Semantics and the term "United States"

Off-topic
1

We have often had debates about semantics on this forum, but here is a term I think that most people get wrong when it comes to legal forms. When it comes to legal issues, I think most people would like to know what they are really signing.

In other words, the three different meanings respectively are:

  • the U.S.A. (national whole)
  • the federal government/territory
  • the 50 states.
In the Articles of Confederation, each of these meanings used different terms. The name of the whole union was "The United States of America". For the 13 states, the term used was "United States". For the union acting singularly, the term used was "United States in Congress assembled".

However, this changed in the Constitution, and the constitution I refer to here, is the “Constitution for the United States of America.” Most of the time when the term “United States” is used in the Constitution, it means the federal government and territory.

Some examples in the Constitution of it used in the federal sense:

  • "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union..."
  • "...all the executive and judicial officers, [B]both[/B] of the United States and of the several States, shall..."
  • "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States..."
Examples of the plural sense, meaning the 50 states today:
  • "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against [B]them[/B], or adhering to [B]their[/B] enemies..."
  • "The Judicial power of the [federal] United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against [B]one of the United States[/B] by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
  • "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to [B]their[/B] jurisdiction." (Does that mean slavery is allowed in the federal US?)
That last one is the 13th amendment. The use of the word "their" instead of "its" gives away which U.S. they are mentioning.

In the law today, when the term is used, most of the time, they are referring to the federal use of the term. As an example, I’m sure at this time of year, everyone loves chapter 26 of the United States Code, the tax code. The more revealing Federal Regulations that go along with this chapter gives the following definition:

The singular sense. They are referring to the federal meaning of the term United States. If you were born or naturalized in the federal territory, you are a U.S. citizen. This does not include the 50 states. Those born in one of the several States are a citizen of that state.

Prior to the 14th amendment, citizenship was only obtained at the state level. For those not familiar with the 14th Amendment, it’s one of the amendments resulting from the civil war. At the time, the slaves were just freed, but in many states, they could not get citizenship, so this amendment created a citizenship for them.

Now for a slight tangent of the initial topic…

Today, people are proud to declare themselves to be a U.S. citizen, even when they are not. They declare it on the passport application, driver’s license application, jury duty summons, voter registration, and many people this week are declaring it on form 1040 to give to the IRS. Little do most know that the form 1040 is the wrong form. They are not U.S. citizens, and they are not U.S. residents. They are a Nonresident Alien in respect to the United States. The correct form for them, and probably yourself, is 1040NR, assuming you have enough “taxable income” making you liable to pay taxes.

From the Federal Regulations:

And in case you were wondering:

Isn’t it nice how we may elect to be treated as U.S. residents and subject ourself to more taxes?

Section 877 deals with expatriation, so it’s not really relevant to us. Section 864(c)4 deals with income from a trade or business with an office in the federal United States. Sources within the U.S. basically means any income from the U.S. treasury (such as the case for government employees).

Being a U.S. citizen simply is not what it’s all cracked up to be. In fact they don’t even have much in the way of rights.

The civil rights movement should make this fact very evident to most. What the 14th amendment really means is that they can enslave and restrict you as long as they do the same for all other U.S. citizens.

Why would anyone claim to be a U.S. citizen? Most people are simply unaware of what it means. Since Franklin D. Roosevelt had his way with our government, our governments has had us claim U.S. citizenship on many forms, resulting in a huge buildup of evidence that supports a presumption that you are a U.S. citizen. There is a huge paper trail, and some day, I wouldn’t doubt that it will be used against you as the government is not bound to protecting your inalienable rights if you are a mere U.S. citizen subject completely to their unrestrained jurisdiction, as given to them by the Constitution and the 14th amendment. Erasing that presumption that they have allowed you to unknowingly create is a tough battle.

It’s no wonder that most people hate politicians and lawyers, as for them it’s always about deceit.

Good luck, my fellow U.S. nationals.

2

The devil is in the details. I’m sure those inconsistencies have been worked out through other amendments, laws, and court decisions.

There are lawyers, judges, lawyerly thinktanks, and lawyerly academics, who spend all their time thinking about constitutional law. If there are important inconsistencies in the laws and the way the government is being run then those inconsistencies would have been (or will be) brought before the Supreme Court to be properly interpreted and defined.

Constitutional law is complex. It seems similar to interpreting the Bible. Reading just bits and pieces or verses without understanding the full context can lead to differing interpretations.

I’ll have to let the constitutional scholars debate the issues. It’s not something that I have time to dig in to and understand unless someone wants to give me a full ride scholarship along with living expenses to go to law school.

3

Exactly, but who is saying they are inconsistencies? They are probably completely in line with each other.

Based on my research, a natural person can not be taxed on their private affairs. I would be liable for income taxes only if I engage in a privileged activity, such as operating a trade or business within the federal United States, or receiving a paycheck from the federal United States.

4

That is possible, but I consider it unlikely. If things were that far out of whack with what is in the constitution and the reasonable interpretation of it then there would have been successful challenges by now. Constitutional scholars do think about such deep things and such hypothetical situations. It’s like the laws form of a philosopher. If there are inconsistencies like that the legal philosophers will dig them out just for scholarly enlightenment.

This is an area where I have to defer to the experts.

5

There have been many successful challenges to the income tax by Americans, but those challenges rarely happen in a court. Once you accept the jurisdiction of a court (by making a peremptory plea), many of the facts have already been determined. Those that have succeeded have done so by conditionally accepting the claims made by the IRS, before being brought to court. Essentially saying you will meet their demands, but they must prove many of their claims. If they don’t, they defaulted on your request, for them to perform your reasonable conditions, and have no rightful claim against you. Success is when the IRS drops the case against you. Most caselaw that can be cited to deal with income taxes are dealing with actual taxpayers, such as corporations, government employees, etc. For example, a significant case that occurred last year, Murphy v. U.S., was for a government employee, but regardless, it went in to a deep analysis to find what income was taxable and it said part of the tax code was unconstitutional. Those “experts” you want to hear from are baffled by this decision.

Also, the tax code is not unconstitutional (except for whatever the Murphy case found). It’s simply a big legal maze to understand what is taxable income and what is not.

The Constitution does not allow a direct tax on natural persons in the several States of the Union.

Article 1, Section 2:

Who is being taxed? The several States.
The term Taxes is a proper noun, which means it’s referring to a specific tax.

Article 1, Section 8:

Again, Taxes is a proper noun, so it is referring to the same Taxes as Article 1, Section 8. This section adds three other methods of revenue for the federal United States.

Article 1, Section 9:

This simply reaffirms that direct taxes, even a Capitation Tax, must be based on the census.

Then we have the lovely 16th Amendment:

This is what caused all the confusion. It does not create new taxing authority:

A brief history of the 16th, which contains this quote from the supreme court, is here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment16/01.html

It’s putting it in to the excise tax category, subject to uniformity, instead of apportionment. An excise tax is only on privileged activities. A privilege is distinguished from a right. It’s something that is not otherwise possible without the government providing that possibility. For example, corporations are created by the State, therefore, they are operating under that privileged status. Someone holding public office or employed by the State is a taxable situation, because it’s not possible without the privilege provided by the State.

In the history of the U.S.A., we have created a hierarchy:

Nature creates us (or in our historical documents “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them” or “Creator” or “grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty” is used).

  • [B]Colonists[/B] - created states and united to declare independence and their unalienable rights. Look at your state constitution and see who holds all political power. The state can not extend past the powers granted to them by the people.[LIST]
  • [B]States[/B] - representatives of each state created the United States under a constitution. The U.S. can not extend past the powers granted to them by the States, nor can they give the U.S. more powers than they themselves had.[LIST]
  • [B]United States[/B] - The U.S. creates a citizen under the 14th amendment, which includes freed slaves, corporations, and other born or naturalized "persons" that are completely subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Oh, and the "[U]S[/U]tate of Minnesota" is probably a federal corporation, whereas the [U]s[/U]tate of "Minnesota" is not. How else could the state accept something other than gold and silver for debts, as required in the constitution: [quote] [B]Article I, Section 10.[/B] No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts [/quote]
[/LIST] [/LIST]Each organization can not exceed the powers given to them, nor can they pass on more powers than were given to them in their charters. No thing may infringe on the una[B]lien[/B]able rights of a natural person. A state can't, the U.S. can't, and another person can't. Among those rights that can not have liens on them, are life, liberty, and property (in most historical documents, except our dec. of independence, which says "pursuit of happiness" instead of property). Taxes can not be imposed on those rights, as that would put a lien on them. Only privileged activities granted by the States or the United States can be taxable.

The constitution sets up a direct tax on the States that must be apportioned among the states. However, the 16th amendment allows them to tax incomes, uniformly as an excise, of state created entities.

In the constitution for Minnesota, it’s quite clear what tax authority they can give the U.S.:

If, as a natural person, using my life and my property, I create widgets, and then I go and trade some widgets for some gadgets that my neighbor, a natural person, created with his life and property, then no privileged activity took place, and therefore no tax may be imposed on such transaction. But today, our government would like us to think otherwise, and they force it on us at the threat of guns and by using the lack of knowledge in the general population in regards to the law and government imposed procedures and contracts.

6

Oh, geographical. Not jurisdictional. Cool. But what are “the States” they refer to?

Hmmm… are these just federal states, or all states in the union?

Let’s look at the Federal Regulations:

OK, so Hawaii and Alaska are only included in the term United States before they became States. This is definitely defining the federal United States.

Subtitle C is employment taxes.

If you have taxes withheld at your place of work, you may want to question whether you are actually an employee, as defined in the code:

Is that you, do you work for the government?

Are your wages from personal labor associated with a trade or business, and therefore subject to income taxes?

Ain’t that sneaky?

These definitions use the term “includes” a lot, and in legal matters this means a limited expansion of the term is done. It can include something not mentioned, as long as it fits the limited class of all the examples.

And in case you were wondering, congress does know how to correctly define the United States if they are referring to the U.S.A. definition:

7

Wanting to skip all that reading, could you just let us know how you make out on paying your taxes this year? :smiley:

8

You’re implying that I have taxable income. As someone who works for himself for a living, I clearly don’t have any income connected with a “trade or business” as defined in the IRC and quoted above, which would require me to submit a schedule C.

I am still trying to figure out if Minnesota has been handed over to the U.S. via incorporation and called the “State of Minnesota” and is a State as defined in:

Which would therefore make it “within the territorial limits of the United States with the authority to impose a tax, charge, or fee.” Mentioned at 4 U.S. Code § 124 - Definitions | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

If you are within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., they can pass any law:

:frowning:

Looking through the statutes for the State where I reside and are copyrighted under the name “State of Minnesota”, there are some interesting usages of the capitalization of the word “state” in there.

I’m also trying to find a copy of the original Minnesota constitution. It was rewritten in “modern language” in 1974 but the new one is not the authoritative constitution if there is a difference in interpretation.

9

But your taxes are due today! Are you filing for an extention? Or just not filing?

10

How do you figure that?
For residents of the U.S., taxes are due today. For non-residents of the U.S., taxes are due on June 15. Please provide any evidence that you have which makes me a resident of the U.S.

Keep in mind the definition of United States for the Title known as the tax code:

What are the States? Maybe the states statutorily defined in title 4 of the US Code? Had they wanted to make it clear for us, they would have explicitly declared the states of the union or otherwise made it very clear what was included in this usage of the term “United States”.

11

I’ll take that as a no, then…

12

I have filed all forms and paid all taxes that I am liable for. :stuck_out_tongue:

13

My favorite quote from Grosse Point Blank is when he refers to nations and states as “public relations theory”.

14 
           [I] It's irrelevant, 
	really. The idea of governments, 
	nations, it's mostly a public 
	relations theory at this point, 
	anyway.[/I]