Jurisdiction is the key factor
“It is not what you don't know that gets you into trouble …
it is what you know for sure that is not so.”
— Mark Twain
Most Americans consider Washington, D.C. as the “nation’s capital” and thus have not considered the dramatic differences that actually exist between the 50 states of the Union and Washington, D.C.
CHECK OUT our YouTube video on Jurisdiction here.
Geographically speaking, the map below might be of value. So let’s look at what are, in effect, two separate and distinct “jurisdictions” that have existed since the enactment of the Constitution but has been given little attention by the average American.
The Federalist Papers #15, written by Alexander Hamilton, was the foundation of the limitations against the National Government from acting as if it possessed authority to impose an income tax. By the limitations expressed by the first Secretary of the Treasury, one sees the beginning of territorial distinctions (meaning limitations of territorial jurisdiction) of the National Government regarding imposition of income taxes and drafting men and/or women for military service.
“The great and radical vice in the construction of the existing Confederation is in the principle of LEGISLATION for STATES or GOVERNMENTS, in their CORPORATE or COLLECTIVE CAPACITIES, and as contradistinguished from the INDIVIDUALS of which they consist. Though this principal does not run through all the powers delegated to the Union, yet it pervades and governs those on which the efficacy of the rest depends.
Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States has an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either, by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America. The consequence of this is, that though in theory their resolutions concerning those objects are laws, constitutionally binding on the members of the Union, yet in practice they are mere recommendations which the States observe or disregard at their option.”
The 16th Amendment had addressed the authority of the National Government to impose an income tax upon those who worked for the government. This disclosed to the American People, who were aware of the design of the U.S. Constitution, that the National Government could not impose an income tax directly upon the American People (via state legislature’s approval) without the compliance by the National Government of the Rule of Apportionment based on the census and enumeration.
The Legislative Intent of the 16th Amendment, written by President William H. Taft on June 16, 1909, was in line with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895), in which the National Government was required to adhere to Article 1, Section 2 and Section 9, and could only impose such a tax by rule of apportionment according to population. This case provided the American People with the understanding that for the United States (meaning the National Government) in its earlier attempt to impose an income tax in 1894 was stated by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional if the National Government attempted to do such by avoidance of the Rule of Apportionment.
President Taft stated in his letter to the U.S. Congress several key elements and admissions of the limitations of the territorial authority of the United States (meaning the National Government’s territory) vis-á-vis the jurisdiction of the states of the Union, the Constitutional Republic.
This was a powerful expression of the existence of two distinct and separate jurisdictions, and that the National Government had limited jurisdictional authority by its legislative acts to only its territorial jurisdiction if it ignored the U.S. Constitutional limitations placed against the National Government.
The distinctions of jurisdiction between the National Government and the Constitutional Republic by the U.S. Supreme Court started to be addressed early in American History. One of the first cases on the issue of different jurisdictions began with United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. 336 (1818). These types of cases, illustrating the existence of two separate and distinct jurisdictions between the states of the Union and that of the federal jurisdiction (the District of Columbia and its U.S. territories), became even clearer in Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949). The U.S. Supreme Court stated in part: “The canon of construction which teaches that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
50 states of the Union — a Distinct Jurisdiction
Domicile of American Nationals (those not working for the National Government)
Americans located here are Non-resident and Alien to the Geographical and Legislative Jurisdiction of Washington, D.C. in regard to U.S. Taxation
This graphic of the 50 states shows the domicile of American Nationals who are lawful Non Taxpayers as “they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws” which “Congress does not assume to deal” as stated in the Federal Court decision of Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922).
So when the majority of Americans start considering taxation, they routinely start with the Jurisdiction of the 50 states of the Union. Interesting in this discussion is the fact that Americans give little thought about the other jurisdiction that they call the “nation’s capital”.
For many decades, Americans saw only a single jurisdiction and most are not aware of the other jurisdiction in which the Federal Income Tax is actually applicable within.
The second jurisdiction is the District of Columbia. The domicile of statutory “U.S. Taxpayers” for which the revenue laws were levied upon. When you hear “Taxpayers” think the “District of Columbia”.
• “The laws of Congress in respect to those matters (outside of Constitutionally delegated powers) do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only within the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Government.” — Caha v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211 (1894)
The District of Columbia is the ONLY Jurisdiction for the application and imposition of the special statutory laws in Title 26. In this Jurisdiction, one must realize that it is ‘Geographically’ comprised of the 10-mile square-area but also the ‘Legislative’ Jurisdiction of the National Government. In this Jurisdiction, the vast majority of laws passed by Congress only apply here. Like the Patriot Act, the Federal Income Tax has no implementing regulations for neither has been published in the Federal Register.
If any law applies outside the District of Columbia it is required by the Federal Register Act to be an implementing regulation and published in the Federal Register to give notice to the American people.
Michael L. White, Federal Attorney in the Office of the Federal Register (National Archives) has stated that:
“Our records indicate that the Internal Revenue Service has not promulgated (published) in the Federal Register a requirement to make an income tax return.”
As such, the Federal Income Tax is only applicable within the District of Columbia and validated by the Legislative Intent of the 16th Amendment. Thus, there is no imposed duty for Americans to make any income tax return.
Further evidence of the unique ‘Legislative Jurisdiction’ of the Federal Income Tax being applicable only within Washington, D.C. was created by former POTUS William H. Taft in the Legislative Intent of the 16th Amendment. The Federal Income Tax was only levied upon the National Government (the unique geographical and legislative jurisdiction of Washington, D.C.) by the 16th Amendment (commonly known as the Income Tax Amendment).
Here is what POTUS Taft stipulated in the Legislative Intent of the 16th Amendment:
“The decision of the Supreme Court in the income-tax case (Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, 1895) deprived the National Government of a power which, by reason of previous decisions of the court, it was generally supposed that government had.”
“I therefore recommend to the Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment among the States in proportion to population.”
It is interesting to note that POTUS Taft levied this income tax upon the National Government “without apportionment among the States [of the Union] in proportion to population”. The Constitution, at Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, requires the National Government to do otherwise. To pass legislation upon the states of the Union without apportionment would be an unconstitutional act as stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, 1895.
As you well know, the 16th Amendment did pass without regard to this constitutional limitation. Therefore, one can now see that as the Congress has their own separate and distinct Jurisdiction for passing statutory laws that can simply disregard the Constitutional limitations. The National Government cannot ignore the limitations when a law applies within the 50 states of the Union.
In Washington, D.C., the 16th Amendment is fully operational but NOT within the states of the Union. The constitution can, and is, ignored by Congress within its own exclusive but limited Jurisdiction.
So the Jurisdiction for the application of the Federal Income Tax, as expressed by former POTUS Taft and the Congress that passed the 16th Amendment, is ONLY the District of Columbia.
However, American Nationals who do not understand the differences in these two Jurisdictions have annually been conditioned ‘sub silentio’ (without notice being taken) into making an ‘election’ to have their earnings treated like that of a statutory U.S. Resident Alien [as found at 26 USC §6013(g) or (h)]. Thus, American Nationals became ‘Taxpayers’ for the Federal Income Tax by filing a tax return of any of the variants of Form 1040.
Thus, American Nationals have annually filed a tax return, only applicable within the limited and exclusive Jurisdiction of the National Government, when there is no lawful or constitutional requirement for them to do so. They have, in essence, ‘gifted or bequeathed’ their money “to and for the use of the United States.” Which is to say they ‘voluntarily’ donated their money and self-imposed the liability and submitted their former status to the Jurisdiction of the National Government.
If all American Nationals ‘volunteer into federal jurisdiction’, who is left for the Constitution to protect?
Under the 13th Amendment, those American Nationals, who did not work for the National Government in any capacity, voluntarily entered into servitude to the National Government by filing a tax return. They made the choice to become subservient and subjected themselves to the ‘geographical and legislative’ jurisdiction of the National Government. Their decision was not illegal, but more than likely they did so without prior knowledge of the facts regarding the distinctions of federal Jurisdiction and the taxation ramifications of the jurisdiction of the National Government.
Understanding that two Jurisdictions exist in America is crucial in making a personal decision. Once anyone submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Government, by making a tax return, they are indeed liable and must wait until another year passes to decide to continue that servitude or not.
In conclusion, there are 2 separate and distinct JURISDICTIONS in America. The laws for each Jurisdiction are very different. American Nationals are free moral agents and must choose for themselves which Jurisdiction they want to ‘associate’ with voluntarily and without compulsion.