STATE CITIZENS ARE SOVERIGN

STATE CITIZENS ARE SOVEREIGN

Here are a few court cites, mainly showing that people OF THE STATES (State Citizens) are sovereign, and that State Citizens are different from US citizens, as the States can NATURALIZE their own Citizens, who however are NOT federal US citizens.
And the reason why State Citizens are NOT also US (federal) citizens, is because State Citizens are members of the dejure Republic, while federal US citizens are members of corporate Democracy, and ONLY corporate US citizens are ELIGIBLE for gov't benefits. State Citizens AREN'T.
And who is eligible? State RESIDENTS. So OBVIOUSLY, if you're a State resident, you CAN'T be a State Citizen, who's the only one that's entitled to protection of the ORGANIC US and State Constitution.
“It is impossible to prove jurisdiction exists absent a substantial nexus with the state, such as voluntary subscription to license. All jurisdictional facts supporting claim that supposed jurisdiction exists must appear on the record of the court.” Pipe Line v. Marathon. 102 S. Ct. 3858 quoting Crowell v Benson 883 US 22.
“It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.” Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997.

Here's the 'SMOKING GUN". People, you're trading your sovereignty for federal BENEFITS!
“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
"The technical niceties of the common law are not regarded. . . .", 1 R.C.L. 31, p. 422. "A jury does not figure, ordinarily, in the trial of an admiralty suit. . . the verdict of the jury merely advisory, and may be disregarded by the court." 1 R.C.L. 40, p. 432. "[The] rules of practice may be altered whenever found to be inconvenient or likely to embarrass the business of the court." 1 R.C.L. 32, p. 423. "A court of admiralty. . . acts upon equitable principles." 1 R.C.L. 17, p. 416. "A libel of information [accusation] does not require all the technical precision of an indictment at common law. If the allegations describe the offense, it is all that is necessary; and if it is founded upon a statute, it is sufficient if it pursues the words of the law." The Emily v. The Caroline, 9 Wheat. 381

“...it is evident that they [US citizens] have not the political rights which are vested in citizens of the States. They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the laws of the United States, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of citizens they cannot enjoy…” People v. De La Guerra,40 Cal. 311, 342 (A.D. 1870) [emphasis added]

“People of a state are entitled to all rights, which formerly belong to the King by his prerogative.” Lansing v Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9,20 (NY).
Problem is that US citizens are NOT people of a State.
The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes
of citizenship in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said:
"...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested."
Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;
"The state can only tax and regulate something it creates". Ward v. Maryland 12 Wallace 418
"The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgement by the states, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment." West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258.

“The people or sovereign are not bound by general word in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign,…..It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King (or the people) he shall not be bound.” People v Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825)
The King ceded his sovereignty to the American people, so they became sovereigns without subjects.
"The right of expatriation is a natural, inherent, and inalienable right and extends to the Indian as well as to the white race."United States, ex rel. Standing Bear, v. George Crook. 25 F.Cas. 695 (1879).
"...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300
That was true until 1868 and the 14th Amendment which created a FEDERAL US citizenship. So since 1868 there are the original American/State Citizens, and FEDERAL (as in District of Columbia) 14th Am. US citizens, both of which exist in one nation, the USA.
"It is not the function of our government to keep the Citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the Citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442