Federalism

The movement claim that United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), supports a consent-theory framework under which citizenship is 'voluntarily submitted' and individuals can decline submission is unsupported

Byron Beers's Treatise #3 cites Chief Justice Waite's *United States v. Cruikshank*, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), for the proposition that 'the citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.' The Treatise #3 extraction identifies this as 'the most dangerous citation for Beers's opponents' — if citizenship is voluntary submission, the inverse implication (non-submission = non-citizenship = non-jurisdiction) supports the corpus's consent-theory framework. The quote is real. The doctrinal direction is not. Waite was describing dual-sovereignty federalism: a citizen residing in a state owes allegiance to both state and federal sovereigns and cannot complain about being subject to both, because the dual-sovereign structure is the federal compact the citizen participates in by virtue of residing within the polity. The 'voluntary submission' is to the *structure* of federalism — not to a contract that the citizen can individually withdraw from. The case is also doctrinally and ethically fraught for additional reasons: *Cruikshank* arose from the Colfax massacre and is one of the most racially-destructive opinions in U.S. constitutional history, gutting federal prosecution of Reconstruction-era racial violence. Citing it as supportive authority for any framework requires confronting what the case actually did.