|HISTORY OF FEDERAL TAXATION VIS A VIS THE 16TH AMENDMENT|
THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT
The 16th does not apply to the States of the Union as people are led to believe.
APPLYING THE TERMS TO THE 16TH AMEND. AND THE INCOME TAX ACT.
This deals with Article I, Section 8, the areas the United States (Congress) owned at the period of time it was written. And the 1913 Income Tax and the areas acquired by the Congress after Article I, Section 8 was written. These will be the reasons, when explained, as to why the 16th Amendment was written and why no enabling clause was written.
When the Constitution was drafted, the territorial expansion of the Nation (America) had gone all the way to what is now California. The American States boundaries were pretty much dictated by the Proclamation line of 1763. The States however, granted charters to land companies to extend their territories. For example, Massachusetts claimed areas from Lake Erie to the Missouri River. The Mississippi Co., headed by George Washington or Virginia, was laying claim to parts of the Northwest Territories at the Ohio, Mississippi Rivers junction. From 1745 to 1770 there was a great rivalry among the Land Companies.
The Framers of the Constitution knew of this huge land mass on the continent that was claimed by various Nations including the Indians. From 1776 to 1783 there was great controversy over western lands and on July 12, 1776 John Dickinson's proposal to limit the western boundaries of the States was defeated. In Aug. of 1777 the States, whose charters gave them no Western lands ( Pa.,N.J., Del., Md., N.H., R.I.), proposed that Congress (U.S.) be empowered to limit the Western boundaries of the states. It failed, but a clause was added to the Articles of Confederation (Oct 27, 1777) providing that no state be deprived of Western lands for the benefit of the United States. These lands were controlled by the United States. I could go on for 10 pages but those of you who want to find out for yourself, can look to Encyclopedia of American History, by Harper & Row (1961).
What is the reason for going into this, you might ask? To understand the phrase "throughout the United States".
Article I, Sec. 8, Cl.I. "The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;...
[Congress is providing for ITSELF, the United States and NOT the united States of America. This Section deals with the United States, Section 10 deals with the States of the Union. I know at this point you are saying to yourself, the Framers are committing fraud by a play on words. Not so, people those days knew exactly what they were talking about, for there was to be an entity known as "United States", not to be confused with united States of America. Lets continue];
...but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
Read Federalist Papers (F.P.) 30 to 36, 41 and 56. Parts read for example; "The more intelligent adversaries of the new Constitution admit the force of this reasoning; but they qualify their admission by a distinction between what they call internal and external taxation. The former they reserve to the State governments; the latter, which they explain into commercial imposts, or rather duties on imported articles, they declare themselves willing to concede to the federal head."
Remember, all material coming into the States of the Union had to come by boat into dockyards, which are needful places, under Art. I:8:17 control, as all the States had seaports. It also controlled the inland areas on the Western front as it owned them and they were considered United States property.
"THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES" MEANS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND ALL OF ITS TERRITORIES. IT DOES NOT MEAN ANY OF THE STATES OF THE UNION.
To control these lands 2 Stat. 441. The Act of March 3, 1807 was enacted which states;
"That it shall be lawful after the first day of January next, (1808) for the ...marshall, acting under such instructions as may for that purpose be given by the President of the United States, to remove from the lands aforesaid, any and every person, who shall be found on the same, and who shall not have obtained permission to remain thereon as aforesaid."
Does this mean you have to ask permission of the United States to go onto their land? Now do you see why the Framers were worried about the aliens, from the States of the Union coming into the United States, as I stated earlier quoting F.P. 43? Since it is a privilege they granted you, would there be a tax on the income you make while residing in the United States, being the income is from a source within the United states? YES, if it is a privilege. If while residing there you make income from a source outside the United States, would you then be required to pay a tax? YES, if it is a privilege.
They do have exclusive jurisdiction GRANTED them under Art.1:8:17, but are still bound by the Constitution. This was evident when the United States wanted to tax the citizens of the District of Columbia, in which the metropolis of the United States (Washington) existed, Ref. to Niles Register, July 8, 1826. Congress claimed the District of Columbia was not a State within the meaning of the "several States" and therefore it could lay a direct tax. The supreme Court, which wasn't controlled by the Administrative corporate branch/(IRS) of government like it is today, said the United States had to follow the Constitution. I quote;
"Congress has authority to impose a direct tax on the District of Columbia, in proportion to the census directed to be taken by the constitution." Loughbrough v. Blake 5 Wht. 317
The United States never dreamed it would own territories such as Guam, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, and the Northern Marianas. It was not provided for in the Constitution. Coming up to the year 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was created, the United States gave itself a Title of Nobility when creating citizens of the United States and claiming they were subject to its jurisdiction. This violates Art.1, Sec.9, Cl.8 if citizens were human. If artificial citizens (corporations), no it wouldn't.
In 1901 a series of cases appeared before the supreme Court called the Insular Cases. The Court ruled (5-4), De Lima v Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1, that Puerto Rico ceased to be a foreign nation at the formal close of the Spanish American War. Thus, duties could not be levied upon goods imported from Puerto Rico, without Congressional authority. Goods that were shipped into Puerto Rico were also duty free, so stated the Court in Dooley v U.S.,182 U.S. 222. But Downes v Bidwell, 182 U.S. 224, said the Constitution did not automatically and immediately apply to the people of the territory, nor did it confer upon them all the privileges of U.S. citizenship, but that it was for Congress specifically to extend such Constitutional provisions as it saw fit.
In 1909 Congress wanted to tax Corporations but it could not tax Corporations (Foreign Corporations) that it did not create. They can regulate them when involved in interstate commerce but they cannot tax them. See Art. 1:8:3. Congress cannot have a State (Union) create a Corporation in a Union State for the purpose of taxing it. This would be like California telling Iowa to create a Corporation in Iowa and then tax it. With this dilemma at hand Congress had to find a way to tax the Corporations that were chartered by the various States of the Union and to tax its possessions such as Puerto Rico.
So they used a play on words (syntax) to make people believe one thing while they were meaning another. Congress, to make the Income tax statute Constitutionally correct, called the corporations chartered in the States of the Union, Foreign corporations which is true, but people assume "Foreign" and "Alien" means from another country. They also called the federal territories, i.e. Puerto Rico, Alaska, etc. etc., states of (belonging to) the United States of which there were several (7). Remember this in the explanation of the 16th Amendment.
Congress created the Income Tax Act of 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment and the Federal Reserve System in order to achieve its goal. It has a great importance in Congress's/Banker's control of the Nation. Here is a brief history of what happened. 1791 Bank of U.S. was Chartered, 1816 second Bank of U.S. was Chartered, 1834 Second Coinage Act, 1836 July 11, Specie Circular adopted declaring only gold and silver and, in some cases, Virginia Land scrip would be accepted by the government in payment for public lands due to the fact paper money had caused inflation. It was repealed in 1838.
1840 Independent Treasury system established (also known as subtreasury or divorce bill), which entrusted the United States with the exclusive care of its own funds by taking them out of State and private banks. It was discontinued 1841, when the Whigs came into power, reestablished 1846, continuing until merged with Federal Reserve System (a private system) in 1913, and finally abolished in 1921 by Act of 1920. This left the Federal Reserve system which is a Private Concern, not Chartered by the United States nor any State of the Union. The Federal Reserve System is a private corporation of 13 member owners (Mellon, Rockefeller, Rothschild and Morgan to name a few) and not a government entity, so said the court in Lewis v. U.S., 680 F2d 1238, 1241 (1982) P2 para. 14. At this point I would suggest asking your Secretary of State to see if the Federal Reserve System (a Private Corporation) is allowed to do business in your State and has obtained permission to operate there as an Alien Corporation (Foreign Country). Still going to let the administrators of government tell you the Uniform Commercial Code and Commercial Financial Transactions don't apply in your case, whatever it might be? And didn't they create a Title of Nobility for the Federal Reserve?
The term "several States" in 1776, meant only the thirteen States, and others soon to join the Union (now 50). So Congress meant the term "several States" in the income tax statute, to be something other than the 48 States of the Union in the 1913 income tax statute. Those "other states" were all acquired between 1867 and 1899 and were called states of (belonging to) the United States. But how to tax the trade of import/export among these states when the Constitution did not provide for it, even though they had exclusive jurisdiction? Create the 16th Amendment without an enabling clause, as the power was already there in 1:8:1, so as to get consent of the States of the Union to tax its newly acquired possessions. Why? Who created the United States, and are they not liable to the Sovereigns who created it? Although the 16th did not define the term "several States," the Congress did that in the 1913 tax statutes. Here is a simple, concise explanation based on the true meaning of the words and is backed up by;
16 Am Jur 2d Sec. 111.
"the sixteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, providing for an income tax, is to be taken as written, and is not to be extended beyond the meaning clearly indicated by the language used."
THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES ON INCOME
Only Congress, not the executive branch, can lay and collect taxes on income (from what or whom not yet defined).
FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED
This means the tax cannot be applied to the source but only to the income from the source which is still not defined.
Here is the definition of the tax. It is an indirect tax explained by Hamilton in F.P. 21 as it applied to Art.1:8:1, and now the 16th Amendment, that did not change the rule of taxes, only where they came from, the newly acquired possessions.
"...There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the National Government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imports, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, ...the amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his option, ...and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions...Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of Indirect Taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country. Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit to the rule of apportionment. Either the value of land or the number of the people, may serve as a standard...."
AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES
The term "States," in "among the several States", does not mean the 48 States of the Union but the 7 States belonging to the United States (D.C.). Did it state "among the citizens of the several States"? NO!! Citizen is not even implied. Why use the term, the several States and not refer to the Union, unless they were referring to the 7 States belonging to the United States. Since the Internal Revenue Code, in 1913, and up to 1954, defined State and United States to be District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, Alaska, Hawaii, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Northern Marianas Islands, and the Government contends that the 16th Amendment gave them the power to tax you, is conclusive proof, even above prima facie proof that the several States means those mentioned above, and did not include Citizens (people) to be taxed. So it is an import/export tax on commodities, not a tax on labor, as labor is not an article of commerce nor is it an article of consumption, therefore, no excise tax can be applied to one's property, called earnings, wages, etc., unless they worked for Government in those States mentioned above.
AND WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY CENSUS OR ENUMERATION
This proves it was not a direct tax and was not to be applied directly to people of the several 48 States (as it was and is currently being done), but rather to be an Indirect (excise) Tax. See Federalist Paper #21 supra and Title 18 § 3283 "Revenue" supra. It is among the states of the United States and not among the American Citizens of the now 50 Union States. The sixteenth is nothing more than a Statutory Law rather than an Amendment to the Constitution. All Congress had to do was to link the phrase "among the several States" in the Sixteenth, to the Income Tax Statute term "United States" leading people to assume the term meant the 48 States of the Union. Why do you think teachers were granted exemption, when going to Hawaii and Alaska to teach? They did not pay an income tax while teaching in the 48 States of the Union. When going to the states of the United States they would have to pay a tax instituted by the Sixteenth, for then the income would be from a source within the United States, as they would be effectively connected with a profession or business, with the United States paying their Salaries. This section 116 (b), was repealed by Sec. 2 of the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, when Congress only consented to a United States employee being taxed by a State of the Union if it could Tax the income of a State employee while in the jurisdiction of the United States. The United States, meaning D.C., Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa and the Northern Marianas. This proves the 16th Amendment income tax was not paid by State of the Union employees nor the people of the States of the Union. The case of Graves v New York Ex Rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466, eliminated this intergovernmental tax immunities, stating that a state tax on Federal employees was no unconstitutional burden upon the Federal government. Hence was born the misconceived idea that all "employees" were to be taxed, when it only applied to government employees. It also applied to corporations created by Congress and the employees of such in only certain circumstances, that being "The term `employee' ALSO INCLUDES [includes in an expansive form] an [meaning one] officer of a corporation." 26 USC 3401 (c). This clarifies and conclusively proves the "employer" in 26 USC 3401 (d), to be only the government or its created corporation. By words of construction the 16th Amendment is constitutionally correct when applied to the proper subject. Are you the proper subject? Therefore the Statute enacted is also constitutionally correct when you know the correct definition of the terms.
The 16th Amendment neither repealed 1:9:4 of the Constitution nor overturned Pollock v Farmers Loan. If it did repeal, then where is the repealing Amendment equivalent to the repealing Amendment 21 for the 18th Amendment?
Copyright Harry A. Coombs (now deceased). also known as "The Informer". His work is now being carried on since his death by firstname.lastname@example.org.
You may obtain his books and work from Harry's son, Donald Coombs by visiting: http://wwiilha.com/informer.html
|Last revision: 8/16/09|
|Home About Contact||This private system is NOT subject to monitoring|