Re: we also have the smoking gun (err, canon :)

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Man of Reason on September 04, 1998 at 13:40:45:

In Reply to: we also have the smoking gun (err, canon :) posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 03, 1998 at 21:13:39:

: The historical record documents undeniable proof that the confusion, ambiguity and jurisdictional deceptions now built into the IRC were deliberate. This historical record provides the "smoking gun" that proves the real intent was deception (read "fraud"). The first Internal Revenue Code was Title 35 of the Revised Statutes of June 22, 1874.

: On December 5, 1898, Mr. Justice Cox of the D.C. Supreme Court delivered an address before the Columbia Historical Society. In this address, he discussed the history of the District of Columbia as follows:

: In June 1866, an act was passed authorizing the
: President to appoint three commissioners to revise and bring
: together all the statutes .... [T]he act does not seem, in
: terms, to allude to the District of Columbia, or even to
: embrace it .... Without having any express authority to do
: so, they made a separate revision and collection of the acts
: of Congress relating to the District, besides the collection
: of general statutes relating to the whole United States.
: Each collection was reported to Congress, to be approved and
: enacted into law .... [T]he whole is enacted into law as
: the body of the statute law of the United States, under the
: title of Revised Statutes as of 22 June 1874. ...

: [T]he general collection might perhaps be considered,
: in a limited sense as a code for the United States, as it
: embraced all the laws affecting the whole United States
: within the constitutional legislative jurisdiction of
: Congress, but there could be no complete code for the entire
: United States, because the subjects which would be proper to
: be regulated by a code in the States are entirely outside
: the legislative authority of Congress.

: [District of Columbia Code, Historical Section]

All-righty then, let's summarize that wordy quote:

Paragraph 1: Congress collected together all the statutes relating to the District of Columbia, all the statutes relating to the remainder of the country, and put them in one set of books called the 'Revised Statutes' and enacted them into law in 1874.

Paragraph 2: In what appears to be a clarification of the phrase 'code for the United States' the Justice further adds that the laws contained in the Revised Statutes 'embraced all the laws affecting the whole United States within the constitutional legislative jurisdiction of Congress', to which he added a note to the effect that the term 'whole United States' did not include those areas under the jurisdiction of any State, only under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

So what's wrong here? Paragraph 1 of this quote supports what I've said in other posts, Congress had jurisdiction over all matters within D.C. (and territories/possessions), and limited jurisdiction over the 50 States (fewer states at the time of the speech). Paragraph 2 merely states that the Revised Statutes contain only the federal laws of the 'whole United States' and specifically does not contain the State laws. Just how does an explanitory clarification become evidence of 'jurisdictional deception'?

Were there not tarriffs after 1898? Wouldn't those tarriffs apply to items entering the country in one of the States? Wouldn't the law imposing those tarriffs be found in Title 26 (or its predecessor)? Yes, yes, and yes. How then can you claim that Title 26 does not apply within one of the 50 States? Seems like those tax laws would still apply today, wouldn't they?

: More than half a century later, the deliberate confusion and ambiguity were problems that not only persisted; they were getting worse by the minute. In the year 1944, during Roosevelt's administration, Senator Barkley made a speech from the floor of the U.S. Senate in which he complained:

: Congress is to blame for these complexities to the extent,
: and only to the extent, to which it has accepted the advice,
: the recommendations, and the language of the Treasury
: Department, through its so-called experts who have sat in on
: the passage of every tax measure since I can remember.
: Every member of the House Ways and Means Committee and every
: member of the Senate Finance Committee knows that every time
: we have undertaken to write a new tax bill in the last 10
: years we have started out with the universal desire to
: simplify the tax laws and the forms through which taxes are
: collected. We have attempted to adopt policies which would
: simplify them. When we have agreed upon a policy, we have
: submitted that policy to the Treasury Department to write
: the appropriate language to carry out that policy; and
: frequently the Treasury Department, through its experts, has
: brought back language so complicated and circumambient that
: neither Solomon nor all the wise men of the East could
: understand it or interpret it.

: [Congressional Record, 78th Congress, 2nd Session]
: [Vol. 90, Part 2, February 23, 1944, pages 1964-5]

Oh Gee, you got me there, the tax code is complicated, I guess I just plain overlooked that fact. Their choice to enact complex code, even if it can't be interpreted, doesn't mean they have no power to write the code at all. You might be able to use this argument to avoid excessive penalties, but I don't think it cuts the mustard for invalidating the power to 'lay and collect taxes' (A1,S8,C1).

So, just which part of these is 'evidence' of jurisdictional deceptions again?

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]