"Federal Zones"

[ashlynne39]

Does anyone have a good source of information explaining why this concept of "federal zones" is wrong. I saw the following piece posted on another board. I don't know who authored it but it was posted by a follower and big fan of Pete Hendrickson. When I googled the term "federal zone" I just came up with a bunch of sovereign citizen and anti-tax websites but nothing refuting any of it.

FEDERAL JURISDICTION



How they get away with "Unconstitutional" behavior


The Constitution for the United States clearly sets up the US Congress with a “dual mandate”:
1) to govern the US capitol city, all possessions which the government owns and the government’s insular possessions with “all needful Rules and Regulations” as they see fit and
2) to govern on behalf of the several states in the specific areas defined in the Constitution within the limitations imposed by the Bill of Rights.


Constitution for the United States Article 1, Section 8:


The Congress shall have Power:

Clause 14) To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 17) To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

Clause 18) And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Constitution for the United States Article 4, Section 3:


Clause 2) The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.

The zone of Federal Jurisdiction, where the U.S. Federal Government has exclusive legislative authority, is within the District of Columbia, Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico and the other American Offshore Territories and possessions, and “Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be” (Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings). This is often defined as the Federal Zone.

Federal rules, laws, and jurisdiction can only be applied within the 50 states borders with written permission from the state, for designated Federal Forts, Magazines, Interstate Waterways, and Buildings.

The government can act as king with respect to how it governs itself and its possessions (the federal zone) but when it comes to the several states, the government has very defined and limited roles as described in the Constitution; thus, the dual mandate. It is when the legislative wordsmiths in Washington effect legislation for themselves and their possessions but use words that make it sound like it applies to all of us that they intentionally blur the line between Constitutional Consent and Congressional Overreach.

Does Congress have the right to mandate healthcare insurance over themselves and their possessions? Absolutely! Do they have the right to mandate health insurance for all of us outside of their exclusive legislative jurisdiction? Absolutely Not!

Does Congress have the right to mandate education standards for everyone inside the federal zone? Absolutely! Do they have the right to mandate education standards for all of us outside of their exclusive legislative jurisdiction? Absolutely Not!

Does Congress have the right to mandate the restriction of fire arms for themselves and their possessions? Absolutely! Do they have the right to impose those restrictions on all of us outside of the federal zone? Absolutely Not!

By clever wordsmithing, Congress routinely passes legislation which is well within its power (if legislating for itself and its possessions), legislation which is worded in such a way that the average reader would think it applies to everybody. For example: Congressional legislation often defines “United States” as the District of Columbia, Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico and other insular possessions. And then they pass a law that pertains to all citizens of the “United States”. What they have actually done is pass a law that pertains to themselves and their possessions (which they have a perfect right to do) but they have used words that make the rest of us think that it applies to all of us. After all, in common parlance, we are citizens of the United States – just not the “United States” defined in the legislation.

Thus, when we think Congress is passing laws that are unconstitutional, they are unconstitutional only if congress attempts to impose those laws upon “We the People” beyond the constraints of the Bill of Rights and beyond their exclusive legislative jurisdiction.

Does Congress have the right to pass an unapportioned direct tax on those over whom it exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction? Absolutely! Does it have the right to impose that tax over all of us outside of their exclusive legislative jurisdiction? Absolutely Not!

Is Obama-care unconstitutional? Not inside the federal zone! Does it apply to most of us? NO!

Is the law requiring forced pat downs in airports unconstitutional? Not within the federal zone! Does it apply to most of us? NO!

Is Social Security unconstitutional? Not within the federal zone! Does it apply to most of us? NO!

Has the government made us believe that Obama-care and airport pat downs and social security and a thousand other things (which they can lawfully impose upon the federal zone) apply to all of us outside of their exclusive legislative jurisdiction! Absolutely!

It is time to wake up to the “Dual Mandate” of our federal government and realize that their legitimate use of power in illegitimate ways is robbing us of our inalienable rights, our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and our beloved republic. It is time to realize that those in the Federal Zone can be made slaves of the government but, within our Republic, “We the People” are the master.

[notorial dissent]

This bit of drivel is brought to you by the same group of the collective unconscious who believe that “includes” is limiting, in spite of all evidence and reason to the contrary.

This particular effort is based on totally ignoring the other 13 or so clauses of 1 § 8 and by taking clause 17 and tortuously twisting it to become the controlling clause of 1 § 8 rather than a subordinate clause.

The “false” premise being that the gov’t ONLY has authority within the “Federal Zones” as defined in 1 § 8 17, which is of course the veriest of hooey.

This is a favorite of Pam and several other gurus, all of who are regularly laughed at in court, and Hendrickson to some degree.

[Famspear]

The "federal zone" argument was specifically rejected in the case of United States v. Sato:

Defendants argue that Clause 17 limits the legislative power of Congress such that the only geographical areas over which Congress may legislate, or may exercise its power of taxation, are those areas described in Clause 17. This position is contrary to both the natural reading of the Constitution and the case law. Clause 17 limits not the power of Congress, but the power of the states. "[T]he word 'exclusive' was employed to eliminate any possibility that the legislative power of Congress over the District [of Columbia] was to be concurrent with that of the ceding states." . . . Similarly, it is clear that the power of the Congress to collect taxes, created by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, is an independent power which is not limited by the other specific powers enumerated in Section 8. United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65-66, 56 S. Ct. 312, 319 (1936). It is thus readily apparent that Congress' power to tax extends beyond the exclusive legislative districts contemplated by Clause 17. Defendants' motion to dismiss based on Clause 17 is denied.

--from United States v. Sato, 704 F. Supp. 816, 89-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9257 (N.D. Ill. 1989) (citations omitted; brackets in original).

[notorial dissent]

As I said, laughed at regularly and roundly.

[Prof]

If the Federal Zone nonsense is true, how can EPA,ICE, FBI, Dept. of Ag., etc., enforce laws, rules etc. in every square inch of the US and its territories (CPT -- I'm not too sure about the Indian Nations -- never quite understood the jurisdictional niceties in those enclaves).

And, as LPC likes to say, if any of the functional equivalent of MDMVPBS* expoused by the gurus is true, why don't those of us on this board with substantial incomes and large tax bills use any of this crap? Where are the claims of tax exempt status by the hereditrary fortunes which are invested in non federal assets?

What did Al Capone get convicted on: hint, it was federal tax evasion, not illegal alcohol.

* More David Merril Van Pelt Bull S##t.

[Cpt Banjo]

Use a little common sense. If the legislative power of Congress were limited to the "federal areas", Congress couldn't regulate interstate commerce. But the Constitution says it can.

If the legislative power of Congress were limited to the "federal areas", there would be no money for use in any of the States, because only Congress can coin money; the States can't.

If the legislative power of Congress were limited to the "federal areas", there would be no bankruptcy laws in the States, because only Congtress can enact such laws.

If the legislative power of Congress were limited to the "federal areas", it couldn't tax within the States. Yet the Constitution says that federal excises must be uniform throughout the United States, obviously implying that the power to tax extends throughout the United States (see Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Loughborough v. Blake.)

[LPC]

Does anyone have a good source of information explaining why this concept of "federal zones" is wrong.

My Tax Protester FAQ contains a critique of the "federal areas" argument as it applies to taxes.

The Constitution for the United States clearly sets up the US Congress with a “dual mandate”:
1) to govern the US capitol city, all possessions which the government owns and the government’s insular possessions with “all needful Rules and Regulations” as they see fit and
2) to govern on behalf of the several states in the specific areas defined in the Constitution within the limitations imposed by the Bill of Rights.

As a general overview, that is correct. Congress has general "police power" only in the District of Columbia, federal forts and possessions and other "federal areas" or "federal zones." Within the states of the United States, Congress is limited to the powers expressed in clauses 1 through 16 of Article I, section 8.

Where AFABFOPH goes terribly wrong is in his understanding of the powers of Congress under those other clauses of section 8.

Taking them out of order:

Does Congress have the right to pass an unapportioned direct tax on those over whom it exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction? Absolutely! Does it have the right to impose that tax over all of us outside of their exclusive legislative jurisdiction? Absolutely Not!

At best, that is intentional misleading and at worst it's just plain wrong.

The innuendo is that Congress can't impose an income tax within the states of the United States, but that's clearly wrong because the Congressional power to tax is one of the powers that extends throughout the United States and the 16th Amendment removed any requirement that an income tax be apportioned.

What's weird is that the assertion that Congress can impose an unapportioned direct tax within its area of exclusive jurisdiction might also be wrong. In Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (Wheat.) 317, 318-319 (1820), the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could NOT impose an unapportioned direct tax only within the District of Columbia. (The decision makes no sense to me, but who am I to disagree with Chief Justice Marshall?)

Does Congress have the right to mandate healthcare insurance over themselves and their possessions? Absolutely! Do they have the right to mandate health insurance for all of us outside of their exclusive legislative jurisdiction? Absolutely Not!

Does Congress have the right to mandate education standards for everyone inside the federal zone? Absolutely! Do they have the right to mandate education standards for all of us outside of their exclusive legislative jurisdiction? Absolutely Not!

Does Congress have the right to mandate the restriction of fire arms for themselves and their possessions? Absolutely! Do they have the right to impose those restrictions on all of us outside of the federal zone? Absolutely Not!

This is also weirdly wrong. In the recent Heller decision, the Supreme Court agreed that the 2nd Amendment restricted the ability of Congress to regulate firearms within the District of Columbia, so whatever restrictions the Bill of Rights might impose on Congress are the same inside and outside of any "federal zone."

To be charitable, the author is overlooking the broad power to regulate interstate commerce, which has become very important as the United States has become a mobile and industrialized society. The most often criticized extensions of Congressional power have come through the interstate commerce clause, a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this posting.

[ashlynne39]

Thanks Dan. I knew there had to be some written information refuting this nonsense. I just wasn't sure where to find it. Thanks to everyone for their input.

[nikki2]

If someone decides thay don't want to (1) pay taxes or (2) comply with other federal laws, they search for any possible justification to suport their decision.

The "Federal Zone" is just one of those hare-brained theories to support a preconcieved decision.

The FZ theory approaches the law with blinders on. It ignores the concept of concurrent jurisdiction: the federal government AND state and local goverments have jurisdiction over the same physical territory at the same time. Which jurisdiction has priority is an issue for constitutional law and case law to determine.

More than that, the FZ theory looks at a single portion of the Constitution (conveniently ignoring the rest of the document) and, at the same time, igh=nores the concept of includes / means.

Just because the Constitution specifies that the Federal government shall have exclusive jurisdiction over what is now the District of Columbia does not (except in the minds of the FZ proponents) mean that the federal jurisdiction is LIMITED to that specific area.

Although the FZ proponents go through major mental machinations, their theory is a castle in the air on a foundation of sand.