February 22, 2011 5892 Shoreland Trail Orlando, Florida 32807 Re: The PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE

of Article IV, 2, cl. 1. To All Concerned: Fundamental rights are synonymous with civil liberties. WOLF v. COLORADO, 338 U.S. 25, 26-27, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949) (For purposes of ascertaining the restrictions which the Due Process Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] imposed upon the States in the enforcement of their criminal law, we adhere to the views expressed in PALKO v. CONNECTICUT, supra, 302 U.S. 319. That decision speaks to us particularly in matters of civil liberty, . . . . [338 U.S. 25 , 27] Due process of law thus conveys neither formal nor fixed nor narrow requirements. It is the compendious expression for all those rights which the courts must enforce because they are basic to our free society. . . . Representing as it does a living principle, due process is not confined within a permanent catalogue of what may at a given time be deemed the limits or the essentials of fundamental rights. (Emphasis mine)), overruled by MAPP v. OHIO, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), on other grounds; and, our civil liberties are really immunities, or restraints on government. SOWERS v. OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, 20 Ohio Misc. 115, 252 N.E.2d 463, 475 (1969) (Civil rights then, within the meaning of [the Ohio statutory code] . . . are economic rights functioning as legally enforceable claims which are structured in legislation. On the other hand civil liberties are natural rights which appertain originally and essentially to each person as a human being and are inherent in his nature; such rights, which are constitutionally protected, are not actually rights but are immunities, or restraints on government. (Emphasis mine)); for state citizens, they emanate from the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, 2, cl. 1. The United States Supreme Court has held that to construe said Privileges and Immunities Clause, it must be construed in conjunction with the Tenth Amendment. TOOMER V. WITSELL, 334 U.S. 385, 407, 68 S.Ct. 1156, 92 L.Ed. 1460 (1948) ([T]he Privileges-and-Immunities Clause, like the

Contract Clause, must be put in its proper perspective in our constitutional framework. EAST NEW YORK SAV. BANK v. HAHN, 326 U.S. 230, 232, 90 L.Ed. 34, 36, 66 S.Ct. 69, 160 ALR 1279. Like other provisions of the Constitution, the Clause whereby The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States must be read in conjunction with the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.) (Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, whom Mr. Justice JACKSON joins, concurring.); the two are related for the same reason that the Tenth Amendment cannot be fully construed except in light of state citizenship. PARKER v. DISTRICT of COLUMBIA, 478 F.3d 370, 397, 375 U.S.App.D.C. 140 (D.C.Cir. 2007) (Our dissenting colleaguein order to give a meaning to the people in the Second Amendment consistent with her interpretationanalogizes to the people in the Tenth Amendment. Dissent at 403 n. 5. Contrary to her suggestion, however, the Tenth Amendment does not limit the people to state citizens.); but, federal citizenship did not exist at the creation of the Tenth Amendment, and federal citizenship is a creature of the federal government in contradistinction to state citizenship which is a pre-existing status in that English subjectship was converted according to state intents and purposes; PARKER v. DISTRICT of COLUMBIA, 478 F.3d 370, 403 n.5, 375 U.S.App.D.C. 140 (D.C.Cir. 2007) (KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting) (I have not overlooked the language in UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 U.S. 259, 265, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 108 L.Ed.2d 222 (1990), to the effect that the people as used in various of the first Ten Amendments refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. But just as the Tenth Amendment ties the rights reserved thereunder to the people of the individual States, thereby excluding the people of the District, cf. LEE v. FLINTKOTE CO., 593 F.2d 1275, 1278 n. 14 (D.C.Cir.1979) ([T]he District, unlike the states, has no reserved power to be guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment.), the Second Amendment similarly limits the people to those of the States, cf. ADAMS v. CLINTON, 90 F.Supp.2d 35, 45 (D.D.C.2000) ("Although standing alone the phrase people of the several States [in Article I, 2, cl.1] could be read as meaning all the people of the United States and not simply those who are citizens of individual states, [Article 1's] subsequent and repeated references to state[s] . . . make clear that the former was not intended.); see also VERDUGO-

URQUIDEZ, 494 U.S. at 265, 110 S.Ct. 1056 (citing U.S. Const. Art. I, 2, cl. 1).); The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 10th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America, and power to be exercised in the peoples collective capacity is done so via the United States or the Stateas in the State of Florida; so to construe the meaning of to the people in the 10th Amendment with collective connotation would be redundant and superfluous; its meaning lies in state citizens individually. Very Truly Yours,

J. Patrick Simpson