Posted on 11/15/2002 7:42:45 AM PST by H8DEMS
The Constitution does not grant rights?
How about freedom of speech? Or worshipping the way you want to? The right to bear arms?
Try, antecedent to the Constitution for "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights:". The Declaration of Independence remember?
The Constitution merely recognizes and prohibits government from intruding on those pre-existing rights with which we are endowed. It does not, and cannot grant that which is ours by endowment by our creator.
When you state the Constitution grants rights, you grant the authority of 3/4 of the states acting to amend the constitution to take your privileges away. That which is granted by an instument of man can be taken from you by changing that document.
You either have inalienable rights or you have privileges which man can take from you. Which is it?
Either you have forgot everything you learned about the Constitution or you are a product of our educational boxed commie.
One could wonder what sort of product of education you are, slave.
I must, however, stand by the notion that they were poorly drawn, and firmly so. Had they been effectively drawn, there would have been precisely zero desire on anyone's part to draft a Constitution within four years of their taking effect. Perhaps the bottom line on the Articles is 'best we could do in wartime', don't know.
Many thanks again, and FRegards!
I must, however, stand by the notion that they were poorly drawn, and firmly so. Had they been effectively drawn, there would have been precisely zero desire on anyone's part to draft a Constitution within four years of their taking effect.
Again, I must offer a couple of corrections. First, law was highly developed at the time. The states each had courts, and practicing lawyers, and all followed the English common law. Indeed, in most states today, their basic law, after their state constitutions, is the common law of England at the time of the Revolution, as subsequently modified of course. Anyway, there was no "law vacuum" during the Revolution. None at all.
As for the Articles being "poorly drawn," they were well drawn for their intended purpose. I assume you believe that our present consititution is "well drawn." Yet it's been amended numerous times, and at any particular moment there are dozens of proposed amendments floating around, and there are those who would be happy to scrap the whole thing and substitute an entirely different constitution in its place. This is not evidence that the original was defective.
For information on the period, and the Articles specifically, my favorite author is Merrill Jenson. This is a link to Amazon and one of his books: The Articles of Confederation; An Interpretation ....
There would have been zero desire on the part of honorable man who weren't power freaks, or lovers of wealth at the expense of their fellow American's freedom. Hamilton was not honrable in that regard. The Articles absolutely prevented a centralized government from ever taking hold--the Constitution left loopholes, bottled up by the tenth amendment.
And the war of 1865 took care of that.
Thanks for the effort though.
The Constitution does not grant anything. All it does is state the GOD GIVEN rights that we have and tells the government that it cannot take those rights away.
You are incorrect in your assumption that freedoms are granted by the Constitution. GOD gave us these when he gave us our founding fathers who even stated that the Constitution was inspired by God.
26 USC 861(a) lists ITEMS of income, not sources.
"The following items" means that what follows is a list of items.
An item is not a source.
"Income from sources" is not a single grammatical unit as was argued in response 57, it consists of two units, "income," and "sources." "Income" is a noun, and "sources" is a plural noun.
A source may be either within or without the United States. If you perform labor while in the US, the source is "within" the US. If you perform labor outside of the US, then the source is "without" the US.
And how do you determine what a source is? According to 26 CFR 1.861-8(a)(4) (it says, "see paragraph (f)(1) of this section"), you look at 26 CFR 1.861-8(f)(1), which states:
The operative sections of the Code which require the determination of taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources or activities and which gives rise to statutory groupings to which this section is applicable include the sections described below.
(i) Overall limitation to the foreign tax credit...
(ii) [Reserved] (iii) DISC and FSC taxable income... [international and foreign sales corporations]
(iv) Effectively connected taxable income. Nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations engaged in trade or business within the United States
(v) Foreign base company income...
[...]
... and it goes on like this, with foreign mineral income, foreign oil/gas income, Puerto Rico, Guam, Chinia, international boycott factor, the Merchant Marine act, etc.
Nothing listed has to do with the average person's employment relationship.
Using the rules of this section, you build the "statutory groupings of gross income" as indicated in (a)(4).
Now, under 26 CFR 1.861-8(a)(4), it refers to anything that does not fall into the sources or activities in (f)(1) as a "residual grouping of gross income."
But under 26 CFR 1.861-8(a)(4), it makes clear that:
the residual grouping may include, or consist entirely of, excluded income. See paragraph (d)(2) of this section with respect to the allocation and apportionment of deductions to excluded income."
Now, what is excluded income that may make up part, or all of this residual grouping?
Looking at paragraph (d)(2) as instructed, we see the following:
(2) Allocation and apportionment to exempt, excluded, or eliminated income. [Reserved] For guidance, see Sec. 1.861-8T(d)(2).
Looking at 26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2), under subparagraph (iii), we find a list of income that is NOT excluded:
(iii) Income that is not considered tax exempt. The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income and, thus, may have expenses, losses, or other deductions allocated and apportioned to them: (A) In the case of a foreign taxpayer ...
(B) ... the gross income of a DISC or a FSC; [Domestic International Sales Corporation, Foreign Sales Corporation]
(C) ... the gross income of a possessions corporation for which a credit is allowed under section 936(a); and
(D) Foreign earned income ...
Now stay with me here!
There is a widely recognized canon of statutory construction (that is, how you come to understand the meaning of a law in court) that states that the inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of another.
That is, unless a list of things is followed by general language, it is an exclusive list. "Weekends and holidays" excludes "weekdays."
It may be therefore concluded that the list in (d)(2)(iii) is the exclusive list of the ONLY things that are not exempt from taxation.
Therefore, everything else is exempt from taxation.
Ancient_Geezer cited the following:
The duty to pay federal income taxes therefore is "manifest on the face of the statutes, without any resort to IRS rules, forms or regulations."
United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220, 222 (4th Cir.1990)
But this is incorrect. The duty to pay federal income taxes applies ONLY to taxable income according to the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the statute.
If you don't know what taxable income is - which you can not determine without resorting to IRS rules, forms, or regulations - then you can't say anything meaningful about who is subject to the duty to pay federal income taxes.
It may be therefore concluded that the list in (d)(2)(iii) is the exclusive list of the ONLY things that are not exempt from taxation.
Therefore, everything else is exempt from taxation.
Only to someone who fails to read the whole of Title 26. For there is just as important rule of construction that states the whole of the statute be taken into account and "The primary rule of statutory construction is, of course, to give effect to the intention of the legislature.", not the bureaucrat writing explainitory regulations.
U S v. FISHER, 6 U.S. 358 (1805)
- "It is undoubtedly a well established principle in the exposition of statutes, that every part is to be considered, and the intention of the legislature to be extracted from the whole."
FindLaw: U S v. GOLDENBERG, 168 U.S. 95,103 (1897)
"The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of words and the rules of grammar. The courts have no function of legislation, and simply seek to ascertain the will of the legislator.
FindLaw: RODGERS v. U S, 185 U.S. 83 (1902)
"The primary rule of statutory construction is, of course, to give effect to the intention of the legislature."
FindLaw: S.E.C v. C. M. JOINER LEASING CORP., 320 U.S. 344,351 (1943)
"... courts will construe the details of an act in conformity with its dominating general purpose, will read text in the light of context and will interpret the text so far as the meaning of the words fairly permits so as to carry out in particular cases the generally expressed legislative policy.
Reiter v Sonotone Corp., 442 US 330, 337, 60 L Ed 2d 931, 99 S Ct. 2326 (1979)
As in all cases involving statutory construction, "our starting point must be the language employed by Congress," Reiter v Sonotone Corp., 442 US 330, 337, 60 L Ed 2d 931, 99 S Ct. 2326 (1979) (emphasis added), and we assume "that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used." Richards v United States, 369 US 1, 9, 7 L Ed 2d 492, 82 S Ct. 585 (1962)
It is the statute, not the regulation that controls and provides the full scope and reach of the law. The regulation cannot modify the intent of Congress as expressed in its legislation.
The regulation is secondary and explainatory as an aid to enforcement, it is not controlling the nor a limiting factor on the foundational statute.
Your overly narrowed view of the statutory language regulation sacrifices the whole for the specific example extracted from the whole. Sorry that will not fly in any courtroom in the land, nor should it.
Once again:
Treasury regulations for 26 USC 1, 26 CFR 1.1-1(a),(b)
Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.
(a) General rule. (1) 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 and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. 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.
[CITE: 26CFR1.861-1] [Page 119-120]
TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE (CONTINUED) Normal Taxes and Surtaxes (Continued)--
Table of Contents Sec. 1.861-1 Income from sources within the United States.
(a) Categories of income.
Part I (section 861 and following), subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Code, and the regulations thereunder determine the sources of income for purposes of the income tax. These sections explicitly allocate certain important sources of income to the United States or to areas outside the United States, as the case may be; and, with respect to the remaining income (particularly that derived partly from sources within and partly from sources without the United States), authorize the Secretary or his delegate to determine the income derived from sources within the United States, either by rules of separate allocation or by processes or formulas of general apportionment. The statute provides for the following three categories of income:
(1) Within the United States. The gross income from sources within the United States, consisting of the items of gross income specified in section 861(a) plus the items of gross income allocated or apportioned to such sources in accordance with section 863(a). See Secs. 1.861-2 to 1.861-7, inclusive, and Sec. 1.863-1. The taxable income from sources within the United States, in the case of such income, shall be determined by deducting therefrom, in accordance with sections 861(b) and 863(a), the expenses, losses, and other deductions properly apportioned or allocated thereto and a ratable part of any other expenses, losses, or deductions which cannot definitely [[Page 120]] be allocated to some item or class of gross income. See Secs. 1.861-8 and 1.863-1.
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle A - Income Taxes
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
Subchapter N - Tax Based on Income From Sources Within or Without the United States
PART I - SOURCE RULES AND OTHER GENERAL RULES RELATING TO FOREIGN INCOME
Sec. 861. Income from sources within the United States
(a) Gross income from sources within United States
The following items of gross income shall be treated as income
from sources within the United States:(3) Personal services
Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States;
I once again challenge you to provide even one single case where the Courts have so limited the scope of Title 26 by your legal theory, such that the Citizen of the United States earning wages from source in the United States in excesses of the personal exemptions and standard deduction is not subject to the tax on income.
You have danced around, picked and poked here and there looking for your justificiation to not pay income tax, you have yet to demonstrate your regulatory hairsplitting, and overly narrowed constructions have held any value in providing a viable defense in the courtroom.
FindLaw: S.E.C v. C. M. JOINER LEASING CORP., 320 U.S. 344 (1943)
"The maxim is not to be so applied as to narrow the words of the statute to the exclusion of cases, which those words, in their ordinary acceptation, or in that sense in which the legislature has obviously used them, would comprehend."United States v. Wiltberger, 5 US(Wheat), 76, 95.
"... but the words should be taken in such a sense, bent neither one way nor the other, as will best manifest the legislative intent.' The principle has been followed in United States v. Corbett, , 30 S.Ct. 81, 84; Donnelley v. United States, , 48 S.Ct. 400, 401; United States v. Giles, , 57 S.Ct. 340, 344, 81 S.Ct. 493."
You again fail to provide that which establishes a defense in any Federal appellate Court of the land.
The duty to pay federal income taxes applies ONLY to taxable income
And once again taxable income is clearly defined: 26 U.S.C. s 63 as" gross income minus allowed deductions", and 26 U.S.C. s 1, to which you point, merely tells us what we have been saying all along, Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal tax on the taxable income of every individual having taxable income under 26 U.S.C. s 63 .
As is clearly stated in explanatory Treasury regulations for 26 U.S.C. s 1,
Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.
(a) General rule. (1) 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 and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. 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.
If you don't know what taxable income is - which you can not determine without resorting to IRS rules, forms, or regulations - then you can't say anything meaningful about who is subject to the duty to pay federal income taxes.
You left out "Statute", the legislative intent by which all is established and the court and thereby your are subject to the legislative intent, the whole of the statute.
U S v. FISHER, 6 U.S. 358 (1805)
- "It is undoubtedly a well established principle in the exposition of statutes, that every part is to be considered, and the intention of the legislature to be extracted from the whole."
FindLaw: U S v. GOLDENBERG, 168 U.S. 95,103 (1897)
"The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of words and the rules of grammar. The courts have no function of legislation, and simply seek to ascertain the will of the legislator.
FindLaw: RODGERS v. U S, 185 U.S. 83 (1902)
"The primary rule of statutory construction is, of course, to give effect to the intention of the legislature."
FindLaw: S.E.C v. C. M. JOINER LEASING CORP., 320 U.S. 344,351 (1943)
"... courts will construe the details of an act in conformity with its dominating general purpose, will read text in the light of context and will interpret the text so far as the meaning of the words fairly permits so as to carry out in particular cases the generally expressed legislative policy.
FindLaw: S.E.C v. C. M. JOINER LEASING CORP., 320 U.S. 344 (1943)
"The maxim is not to be so applied as to narrow the words of the statute to the exclusion of cases, which those words, in their ordinary acceptation, or in that sense in which the legislature has obviously used them, would comprehend."United States v. Wiltberger, 5 US(Wheat), 76, 95.
"... but the words should be taken in such a sense, bent neither one way nor the other, as will best manifest the legislative intent.' The principle has been followed in United States v. Corbett, , 30 S.Ct. 81, 84; Donnelley v. United States, , 48 S.Ct. 400, 401; United States v. Giles, , 57 S.Ct. 340, 344, 81 S.Ct. 493."
Once again you try to make the specific instance, limit the rule of the general case which does not fly in the courtroom.
Ancient_Geezer cited the following:
The duty to pay federal income taxes therefore is "manifest on the face of the statutes, without any resort to IRS rules, forms or regulations."
United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220, 222 (4th Cir.1990)But this is incorrect
A correct cite from the Court's ruling, is an incorrect cite?.
Black is white, the meaning of is is whatever you want it to be apparently.
The specific regulation cannot override or change the general statute. The intent of the Congress rules.
FindLaw: RODGERS v. U S, 185 U.S. 83 (1902)
"The primary rule of statutory construction is, of course, to give effect to the intention of the legislature."
Legislative intent is extracted from the whole Statute, not the narrowed snipit of regulation:
U S v. FISHER, 6 U.S. 358 (1805)
- "It is undoubtedly a well established principle in the exposition of statutes, that every part is to be considered, and the intention of the legislature to be extracted from the whole."
Black is white, the meaning of is is whatever you want it to be apparently.
The specific regulation cannot override or change the general statute. The intent of the Congress rules.
The cite is not incorrect, the conclusion that you attempt to draw from it -- that all income is gross income and therefore eventually falls into the category of taxable income on which the income tax is levied, regardless of the provisions of Section 861 and its regulations which "determine the sources of income for the purposes of the income tax" -- is incorrect.
The general statute levies an income tax on taxable income from sources.
The term "all firearms" in §5841 is constrained by the definition of the word "firearm" in §5845, such that it doesn't include most rifles and pistols in the US. The term "source" is constrained by the provisions of 861 and its regulations such that it doesn't include most business transactions in the US.
The Constitution does not grant anything. All it does is state the GOD GIVEN rights that we have and tells the government that it cannot take those rights away.
Here's the problem. You find me anywhere in the Scriptures that these "rights" are endowed by God to all men. If they were endowed by God Almighty then it would be His job to protect all men to insure these rights without negative consequences. Clearly history has shown that has not happened nor is it happening today. So these "rights" are not endowed by God. Surely it was a noble idea written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Indenpendence and along with our other forefathers who hammered out the Constitution for all men in the United States to have these rights. Look at how much erosion of these rights there has been.
As I see it Scriptually man has only one right endowed by God and that is that all men can think they way they want to and do what they decide to. It is also very clear that there are consequences to any action taken by man.
that all income is gross income and therefore eventually falls into the category of taxable income on which the income tax is levied, regardless of the provisions of Section 861 and its regulations which "determine the sources of income for the purposes of the income tax" -- is incorrect.
Interesting how you mistate my position for me, income is that which is used to determine the amount of tax. The source(i.e. activity from which income is derived) is taxed by your own admission, not income.
I have merely held the statute as the expression of legislative intent always rules, the regulation cannot limit or otherwise change the statute.
The general statute levies an income tax on taxable income from sources.
DUH!!! Very Clearly, "Personal Services" is an activity under 26 USC Sec. 861, which yields gross income used to determine taxable income under section 26 U.S.C. s 63 as" gross income minus allowed deductions", and 26 U.S.C. s 1, to which you point, merely tells us what we have been saying all along, Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal tax on the taxable income of every individual having taxable income under 26 U.S.C. s 63 .
The term "source" is constrained by the provisions of 861 and its regulations such that it doesn't include most business transactions in the US.
LOL, You continue to ignore the whole for the part. The blindman holding the tail of an elephant and swearing it must be a snake. Sorry, the courts do not agree.
Even accepted for purpose of argument your overly narrowed construction as true, you fail in the analysis for ignoring what Section 861 actually states:
To wit: 26 USC Sec. 861. Income from sources within the United States
(a) Gross income from sources within United States
The following items of gross income shall be treated as income
from sources within the United States:
(3) Personal services
Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States;
The tax source, specifically those activities of labor or personal services which yield gross income (compensation received by which the amount of tax imposed is calculated under the statutes), is and indeed covered looking at Section 861 specifically.
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
WAGES, contract. A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services. As to servants wages, see Chitty, Contr. 171 as to sailors' wages, Abbott on Ship. 473; generally, see 22. Vin. Abr. 406; Bac. Abr. Master, &c., H; Marsh. Ins. 89; 2 Lill. Abr. 677; Peters' Dig. Admiralty, pl. 231, et seq.
The Statutes even the narrow specific section of 861, clearly make the case that your reliance on a narrowed list of regulatory examples is insufficient and falacious as the executive department cannot limit or otherwise change the enactments(i.e. statutes) of Congress. Clearly the court sees this, as the cite, clearly demonstrates.
The duty to pay federal income taxes therefore is "manifest on the face of the statutes, without any resort to IRS rules, forms or regulations."
United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220, 222 (4th Cir.1990)
You are not relieved of the necessity to comply with whole of the statutes contained with Title 26.
You have yet to provide a single court case supporting your sorry excuse of a legal analysis.
U S v. FISHER, 6 U.S. 358 (1805)
- "It is undoubtedly a well established principle in the exposition of statutes, that every part is to be considered, and the intention of the legislature to be extracted from the whole."
it would be His job to protect all men to insure these rights without negative consequences.
You now telling God his job?
It is the duty of all to live in accord with the commandments of God, out of which your personal rights are assured.
God only guarantees to make your harm good in the after life, not in the hear and now. Refer to Job if you doubt this.
I submit this for your consideration:
We know from history:
The founders of this nation were strongly rooted with the Judeo-Christion ethic. Whether or not specific individuals espoused the Christian faith or none at all, their motives, goals, and world view was nurtured in that broth;
The more thoughtful and the primary movers and shakers in creating this republic were well versed in history, political theory and very well aware of the uses of intrigue and misdirection in achieving strategic goals;
They were reflective and careful to select a specific form of government "Republic" with an eye to assure it functioned in response to the people en-mass but through representation of the people's virtues and moral state rather than direct action of the mass itself.
Thus we have a two part machine, one part the people injecting a portion of themselves into the controlling elements of the whole. The controlling elements arising of that body of the people, refect back the state of their virtue and moral integrity in the enactments of law enforced upon the people;
The net result when the people are righteous, they are blessed with righteous government. When they are less than righteous they are blessed with a government suited to there natures.
The nation, the machine, becomes a snare and a goad meeting out reward and punishment to direct the whole toward a righteous goal.
Consider, nations as snares and traps to goad the people towards rightousness and a focus on the eternal as opposed to immediate gratifications :
Understand an allagorical connection of the biblical term "snare" with "nation"
Joshua 23:13
"13": Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.
Then apply it:
Luke 21:32-35
"32": Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
"33": Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
"34": And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.
"35": For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.
Contemplate the words of Paul, in regard the vision of the founders of this nation:
Romans 13:1
"1": Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
"2": Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
"3": For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
"4": For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Just a thought :0)
Right. Go read the relevant state laws pertaining to who has the authority to name militia officers. Joe Six-Pack does not have the authority to declare himself any sort of officer, and Joes has this tendency to name himself to flag rank.
Does the Declaration of Independence mean anything to you?
Yes, it does. However, it is not the Constitution of the United States of America. Please note that you have a moral right to rebel against tyranny, as Mr. Jefferson so eloquently pointed out in the Declaration of Independence. Please do not confuse the two; they are very different.
FR is a conservative site and because you are a moderate you should go elsewhere.
Having been here a couple of years more than you have, I can safely say that FR does not tolerate the advocacy of armed rebellion. Since you seem to think that armed rebellion is a Constitutional right, you should go to a forum that tolerates that view.
You are still confused. There are a few state militias, such as the Mississippi State Guard. But generally the National Guard serves as the state "militia". National Guard officers are U.S. Army Officers and are not appointed by the states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.