1782
________________________________________________________
They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please ... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.
Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791
________________________________________________________
"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is indeed, quite true, that that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration the responsibility is purely political, no appeal except to the ultimate tribunal of the public Klement, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws and not of men." For, the very idea that man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself."
Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370