Listen Live 10-5 CST
Call 1-712-432-0900 extension 957464# ( *6 to talk )
LIBERTY TREE TV VIDEO OF THE WEEK
ISIS = Israel Secret Intelligence Service
SUPER SCAM gives a detailed explanation of our Constitution’s taxing limitations, including the Sixteenth Amendment. Key sections of the Internal Revenue Code and the Constitution show that the Code does not impose an income tax on the earnings or other receipts of U.S. citizens. The deceptive wording in the Internal Revenue Code which leads the public to incorrectly believe that the taxing provisions of the law apply to them is revealed.
Our country or nation was created by the Declaration of Independence which was a unified declaration of freedom by thirteen colonies which united in a single, composite body defined as united (meaning joined together in common interest) states of America. Therefore, in forming a nation as a composite body of thirteen separate former colonies, now known as states, our founders in our Constitution gave the new federal government very limited and defined powers as set forth in Article 1, Section 8 thereof. As the following authorities, including the Supreme Court, will show, all law, federal and state, is territorial, meaning geographically-defined, before any legislative authority comes into play. Otherwise stated, jurisdiction is always territorial as well as legislative; the law simply does not apply until the subject matter in controversy has first been territorially authorized within defined geographical boundaries, and after which our Constitution defines the very limited legislative powers of the federal government in Article 1, Section 8 wherein those specified powers are specifically defined. President James Madison noted in the Federalist Papers: “The powers delegated to the proposed Constitution are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite…Its (the federal government) jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several states a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.”
The U.S. Supreme Court in Collector v. Day, 78 U.S. 113 (1870) stressed the independent yet paramount sovereignty of the states over the federal government stating:
…in respect to the reserve powers the state is as sovereign and independent as the general government. ...the reserved rights of the states, such as the right to pass laws, to give effect to laws through executive action, to administer justice through the courts, and to employ all necessary agencies for legitimate purposes of state government, are not proper subjects of the taxing power of Congress. (emphasis added)
In keeping with that ruling of the Supreme Court, we are instructed that the federal government has jurisdictional authority to tax incomes only from those living within their limited geographical and legislative jurisdiction and control inside federal boundaries.
And, in this connection, the U.S. Government Printing Office itself, in 1956 issued Part One of a Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States. This report cited at great lengths the problems of people who live in federal areas such as the District of Columbia and military reservations within the states and other federal possessions in the islands such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa where the national government has total control and legislative jurisdiction. Remembering that this is a U.S. government report, we can readily see that our government is admitting that its legislative power including the imposition of taxes on persons, activities and properties is limited to those living in a defined geographic area that has been authorized by Congress and no others, such as within the states. Therefore, the Constitution authorizes Congress to impose certain taxes but only within these exclusive federal areas which, again, would include only the District of Columbia, federal enclaves within the states and the territorial island possessions.
Interestingly, this same report notes that the Attorney General of the United States in 1940 wrote to the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee that: “criminal jurisdiction of the federal courts is restricted to federal reservations over which the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction…” (again meaning D.C., the enclaves and possessions). So, in the words of the Attorney General of the United States himself, only if a crime is committed in one of those places does a federal court have jurisdiction to try it. This means that all criminal income tax trials in U.S. District Court are illegal unless the defendant lives within the District of Columbia or some other federal area. Emphasizing further this limited territorial and legislative jurisdiction, Title 18, Section 7 of the criminal code, which deals with “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States” shows that such jurisdiction also includes “(1) the high seas; (2) any American ship; (3) any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive concurrent jurisdiction thereof,…”. More recently, federal jurisdiction was broadened to include jurisdiction over government aircraft and space vehicles. So the government has no other territorial and, hence, legislative jurisdiction meaning they have none within the territorial boundaries of the fifty states of the union except the federal enclaves inside state borders which may have been ceded to the federal government! For those of us who live within the states, the government cannot make laws because they have no geographic, and therefore, no legislative jurisdictional authority inside the states!
In April of 1873, Supreme Court Justice Miller wrote the ruling in The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36. In a discussion about the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which was ratified in 1868, Justice Miller said: “
It has been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States
(meaning national citizenship) except as he was (also) a citizen of one of the states
composing the union. Those, therefore, who had been born and resided always in
the District of Columbia or in the territories, though within the United States, were
not citizens… (emphasis added)
Remembering that Justice Miller was commenting in this decision in 1873 soon after the War Between the States and following the freedom of the slaves, it is this writer’s opinion that the Fourteenth Amendment created a new and distinct class of citizens (primarily black, former slaves) who were given possible dual citizenship by the wording in the amendment which defined them as: “…citizens of the United States (federal territory) and of the state wherein they reside.” Therefore, by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment in1868, all people, including former slaves, whether resident in northern or southern states, were proclaimed citizens of both the state in which they lived as well as being a citizen of the union which we refer to as the united states of America. I think that this conclusion is made clear by the wording in the amendment which states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No
state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States nor shall any state deprive any person or life,
liberty or property without due process of law; …” (emphasis added)
So, the wording clearly establishes both national (or so-called federal) as well as state citizenship, and in that sense, those relatively few former slaves or others who might have been born and/or lived always within federal boundaries of D.C., federal enclaves within the states or the federal territories were, by reason of the amendment, as much citizens as citizens born and/or living in the states of the union. Justice Miller in the Slaughterhouse Cases went on in his ruling to demonstrate and explain this two-citizenship reality when he stated:
The distinction between citizenship of the United States (being federal citizenship) and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established. Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States (meaning within federal territory) without being a citizen of a state, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the state to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the union. It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual. (emphasis added)
Remember-this is our Supreme Court speaking-and their word is law! Residence determines a citizen’s state or federal citizenship.
We must remember that our Founding Fathers were all leading citizens of the colonies and, as such, were extremely possessive of what we today would call states rights and were very hesitant in writing the Constitution to grant any unnecessary powers to the federal government, which is the reason why such powers are restricted in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution with all other powers being retained by either the states in the Ninth Amendment or the people themselves in the Tenth Amendment. Such retention of state and people power is reflected precisely in the territorial or geographic jurisdictional restriction noted herein. So the Founding Fathers restricted the national government’s legislative authority in a geographic sense to those federal areas previously mentioned. Even then, as many of the cession grants by states to the federal government of defined territory within state borders will show states were very possessive in ceding limited rights and territory within their boundaries for the purpose of authorized federal enclaves.
So the Supreme Court Slaughterhouse ruling has succinctly identified two types of citizenship that exists in our nation today. We can all be either a citizen of a particular one of the fifty states of the union or we can be a “United States (meaning only federal territory) citizen” subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government if we live in the District of Columbia, the federal enclaves or the federal territorial island possessions, and the tax laws are applicable only to United States citizens residing on federal ground-not to state citizens!
Our Constitution was both written by and was enacted for the protection and enjoyment of the citizens of the states of the union who founded our nation. Since the Fourteenth Amendment created a new class of federal citizens, the question arises are these “citizens” also protected, like state citizens, by the Constitution and its taxation apportionment requirement? Has our Supreme Court addressed this question of whether these federal “citizens” are protected by our Constitution like state citizens?
Given the foregoing question, it is now time to look at the statutory law as embodied in the Internal Revenue Code. In this writer’s opinion, the governing regulation 1.1-1 which supposedly implements Code Section 1 of the I.R. Code is clearly unconstitutional as it is overly broad by including in its wording the word “citizen” which appears nowhere in the parent Code Section. Consequently, although I remain convinced that regulation 1.1-1 is unlawful for that reason, even if it were an acceptable regulation at law, as one that correctly implements its parent Code Section, is the wording “citizen or resident of the United States” (note capital “U” for “United” and capital “S” for “States” as used therein describing those upon whom the Code imposes s tax a reference only to residents of the District of Columbia, the enclaves and the island possessions, but not to those persons who are residents of one of the fifty states? If so, the newly-freed former slaves who live in one of the states gained the protection of our Constitution by the amendment, but those few who live within federal territory, although gaining national citizenship by the amendment, did not gain that same protection of the Constitution by the amendment against direct taxation as state citizens. Therefore, even if this implementing regulation were not unconstitutional for the overly broad wording it contains, for the reason stated, its provisions would not apply to state citizens anyway because it is limited to those federal citizens residing inside federal territory. In summary, since the national government has territorial and, therefore, legislative jurisdiction over citizens of the “United States”, meaning those living in defined federal territories only, does this newly-acquired citizenship give them the taxing limitations of our Constitution? I think it does, but some others think not.
It might be noteworthy that a judicially-recognized lawyer/authority on taxation by the name of Roger Foster wrote a piece entitled A Treatise on the Federal Income Tax Under the Act of 1913. Soon after that act became law, in this treatise Foster stated that: “The tax applies to all citizens in the United States (meaning those living in federal areas), wherever resident, to all residents (meaning aliens) of the United States irrespective of their citizenship, to the income of all property owned and every business, trade and profession carried on (meaning conducted) in the United States (meaning federal lands) by persons residing elsewhere (meaning those doing business in federal territories). It is levied in Alaska, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Philippine Islands, when such construction is necessary to carry out its provisions…”. Clearly, here is more authoritarian support that application of the term “United States”, as used in the 1913 law, was restricted to federal territories as Mr. Foster specifically notes at the end of the previous quotation. It still is in the law today, but it doesn’t answer the constitutional question posed in the preceding paragraph as to whether “citizenship” gives those living in federal areas the protection of our Constitution. Again, I think it does, but I recognize there are differences of opinion among many scholars.
Taking advantage of the uninformed layman’s misunderstanding of the correct statutory meaning of the term “United States”, millions of American state citizens, failing to recognize the lack of territorial (meaning geographic) jurisdiction and, hence, legislative jurisdiction as well, have been voluntarily filing tax returns and paying a tax that they have never owed for over 100 years since passage of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. This territorial prohibition alone against taxation of state citizens by the IRS is simply another prohibition over and above the many Supreme Court cases that prohibit taxation of every state citizens’ God-given, constitutional right to earn a living by his own brawn or brain power!
As devout Christians whose primary loyalty was to their Creator God Almighty, our nation’s Founding Fathers who were state (colony) citizens were intensely committed to acquisition of the freedoms from the oppressive government that they had long endured from the British Crown. This impassioned concern gave rise to the American Revolution and was perhaps best illustrated by their abhorrence embodied in their demand for an end to British “taxation without representation”. Such conviction against the greed of totalitarian government is, perhaps, best embodied in the last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence as follows:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General
Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme judge of the world for the
Rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good
People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United
Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they
Are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political
Connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be
Totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full
Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliance, establish Commerce,
And to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right
Do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the
Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our
Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor. (emphasis added)
A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another…shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
Know the truth and the truth shall make you free. John 8:32 (KJV)