I couldn't find it either, but I did find this synopsis.
http://www.jrank.org/cultures/pages/4298/People-v-de-la-Guerra.html
As a final point, Kimberly asserted that the court's interpretation of the treaty's Article IX would conflict with the California Constitution. The latter, he argued, discriminates by race while Article IX does not; only white male Mexican citizens were allowed to be state electors under the California law. The court saw nothing wrong with this potential conflict: “The possession of all political rights is not essential to [United States] citizenship….[I]t is no violation of the treaty that these qualifications were such as to exclude some of the inhabitants from certain political rights.” Put another way, the court recognized that California, as a separate political entity of the United States, had the power to grant different rights to its citizens than the federal government might.
Seems to me that a citizen of any particular state is also a citizen of the United States, and that a state may grant different political rights to its citizens than the federal government does.
I don't see anything that would indicate, however, that state citizenship would have a darn thing to do with federal taxation.
I do believe that the "voluntary" notion of taxation has to do with the idea that the activity that results in taxation, work for example, is voluntary. In other words, if I wish to avoid federal taxes I may choose to keep my income below taxable levels. It has nothing to do with citizenship.
That's just it though.
National citizenship MUST emanate from that of the State because it was the States that created the federal government.
The Constitution denotes To make us all federal citizens WITHOUT the prior existence of State citizenship makes us 'subjects' of the federal government. When is the last time you heard the feds acknowledge State citizenship?
-----
I do believe that the "voluntary" notion of taxation has to do with the idea that the activity that results in taxation, work for example, is voluntary.
No, you have a right to work. Texas is still a 'right to work' State.
-----
The Founders referred to it as 'the wages of labor'......words which appear nowhere in the Constitution.
I don't know if you're familiar with Joseph Story. He was a Justice and wrote the third Commentaries on the Constitution in 1833. Although this excerpt concerns the commerce clause, the underlined items were NOT considered to be under the scope of the general government.
But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments. When duties are laid, not for purposes of revenue, but of retaliation and restriction, to countervail foreign restrictions, they are strictly within the scope of the power, as a regulation of commerce. But when laid to encourage manufactures, they have nothing to do with it. The power to regulate manufactures is no more confided to congress, than the power to interfere with the systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws of the states.
Joseph Story,Commentaries on the Constitution