A citizen of a state enjoys all civil and political rights. Under the Indian constitution, certain fundamental rights are available only to the citizens, namely: Right against discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth Article 15 ; right to equality of opportunity in matter of public employment Article 16 ; freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence and profession Article 19 ; cultural and educational rights Article 29 and 30 ; and right to vote and become members of the union and state legislatures.
Several offices can also be occupied exclusively by citizens: president Article 58 1 a , vice-president Article 66 2 , judges of the Supreme Court Article 3 and high court Article 2 , governor of a state Article , attorney general Article 76 1 and advocate general Article Equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Article 14 and protection of life or personal liberty Article 21 are applicable to non-citizens as well.
It simply describes categories of persons who are deemed to be citizens of India on the day the Indian constitution was promulgated on January 26, , and leaves citizenship to be regulated by law made by the parliament. Article 11 of the constitution confers power on the parliament to make laws regarding citizenship.
The Indian Citizenship Act, was enacted in exercise of this provision. Who were the persons who were deemed to be citizens of India when the constitution was promulgated? Nowhere, however, does the original Constitution lay down a clear and comprehensive rule about either kind of citizenship. Prior to the Civil War, both state and national citizenship were the subjects of considerable controversy. State citizenship was especially important for practical purposes because it gave access to the jurisdiction of the federal courts that was based on diversity of citizenship, and because Article IV secured certain rights to the citizens of one state who were present in another.
Different theories of citizenship were developed. One view was that national citizenship was dependent on state citizenship, so that those who were state citizens under state law, and only those people, were citizens of the United States. This view raised a question concerning those born or resident in the District of Columbia, or in a federal territory. Another view was that federal law implicitly provided a rule that identified citizens of the United States, for example the rule of citizenship by birth.
Chief Justice Taney concluded that Scott was not a citizen of any state for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction because the Constitution implicitly limited both state and national citizenship on racial grounds, generally excluding individuals like Scott who were of African descent. The Republican Party strongly opposed Dred Scott , in which the Chief Justice also stated that Congress could not bar slavery from the federal territories. At the end of the Civil War, the Republican Party was in control of the 39 th Congress, which started its first session in December , at a time when the former Confederate states had formed new, white-dominated governments that restricted the rights of former slaves.
The statute thus forbade race discrimination among citizens with respect to various legal benefits then called civil rights, but did not dictate the full content of all the rights of citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment as drafted by the Joint Committee on Reconstruction in the spring of did not explicitly deal with citizenship.
The Senate added what is now the first sentence, which grants both national and state citizenship in language quite similar to that of the Civil Rights statute, and the House agreed to the amendment.
The basic principle of a federal rule of race-blind citizenship based on birth and naturalization was not in much dispute, although there was some debate about the restriction of the grant of citizenship to persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The Citizenship Clause has given rise to several controversies. Does the grant of citizenship bring with it any particular legal benefits, and if so what are they?
Are these benefits, whatever they might be, to be defined and enforced exclusively by courts? If there is such a congressional power, does it encompass authority to define rights of citizenship applicable against other private persons?
Legal aliens are entitled to protection under the law and to use of the courts. They may also own property, carry on business, and attend public schools. But aliens cannot vote or hold government office. In some states they are not allowed to practice certain professions until they become citizens. Under United States law, a noncitizen national is a person who is neither a citizen nor an alien but who owes permanent loyalty to the United States.
People in this category have some but not all of the rights of citizens. For example, inhabitants of a United States territory may not have the right to vote. Noncitizen nationals of the United States include those people on the Pacific islands of American Samoa who were born after the territory was taken over by the United States in One member believed that this Draft Article made Indian citizenship cheap. In response, it was pointed out that this Draft Article was stricter than the American law on citizenship.
Few members voluntarily withdrew their amendments, while other amendments which were put to vote were negatived. Laws made under articles 2 and 3 to provide for the amendment of the First and the Fourth Schedul
0コメント