Bing
Forum Replies Created
No problem. I am basically thinking out loud.
No, I was just using the term “State” as an example. I think that if I am correct, then the same reasoning can be applied to any word of art.
Basically, if one were to apply the US supreme Court's rationale in Eisner v. Maccomber, wherein, the Court held that:
Quote:Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone, it derives its powers to legislate, and within those limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised…”Then, does it not follow that to the extent that certain words are defined or used in the Organic Laws, then that means that Congress may not redefine those words in any positive law but is, however, free to use these word of art with special laws, that is, laws that apply only within the federal zone?
I say that the answer is “yes”.
Essentially, it seems to me that applying the Court's reasoning in Eisner, when Congress takes a word that appears in the Organic Laws and redefines it in a statute, such as, for example, the terms “State” and “States” at 26 USC 7701, this should serve as a trip-wire of sorts that lets us freedom loving folks who advocate the People's sovereignty, that Congress is up to no good and that they are legislating for the federal zone only, and not the several states of the Union.
Bing
Sure thing, Sonik. I would appreciate any insight, criticism and feedback that you or anyone else might have.
The “USA” means the Union of several states united by and under the USA Constitution. Here, I am referring to the united States of America. This is consistent with the US supreme Court's 3rd definition of the term “United States” as stipulated in Hooven & Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945).
The term “USA Organic Laws” and the term “Organic Laws”, mean the same thing. If you refer to volume 1 of the United States Code, 2000 edition, the Contents Page (v), identifies the four Organic Laws of the United States [of Ameirca]. Then of course, on page XLI, it is titled “THE ORGANIC LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.”
I am mindful that Article 3, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution asserts that “…no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of Congress.”
So, in 3:4:1 we have the terms State & States mentioned more than once and clearly, the Framers were referring to the several States of the Union.
However, 26 USC 7621 b, declares that “the President may subdivide any State, or the District of Columbia, or may unite into one [internal revenue] district two or more States.”
So, if 26 USC 7621 b, was actually referring to the 50 several states of the Union, than it would conflict with 3:4:1 of the USA Constitution. Ergo, the term State and States in 26 USC 7621 b, must only mean the District of Columbia (per 26 USC 7701).
As you know, since Congress had defined the term “income” in the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909, about four years BEFORE the alleged ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913, the Us supreme Court in a a string of Cases, basically ruled that the term “income” in the 16th Amendment means what it did in the 1909 Tax Act. See, for example, Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189, 207; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros., 247 US 179, 185; and, Bowers v. Kerbaugh Empire Co., 271 US 179, 174.
In Bowers the supreme Court declared that:
Quote:“Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (36 Stat. 112) in the 16th Amendment, and used in the various revenue acts subsequently passed.”Thus, if one applies the same reasoning, does it not follow that to the extent that a word's definition is implied or stated in one of the USA Organic Laws, then it means that Congress MAY NOT redefine that word in a statute to mean something different, because in doing Congress would in fact be altering the Constitution. See Eisner v. Maccomber, page 207.
Except, when Congress is legislating for its own territory outside of the boundaries of the Union of several states. And this is precisely what Congress has done with respect to 26 USC 7701 (a) (9) and (a)(10) where it has redefined the term State to mean ONLY the District of Columbia.
Bing
Bravo, Sonik! Bravo!
Thank you for sharing that.
Bing
