follow-up on: Union Pacific R.R. charter

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

Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 30, 1998 at 17:53:26:

In Reply to: follow up on: Union Pacific R.R charter posted by KatNip on September 30, 1998 at 16:26:36:

: via NEWSGROUP: misc.taxes

: m singh wrote:

: > I'm baffled by all this tax protester debate. I thought that the Supreme
: > Court ruled in a case in the 1920's or 30's that the 16th amendment
: > granted the congress "no new powers". If income taxes were
: > unconstitutional before the 16th amendment how can they be constitutional
: > now if the 16th amendment granted the congress "no new powers".


That tax was a local tax, enacted under Congress'
plenary, municipal power. As such, there is
no need for such a tax to be either uniform or
apportioned. Therefore, the 16th amendment
was irrelevant, under the holding in Downes
v. Bidwell, U.S. Supreme Court (1901).
See Harlan's dissent, in particular.

See also my discussion in the chapter entitled
"Amendment 16 Post Mortem". That tax was
imposed upon the privilege of profit
generation by a domestic (federal zone)
corporation. Congress originally chartered
the UPRR to drive a railroad through the
Utah Territory. Remember that famous
"Golden Spike" picture, when both crews
finally met and celebrated the first
transcontinental railroad?

From the Union ... to the Pacific ...
a Railroad ... built by a federal Company,
created by Act of Congress.

You MUST understand that Congress wears two hats:

(1) legislature for the federal zone
(2) legislature for the state zone

Howard Freeman covers this in his essay
"The Two United States and the Law,"
published here in the Supreme Law Library.

Now, Congress cannot create a national corporation,
under (2) above; it can ONLY create a federal corporation
under (1) above, because the Tenth Amendment
preserves to the several states the Right
to charter their own (domestic) corporations.

See Daly v. The National Life Insurance Co.
of the USA, Indiana Supreme Court (1878),
for authority on this key point. The headnotes
are appended to the end of the winning brief
in Knox v. U.S. et al.

Inside the federal zone, Congress is free to
create a legislative democracy, because the
Guarantee Clause only binds Congress to
guarantee a Republican Form of government
to the state zone, but NOT to itself!
A Republican Form of Government is a
"rule of law" government, wherein the
uniformity and apportionment rules are
directly enforceable upon any tax which
Congress might impose inside the state zone.

It would make no sense to render an excise tax
uniform across the state zone, if that tax
was ONLY applicable inside the federal zone.

If Congress is taxing the sale of dog leashes
on Capitol grounds, that tax has no application
whatsoever anywhere inside the state zone, yes?

The term "domestic" in the IRC means
"inside the federal zone," because the IRC
is a municipal (read "local") code.
"Domestic" does NOT mean "inside the country,"
as it does in the case of domestic and
international flights to and from airports.

Read "Congresswoman Suspected of Income Tax
Evasion" in the Supreme Law Library, for a
breezy discussion of some proof which has
now leaked out on Congressional stationery.

I hope this helps.

For a very thorough discussion, which is now
res judicata ("the matter has been adjudicated"),
read the winning brief in Knox v. U.S. et al.,
discussed elsewhere in this Supreme Law Forum.

John Knox was one of my pivotal mentors
on this entire project.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Counselor at Law, Federal Witness,
and Private Attorney General

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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