Article III Court or Bust!

[rachel]

Based on her posts on this thread alone, I think you can count on her complying.

U.S. vs. Susan B Anthony, 24 fed. case289 (1873)

" The rights of the Citizens of the states, are such are not under consideration in the 14th Amendment and are fully guarranteed by other provisions"

There is a clear distinction between national and State citizenship, U.S. citizenship does not entitle citizen of the privileges and Immunities of the Citizen of the State. K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P 545, affirmed 49 S Ct 47, 278 US 123

Now find a case that says that the jurisdiction of a court is dependent on the citizenship of the parties.

Like I said Hodges didnt provide evidence he wasnt a "U.S. citizen" to escape 26CFR 1.1-1 and 26CFR 1.1-1(c).
The question you are trying to prove is:
A state Citizen is subject to the jurisdiction from just being a citizen?
A state citizen is only subject to the 17 enumerated powers granted to Congress by the People.

A state Citizen is a sovern over and above any jurisdiction and citizenship that which the 14th establishes as clearly demonstrated by "U.S. vs. Susan B anthony".

Chisholm vs. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, IL.ED 440 (1793)
"At the revolution, the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truely the Soveregns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the Sovereignty."

U.S. vs. Herron, 20 wall. 251,255 (1874)
" but where a statute is general, and thereby any prerogative, Right, title, or interest divested or taken from the king, in such case the king is not bound, unless the statute is made to extendto him by express words"

Why dont you prove what you are trying to prove yourself.
Besides you know as well as I know that illegals are subject to Congress just the same as those people of the territories and possessions.
They are not sovern as state Citizens and possess no privileges or immunities as states Citizens. They are freaken illegal!

Really!
Are you trying to prove your incompetencies to understanding law or just showing the empty cool-aid cup is in your hand and sporting a cool-aid mustache?

[Randall]

Based on her posts on this thread alone, I think you can count on her complying.

U.S. vs. Susan B Anthony, 24 fed. case289 (1873)

" The rights of the Citizens of the states, are such are not under consideration in the 14th Amendment and are fully guarranteed by other provisions"

There is a clear distinction between national and State citizenship, U.S. citizenship does not entitle citizen of the privileges and Immunities of the Citizen of the State. K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P 545, affirmed 49 S Ct 47, 278 US 123

Now find a case that says that the jurisdiction of a court is dependent on the citizenship of the parties.

Of course if isn't a citizen, he can still be convicted, serve time, and then be deported.

[LPC]

Like I said Hodges didnt provide evidence he wasnt a "U.S. citizen" to escape 26CFR 1.1-1 and 26CFR 1.1-1(c).

That's not what the court said in the Hodges opinion.

The problem wasn't a lack of evidence. The problem was that the claim itself was silly. Read what the court said:

"We reject the argument that the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over Hodges and violated Hodges' due process and equal protection rights because Hodges admits he is a citizen of Georgia and is domiciled in Georgia."

Once Hodges admitted that he was a citizen and resident of Georgia, it was game over, because he was admitting that the federal district court had jurisdiction over him regardless of any "evidence" of whether or not he was a "U.S. citizen."

And federal taxation is *NOT* limited to "U.S. citizens" regardless of how you define "U.S. citizen." This is illustrated by the regulation you yourself cite, which states that:

“In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.” Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(b).

And:

“Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ....”

Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1).

In this respect, you might want to read Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution. It plainly states that "The judicial Power [of the United States that is vested in the courts established by Congress] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and EQuity, arising under .... the Laws of the United States, ... to Controversies ... between Citizens of different States...." In order to exercise judicial power under the laws of the United States, or to disputes between citizens of different states, the federal courts necessarily have power over the citizens and residents of the states of the United States.

Finally, read what the courts have had to say about the claim that one can avoid the federal income tax by claiming some kind of different citizenship:

“Also basic to Mr. Sloan’s 'freedom from income tax theory' is his contention that he is not a citizen of the United States, but rather, that he is a freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the State of Indiana, and a 'master'--not 'servant'--of his government. As a result, he claims that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States. This strange argument has been previously rejected as well. [Citations omitted] ... Mr. Sloan’s proposition that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States is simply wrong.”

United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992).

“And, finally, we reject appellants’ contention that they are not citizens of the United States, but rather “Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota” and, consequently, not subject to taxation. See United States v. Kruger, 923 F.2d 587, 587-88 (8th Cir.1991) (rejecting similar argument as “absurd”).”

United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. den. 510 U.S. 1193 (1994).

“Appellant challenges the district court’ jurisdiction by contending that because he is a state citizen, the United States government lacks the constitutional authority both to subject him to federal tax laws and to prosecute him for failing to comply with those laws. Citing to Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856), appellant argues that as a white, natural born, state citizen, he is not subject to the taxing power of Congress. This argument is completely without merit. As this court has made clear in the past, claims that a particular person is ‘not a [federal] taxpayer because [he or] she is an absolute, free-born and natural individual’ constitutionally immune to federal laws is frivolous and, in civil cases, can serve as the basis for sanctions. United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937, n. 3 (9th Cir. 1986).”

United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146 (9th Cir. 1990).

"To the extent the Monfortons contend that as ‘Sovereign State Citizens of Washington States’ they are not subject to federal income tax, this contention is frivolous.”

Monforton v. United States, No. CV-94-00058-FVS, KTC 1995-354, n. 2, No. CV-94-00058-FVS, (9th Cir. 1995), (unpublished).

“The Epperlys next argue that since they are ‘American Inhabitants’ who possess sovereign powers and immunities, they are properly classified under the tax code as ‘nonresident aliens’ and are not subject to taxation by the federal government. Such an argument is frivolous.”

Epperly v. United States, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 32286 (9th Cir. 1992), (unpublished).

“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: (1) individuals (“free born, white, preamble, sovereign, natural, individual common law `de jure’ citizens of a state, etc.”) are not “persons” subject to taxation under the Internal Revenue code; ....”

Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

The question you are trying to prove is:
A state Citizen is subject to the jurisdiction from just being a citizen?

Jurisdiction of what?

As I said before, the jurisdiction of a court over a person is determined by the person's presence within the geographical area served by the court.

If you're talking about the power to tax, Congress has the power to tax (a) the income of all U.S. citizens, regardless of where the citizens live and where the income is earned; (b) the income of all residents of the states of the United States, regardless of where the income is earned; and (c) all income earned from sources within the states of the United States, regardless of the citizenship or residence of the taxpayer.

A state citizen is only subject to the 17 enumerated powers granted to Congress by the People.

Yes, the powers of Congress are limited to the powers described in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. And one of those powers is the power to tax.

A state Citizen is a sovern over and above any jurisdiction and citizenship that which the 14th establishes as clearly demonstrated by "U.S. vs. Susan B anthony".

That's not what the court said in what you quoted before. What you quoted said that rights of state citizenship are not protected by the 14th Amendment. That's very different from what you're now claiming.

[rachel]

Like I said Hodges didnt provide evidence he wasnt a "U.S. citizen" to escape 26CFR 1.1-1 and 26CFR 1.1-1(c).

That's not what the court said in the Hodges opinion.

The problem wasn't a lack of evidence. The problem was that the claim itself was silly. Read what the court said:

"We reject the argument that the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over Hodges and violated Hodges' due process and equal protection rights because Hodges admits he is a citizen of Georgia and is domiciled in Georgia."

Once Hodges admitted that he was a citizen and resident of Georgia, it was game over, because he was admitting that the federal district court had jurisdiction over him regardless of any "evidence" of whether or not he was a "U.S. citizen."

And federal taxation is *NOT* limited to "U.S. citizens" regardless of how you define "U.S. citizen." This is illustrated by the regulation you yourself cite, which states that:

“In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.” Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(b).

And:

“Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ....”

Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1).

In this respect, you might want to read Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution. It plainly states that "The judicial Power [of the United States that is vested in the courts established by Congress] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and EQuity, arising under .... the Laws of the United States, ... to Controversies ... between Citizens of different States...." In order to exercise judicial power under the laws of the United States, or to disputes between citizens of different states, the federal courts necessarily have power over the citizens and residents of the states of the United States.

Finally, read what the courts have had to say about the claim that one can avoid the federal income tax by claiming some kind of different citizenship:

“Also basic to Mr. Sloan’s 'freedom from income tax theory' is his contention that he is not a citizen of the United States, but rather, that he is a freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the State of Indiana, and a 'master'--not 'servant'--of his government. As a result, he claims that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States. This strange argument has been previously rejected as well. [Citations omitted] ... Mr. Sloan’s proposition that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States is simply wrong.”

United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992).

“And, finally, we reject appellants’ contention that they are not citizens of the United States, but rather “Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota” and, consequently, not subject to taxation. See United States v. Kruger, 923 F.2d 587, 587-88 (8th Cir.1991) (rejecting similar argument as “absurd”).”

United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. den. 510 U.S. 1193 (1994).

“Appellant challenges the district court’ jurisdiction by contending that because he is a state citizen, the United States government lacks the constitutional authority both to subject him to federal tax laws and to prosecute him for failing to comply with those laws. Citing to Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856), appellant argues that as a white, natural born, state citizen, he is not subject to the taxing power of Congress. This argument is completely without merit. As this court has made clear in the past, claims that a particular person is ‘not a [federal] taxpayer because [he or] she is an absolute, free-born and natural individual’ constitutionally immune to federal laws is frivolous and, in civil cases, can serve as the basis for sanctions. United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937, n. 3 (9th Cir. 1986).”

United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146 (9th Cir. 1990).

"To the extent the Monfortons contend that as ‘Sovereign State Citizens of Washington States’ they are not subject to federal income tax, this contention is frivolous.”

Monforton v. United States, No. CV-94-00058-FVS, KTC 1995-354, n. 2, No. CV-94-00058-FVS, (9th Cir. 1995), (unpublished).

“The Epperlys next argue that since they are ‘American Inhabitants’ who possess sovereign powers and immunities, they are properly classified under the tax code as ‘nonresident aliens’ and are not subject to taxation by the federal government. Such an argument is frivolous.”

Epperly v. United States, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 32286 (9th Cir. 1992), (unpublished).

“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: (1) individuals (“free born, white, preamble, sovereign, natural, individual common law `de jure’ citizens of a state, etc.”) are not “persons” subject to taxation under the Internal Revenue code; ....”

Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

The question you are trying to prove is:
A state Citizen is subject to the jurisdiction from just being a citizen?

Jurisdiction of what?

As I said before, the jurisdiction of a court over a person is determined by the person's presence within the geographical area served by the court.

If you're talking about the power to tax, Congress has the power to tax (a) the income of all U.S. citizens, regardless of where the citizens live and where the income is earned; (b) the income of all residents of the states of the United States, regardless of where the income is earned; and (c) all income earned from sources within the states of the United States, regardless of the citizenship or residence of the taxpayer.

A state citizen is only subject to the 17 enumerated powers granted to Congress by the People.

Yes, the powers of Congress are limited to the powers described in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. And one of those powers is the power to tax.

A state Citizen is a sovern over and above any jurisdiction and citizenship that which the 14th establishes as clearly demonstrated by "U.S. vs. Susan B anthony".

That's not what the court said in what you quoted before. What you quoted said that rights of state citizenship are not protected by the 14th Amendment. That's very different from what you're now claiming.

Out of all that crap you just cited the power to tax is only subjected onto those "U.S. citizens" as 26CFR 1.1-1(c) describes.
Where did 26CFR1.1-1(c) get the definition to a "U.S. citizen"?
Only from the 14th amendment LPC who are subject to that jurisdiction.
What did U.S. vs. Susan B. Anthony say about the 14th amendment you freaken idiot?
It doesnt apply but to a certain class of persons. Therefore idiot just because Hodges himself claims to be a sovern doesnt prove he wasnt acting like one when he applied the ssn to a w4.
Thats contrary action to what he claims to be. He wouldnt be in court if he didnt apply the ssn to a w4 like a good little "U.S.citizen" is required to do.
Moreover the 16th doesnt say who is being taxed and Congress has only the power to tax the subordinate 14th amendment "U.S. citizen" as explained in U.S. vs. Herron, 20 wall. 251,255 (1874).

[Nikki]

Out of all that crap you just cited the power to tax is only subjected onto those "U.S. citizens" as 26CFR 1.1-1(c) describes.
Where did 26CFR1.1-1(c) get the definition to a "U.S. citizen"?
Only from the 14th amendment LPC who are subject to that jurisdiction.
What did U.S. vs. Susan B. Anthony say about the 14th amendment you freaken idiot?
It doesnt apply but to a certain class of persons. Therefore idiot just because Hodges himself claims to be a sovern doesnt prove he wasnt acting like one when he applied the ssn to a w4.
Thats contrary action to what he claims to be. He wouldnt be in court if he didnt apply the ssn to a w4 like a good little "U.S.citizen" is required to do.
Moreover the 16th doesnt say who is being taxed and Congress has only the power to tax the subordinate 14th amendment "U.S. citizen" as explained in U.S. vs. Herron, 20 wall. 251,255 (1874).

A CORRECT STATEMENT !!!

The amendment does not, in fact, address WHO, it specifiec "WHAT"

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

In this case, the "what" is INCOMES. There is no mention of citizens, corporations, estates, resident aliens, partnerships, or anything wlse. The tax is applied on income.

Now, if you can find anything in the 14th (or any other amendment) that grants preference to any specific type of income, then you win.

Otherwise, you still haven't demonstrated a single portion of the Constitution, its amendments, federal law or court decision which supports a single one of your inane theories.

In fact, even in the face of being presented with specific court decisions which address, and shoot down, each of your theories, you persist in your delusions. If your writing style werent't unique to yourself, I'd be open to considering that you were one of our other deluded friends posting under an alias. However, you seem to have your own particular type of dysthinksia -- the ability to ignore facts that don't SPECIFICALLY say "Rachel is wrong."

[rachel]

Out of all that crap you just cited the power to tax is only subjected onto those "U.S. citizens" as 26CFR 1.1-1(c) describes.
Where did 26CFR1.1-1(c) get the definition to a "U.S. citizen"?
Only from the 14th amendment LPC who are subject to that jurisdiction.
What did U.S. vs. Susan B. Anthony say about the 14th amendment you freaken idiot?
It doesnt apply but to a certain class of persons. Therefore idiot just because Hodges himself claims to be a sovern doesnt prove he wasnt acting like one when he applied the ssn to a w4.
Thats contrary action to what he claims to be. He wouldnt be in court if he didnt apply the ssn to a w4 like a good little "U.S.citizen" is required to do.
Moreover the 16th doesnt say who is being taxed and Congress has only the power to tax the subordinate 14th amendment "U.S. citizen" as explained in U.S. vs. Herron, 20 wall. 251,255 (1874).

A CORRECT STATEMENT !!!

The amendment does not, in fact, address WHO, it specifiec "WHAT"

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

In this case, the "what" is INCOMES. There is no mention of citizens, corporations, estates, resident aliens, partnerships, or anything wlse. The tax is applied on income.

Now, if you can find anything in the 14th (or any other amendment) that grants preference to any specific type of income, then you win.

Otherwise, you still haven't demonstrated a single portion of the Constitution, its amendments, federal law or court decision which supports a single one of your inane theories.

In fact, even in the face of being presented with specific court decisions which address, and shoot down, each of your theories, you persist in your delusions. If your writing style werent't unique to yourself, I'd be open to considering that you were one of our other deluded friends posting under an alias. However, you seem to have your own particular type of dysthinksia -- the ability to ignore facts that don't SPECIFICALLY say "Rachel is wrong."

"Income" is not defined statutorily or constitutionally, but what Mr. Evan doesnt want to admit is that not everyone falls within the citizenship or jurisdiction established by the 14th amendment which is a citizenship in a jurisdiction that Congress taxes.

[Joey Smith]

not everyone falls within the citizenship or jurisdiction established by the 14th amendment which is a citizenship in a jurisdiction that Congress taxes.

Sorry, Rachel, but nobody who matters agrees with you. This position has consistently been rejected by the courts and all accredited legal and constitutional scholars to have wasted time on this (non)issue.

You can keep repeating your lie until you are blue in the face, but sheer repetition of your lie will not make it come true -- nor compel anybody who matters to agree with it.

Of course, you can always just self-decide the law in your own selfish self-interests, but this will not keep the IRS from levying on your accounts.

[LPC]

Out of all that crap you just cited the power to tax is only subjected onto those "U.S. citizens" as 26CFR 1.1-1(c) describes.

Liar.

Some of the "crap you just cited" included specific authority that the power to tax is subjected to RESIDENTS of the United States as well as "U.S. citizens." Specifically:

“In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.” Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(b).

And:

“Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ....” Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1).

What did U.S. vs. Susan B. Anthony say about the 14th amendment you freaken idiot?

All you quoted was:

"The rights of the Citizens of the states, are such are not under consideration in the 14th Amendment and are fully guarranteed by other provisions"

As I explained above, all that sentence says is that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee the rights of state citizens. It says nothing about whether Congress has power over U.S. citizens, and it says nothing about whether Congress has power over "Citizens of the states."

It [the 14th Amendment] doesnt apply but to a certain class of persons.

Prove it. The 14th Amendment says "all persons." Prove that it only applies to "a certain class of persons."

Therefore idiot just because Hodges himself claims to be a sovern doesnt prove he wasnt acting like one when he applied the ssn to a w4.
Thats contrary action to what he claims to be. He wouldnt be in court if he didnt apply the ssn to a w4 like a good little "U.S.citizen" is required to do.

Gibberish. If you write something coherent, I can respond, but I can't refute gibberish.

Moreover the 16th doesnt say who is being taxed

The only purpose of the 16th Amendment was to eliminate the requirement of apportionment for income taxes.

As the Supreme Court explained in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), “by the previous ruling [in Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation....”

Now all you have to do is look up the meaning of "plenary."

and Congress has only the power to tax the subordinate 14th amendment "U.S. citizen" as explained in U.S. vs. Herron, 20 wall. 251,255 (1874).

Liar. United States v. Herron, 87 U.S. 251 (1873), never even mentions the 14th Amendment or citizenship. The issue in the case is whether the bankruptcy of a collector of taxes discharges the surety for the collector. The power of Congress to tax is not even an issue in the case.

[LPC]

not everyone falls within the citizenship or jurisdiction established by the 14th amendment which is a citizenship in a jurisdiction that Congress taxes.

Wrong.

The power of Congress to tax, granted by Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, obviously predates, and is not dependent upon, the 14th Amendment. Therefore:

On the subject of taxation, the authors of the Federalist Papers expressly recognized that the Congressional power to tax would be concurrent with the taxing powers of the states, and that both the federal government and the state governments might be taxing the same persons and subjects:

“[The power of imposing taxes on all articles other than exports and imports], I contend, is manifestly a concurrent and coequal authority in the United States and in the individual States.” (Emphasis added.)

And:

“As to a supposition of repugnancy between the power of taxation in the States and in the Union, it cannot be supported in that sense which would be requisite to work an exclusion of the States. It is, indeed, possible that a tax might be laid on a particular article by a State which might render it INEXPEDIENT that thus a further tax should be laid on the same article by the Union; but it would not imply a constitutional inability to impose a further tax.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #32, (Emphasis in original.)

In Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), the Supreme Court was unanimous in its opinion that Congress could impose a tax on a citizen of Virginia for carriages held for personal use and that the tax was an excise or duty and not “direct.” Of the four justices who heard the case, two (William Paterson and James Wilson) were members of the Constitutional Convention that drafted the Constitution, and presumably knew what it meant.

This implicit holding of Hylton was made explicit in 1820:

“The 8th section of the 1st article gives to Congress the ‘power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,’ for the purposes thereinafter mentioned. This grant is general, without limitation as to place. It, consequently, extends to all places over which the government extends. If this could be doubted, the doubt is removed by the subsequent words which modify the grant. These words are, ‘but all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States.’ It will not be contended that the modification of the power extends to places to which the power itself does not extend. The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises, may be exercised, and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of States and territories.”

Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (Wheat.) 317, 318-319 (1820), (Chief Justice Marshall, writing for a unanimous court; emphasis added).

The words of the Constitution itself are clear that the Congressional power to tax extends to within the states of the United States, and there is nothing in the words of the Constitution or the 14th or 16th Amendments, or any opinion of any judge in the history of the United States, to suggest that the Congressional power to tax is in any way limited to "citizens of the United States" as defined by the 14th Amendment.

In other words, you're not just wrong; you're freaking crazy.

[Doktor Avalanche]

So when do we start deportation proceedings against Rachel?

[rachel]

not everyone falls within the citizenship or jurisdiction established by the 14th amendment which is a citizenship in a jurisdiction that Congress taxes.

Wrong.

The power of Congress to tax, granted by Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, obviously predates, and is not dependent upon, the 14th Amendment. Therefore:

On the subject of taxation, the authors of the Federalist Papers expressly recognized that the Congressional power to tax would be concurrent with the taxing powers of the states, and that both the federal government and the state governments might be taxing the same persons and subjects:

“[The power of imposing taxes on all articles other than exports and imports], I contend, is manifestly a concurrent and coequal authority in the United States and in the individual States.” (Emphasis added.)

And:

“As to a supposition of repugnancy between the power of taxation in the States and in the Union, it cannot be supported in that sense which would be requisite to work an exclusion of the States. It is, indeed, possible that a tax might be laid on a particular article by a State which might render it INEXPEDIENT that thus a further tax should be laid on the same article by the Union; but it would not imply a constitutional inability to impose a further tax.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #32, (Emphasis in original.)

In Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), the Supreme Court was unanimous in its opinion that Congress could impose a tax on a citizen of Virginia for carriages held for personal use and that the tax was an excise or duty and not “direct.” Of the four justices who heard the case, two (William Paterson and James Wilson) were members of the Constitutional Convention that drafted the Constitution, and presumably knew what it meant.

This implicit holding of Hylton was made explicit in 1820:

“The 8th section of the 1st article gives to Congress the ‘power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,’ for the purposes thereinafter mentioned. This grant is general, without limitation as to place. It, consequently, extends to all places over which the government extends. If this could be doubted, the doubt is removed by the subsequent words which modify the grant. These words are, ‘but all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States.’ It will not be contended that the modification of the power extends to places to which the power itself does not extend. The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises, may be exercised, and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of States and territories.”

Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (Wheat.) 317, 318-319 (1820), (Chief Justice Marshall, writing for a unanimous court; emphasis added).

The words of the Constitution itself are clear that the Congressional power to tax extends to within the states of the United States, and there is nothing in the words of the Constitution or the 14th or 16th Amendments, or any opinion of any judge in the history of the United States, to suggest that the Congressional power to tax is in any way limited to "citizens of the United States" as defined by the 14th Amendment.

In other words, you're not just wrong; you're freaking crazy.

What a great inspiration of crap.
But two things Dan Evans.
State Citizen have different rights consisting of privileges and immunities seperate and apart of those immunities and privileges of a "U.S. citizen". Those are facts the courts acknowlegde.
So how do you over rule the courts by saying a state Citizen and a "U.S. citizen" are the same when in fact the courts look at each seperately.
The states do tax "U.S. citizens" I never said they didnt. matter of fact the feds have agreements with the states to allow taxation within the states.
Facts are title 26 only taxes the "U.S. citizen" no mention of the People of the Several States in their state Citizenship capacity.
The 14th establishes a jurisdiction.
What jurisdiction is that Danny boy?

Where does the courts

[wserra]

Where does the courts

I think s/he was so overcome by ranting that she walked off a cliff.

Actually, maybe then the last word would be "courtssssss".

[LPC]

State Citizen have different rights consisting of privileges and immunities seperate and apart of those immunities and privileges of a "U.S. citizen". Those are facts the courts acknowlegde.

There is NO right, privilege, or immunity of a "state citizen" not to pay federal income tax, and no court has ever said that there is. In EVERY case in which a "state citizen" has claimed to be exempt from federal income tax, the courts have denied the claim.

A more recent example from another thread:

"The Taxpayer argues, as a vigilant tax protester must, that he is not a citizen of the United States subject to its tax laws and that he owes no taxes. This argument is frivolous." United States v. Herman A. Wesselman et al., 2007 TNT 233-15, No. 4:05-cv-04152 (U.S.D.C. S.D. Ill. 11/29/2007).

The court didn't say that he failed to produce any evidence that he wasn't a citizen of the United States; the court said that the argument itself was frivolous.

So how do you over rule the courts by saying a state Citizen and a "U.S. citizen" are the same when in fact the courts look at each seperately.

The courts look at the RIGHTS of each citizenship separately, but that doesn't mean that a person can't be both a state citizen and a U.S. citizen at the same time.

The Supreme Court has described our citizenship as “a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereigns, and claims the protection of both.” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549 (1876).

That is because most people who are U.S. citizens are also state citizens, because the 14th Amendment specifically says that U.S. citizens (i.e., all persons born in the states of the U. S.) are also citizens of the states in which they reside.

The states do tax "U.S. citizens" I never said they didnt.

And I never said you said they didn't.

matter of fact the feds have agreements with the states to allow taxation within the states.

Another tax denier myth. There are no such agreements.

And the federal government doesn't need the agreement of the states to impose taxes within the states, because the Constitution already gives Congress that power. In case you missed it the first time:

"The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises, may be exercised, and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of States and territories.” Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (Wheat.) 317, 318-319 (1820), (Chief Justice Marshall, writing for a unanimous court).

Facts are title 26 only taxes the "U.S. citizen" no mention of the People of the Several States in their state Citizenship capacity.

Wrong again. The Internal Revenue Code imposes a tax on "every" person, and on *all* income. The only difference that citizenship makes is that non-citizens who do not live within the United States only pay taxes on income from sources within the United States. See IRC sections 871 et seq.

The 14th establishes a jurisdiction.

Wrong again. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment itself, but there is nothing in the 14th Amendment giving Congress or the courts any new powers over any citizen of any kind.

In other words, it is section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, or the 16th Amendment, that gives Congress the power to tax, not the 14th Amendment, and no court has ever said anything different.

[rachel]

Her mind has already left, the body just has to catch up. I imagine she might end up getting herself "deported" to L' Hotel Graybar someday.

Hotel graybar for what?
I said long ago I pay my taxes!

[rachel]

State Citizen have different rights consisting of privileges and immunities seperate and apart of those immunities and privileges of a "U.S. citizen". Those are facts the courts acknowlegde.

There is NO right, privilege, or immunity of a "state citizen" not to pay federal income tax, and no court has ever said that there is. In EVERY case in which a "state citizen" has claimed to be exempt from federal income tax, the courts have denied the claim.

A more recent example from another thread:

"The Taxpayer argues, as a vigilant tax protester must, that he is not a citizen of the United States subject to its tax laws and that he owes no taxes. This argument is frivolous." United States v. Herman A. Wesselman et al., 2007 TNT 233-15, No. 4:05-cv-04152 (U.S.D.C. S.D. Ill. 11/29/2007).

The court didn't say that he failed to produce any evidence that he wasn't a citizen of the United States; the court said that the argument itself was frivolous.

So how do you over rule the courts by saying a state Citizen and a "U.S. citizen" are the same when in fact the courts look at each seperately.

The courts look at the RIGHTS of each citizenship separately, but that doesn't mean that a person can't be both a state citizen and a U.S. citizen at the same time.

The Supreme Court has described our citizenship as “a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereigns, and claims the protection of both.” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549 (1876).

That is because most people who are U.S. citizens are also state citizens, because the 14th Amendment specifically says that U.S. citizens (i.e., all persons born in the states of the U. S.) are also citizens of the states in which they reside.

The states do tax "U.S. citizens" I never said they didnt.

And I never said you said they didn't.

matter of fact the feds have agreements with the states to allow taxation within the states.

Another tax denier myth. There are no such agreements.

And the federal government doesn't need the agreement of the states to impose taxes within the states, because the Constitution already gives Congress that power. In case you missed it the first time:

"The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises, may be exercised, and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of States and territories.” Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (Wheat.) 317, 318-319 (1820), (Chief Justice Marshall, writing for a unanimous court).

Facts are title 26 only taxes the "U.S. citizen" no mention of the People of the Several States in their state Citizenship capacity.

Wrong again. The Internal Revenue Code imposes a tax on "every" person, and on *all* income. The only difference that citizenship makes is that non-citizens who do not live within the United States only pay taxes on income from sources within the United States. See IRC sections 871 et seq.

The 14th establishes a jurisdiction.

Wrong again. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment itself, but there is nothing in the 14th Amendment giving Congress or the courts any new powers over any citizen of any kind.

In other words, it is section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, or the 16th Amendment, that gives Congress the power to tax, not the 14th Amendment, and no court has ever said anything different.

No danny boy,
The IRC doesnt impose a tax on everyone just "U.S. citizens".
"U.S. citizens" are under some kind of jurisdiction; what is that jurisdiction?
Do you know what it is?

[LPC]

The IRC doesnt impose a tax on everyone just "U.S. citizens".

The statute says you're wrong, the regulations say you're wrong, and the courts say you're wrong.

"U.S. citizens" are under some kind of jurisdiction; what is that jurisdiction?
Do you know what it is?

Obviously, you don't.

[rachel]

The IRC doesnt impose a tax on everyone just "U.S. citizens".

The statute says you're wrong, the regulations say you're wrong, and the courts say you're wrong.

"U.S. citizens" are under some kind of jurisdiction; what is that jurisdiction?
Do you know what it is?

Obviously, you don't.

Well outside of aliens the irc only taxes "U.S. citizens", not all people.
And thanks for admitting you have no clue what so ever about the jurisdiction which the 14th amendment mentions!
Kudos to you...bravo!
Your ranked up there with Peter "blowhard" Hendrickson.
Besides (DBE) Dan "blowhard" Evans sounds better.


If you really really want to beleive that its only "U.S. citizens", which is contrary to the courts recognizing different rights than state Citizens, then by all means go right ahead.
Dillute yourself with your ego.
Have all the dillusional cool-aid you can drink!

But then again you probably didnt have a clue that Congress adopted a constitution in an act in 1871. You probably cant even figure out why.

Now really why would Congress do that if they already have the 1789 U.S. Constitution?
Opps....they didnt! The 1789 constitution belongs to People of the Several States.
Now really why the need for Congress to adopt a constitution and codify it as civil law?
Maybe it was for the.....nope you'll butcher that also.

Go and drink your cool-aid and have your silly fun!

[rachel]

But then again you probably didnt have a clue that Congress adopted a constitution in an act in 1871. You probably cant even figure out why.

Go and drink your cool-aid and have your silly fun!

Better than trying to swallow the bullsh*t you are slinging. There is one Constitution of the United State of America, with 27 Amendments. The Constitution was first enacted in 1791 with 10 Amendments, after a Constitutional Convention to draft the document and after it was ratified by 3/4ths of the of the states in the union at that time (that would be 10 of 13).

Since that time, various amendments have been added, but there has not been any Constitutional Convention since the original, nor have the states voted on anything like a new Constitution, save the one from 1791.

So Rachel, where did you pick up and swallow the absolute BULLSH*T about Congress adopting a "constitution" in 1871? What was this great and mighty source of effluent information? Your ignorance is only exceeded by your capacity to regurgitate, useless, and wrong cr*p.

I do expect to see your "source" properly cited so the rest of us can examine it.

The states are no longer defining themselves as states of the American union having the U.S. Constitution of 1789 or 1791; which ever you wish.

Code: Select all

Oregon
(31) “State,” when referring to a part of the United States, includes a state, commonwealth, territory and insular possession of the United States and its agencies and governmental subdivisions.
 
(33) “United States” includes a district, authority, bureau, commission, department and any other agency of the United States.
  
Delaware
'State' means the State of Delaware; and when applied to different parts of the United States, it includes the District of Columbia and the several territories and possessions of the United States.

And Gee...Pete Hendrickson cant understand why he lost!

They are states of the "United States".
The great and mighty source is the official "Library of Congress" website. Its there just look it up!
It will do you good searching the library instead of beleiving everything Dan Blowhard Evans has to say.

[Prof]

What garbage. Where on earth did you find these stupid ideas?

I have not been participating because the discussion -- learned as usual, and thorough as usual -- by LPC of your statements and ideas has been so complete.

Obviously, it has not been effective.

Do you also believe that shape shifting lizards run things?

I'll put it as simply as possible. You have a reading comprehension problem that makes Stevesy's commenatries look absolutely astute.

Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and wake up.

[LPC]

The IRC doesnt impose a tax on everyone just "U.S. citizens".

The statute says you're wrong, the regulations say you're wrong, and the courts say you're wrong.

Well outside of aliens the irc only taxes "U.S. citizens", not all people.

Are you autistic? It's the only explanation I can think of that would explain your behavior.

But then again you probably didnt have a clue that Congress adopted a constitution in an act in 1871. You probably cant even figure out why.

Let me guess: You're talking about the municipal code enacted for the District of Columbia in 1871. 41st Congress, 3d Sess., Ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419-429 (2/21/1871).

Second guess: You've never actually read it, and are just relying on what you read that someone else said about the act.

Well, now you can read it yourself. Go to http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsllink.html and scroll down to volume 16, click on any link and then jump to page 419 and knock yourself out. You're welcome back any time you can point to the specific language, by page and paragraph, in which Congress enacted a new Constitution.