THE MECHANICAL SCIENCE OF AMERICAN LAW
|I AM HERE| |<+>| |I MOVE ME|
|YOU ARE THERE| |<+>| |YOU MOVE YOU|SEPERATE AND EQUAL STATION IS THE LAW II
AMERICAN DICTA
BY [email protected]
— constructed using a falsify-or-yield format —All content on ApplyingForce.com and subdomains are the private property of [email protected]
All content was Discovered, Created, and Released by
MC2 ©2024-Contact: [email protected]
-
Due to the condition of our institutions, I choose to give access directly to you, my peer, for your review.
Licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0
When using or adapting this work, please attribute as:
"Based on work by [email protected]"
-
Reality is objective and can be mutually observed and definitively catalogued; Any theory or institution that alters or dismisses elements from a self-authenticating, mutually observable, fully triangulated count of reality or that becomes a self-referential authority, substitutes itself as the measure of reality rather than the measurer of reality, and bears the burden of demonstrating valid cause for placing itself above reality.

The American’s Original Claim to the High Estate
"I set out on this ground…
the earth belongs in usufruct to the living.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, 1789There are 3 parties to every state worldwideThe Sovereign,
The Sovereign's government,
The Sovereign's property and subjectsAmericans assumed the separate and equal station of sovereign at the revolution.As one of the people,
the American born in one of 50 states of the union is the principal owner of the republic. Both local and national. He is the atomic unit from which all republican governments rights derive. it is he that claims, delegates, retains, all original authority.Each American has:
-their own private property estate that they own severally that begins with their soul, mind, body, labor, and extends in concentric circles outwardly to include all the tangible and intangible assets one accumulates;-a local estate that they own jointly with other local Americans in their state including their courts, state governments, agencies, infrastructure, undeveloped lands, et. all...-a national estate that they own jointly with all other Americans born in the 50 states including their courts, state governments, agencies, infrastructure, undeveloped lands, et al...Each one of these estates mechanically produces rights and privileges the american is entitled to.THIS IS THE AMERICANS FUNDAMENTAL CLAIM AND FUNDAMENTAL LAW:
..."to assume... the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle...
...that to secure these rights
Governments are instituted among Men...
— Declaration of Independence 1776...entitle is to, to transfer and endow with ownership; To grant title.Ownership is the ultimate causal authority.The title which secures a separate and equal station is a joint tenancy, making each American a joint tenant in the sovereignty witheach fully owning their own, each fully co-owning the whole, each able to acquire, control, defend and dispose of their own in any way they can afford themselves that does not diminish another, each able to ordinarily use and defend the whole;all with the power to defend and dispose the whole, all with the power to regulate and tax the privileged use of the whole;none with the authority to diminish another, none subordinate to another;This makes "the people" a union of singular apexes, each privately owning their own while simultaneously jointly owning the whole.The original separate and equal condition of each man entitled by the Laws of Nature and of Nature's Godis consubstantial with his recognized station and the source of all his natural restraints, rights, privileges, duties, breaches, and remedies.From this Separate and Equal Apex station, the People organize, delimit, delegate, confer, and sustain each of their governments."When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed
to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
-Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 1886

“We the People of the United States... do ordain and establish...”
— Preamble, Federal Constitution 1787"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."-U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause)1787"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
-U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4 (Guarantee Clause):1787“...in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers...” — Preamble, Bill of Rights 1788"...being necessary to the security of a free state..."
-Second Amendment 1788“...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
— Fifth Amendment 1788“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
— Ninth Amendment 1788“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
— Tenth Amendment 1788***Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103):
“...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”***"California Code, Government Code - GOV § 54950
"In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.
The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."

“At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country...The citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty......that the joint and equal sovereigns of this country should, in the very Constitution by which they...bring into action and enforce this great and glorious principle —
that the people are the sovereign of this country, and consequentlythat fellow citizens and joint sovereigns cannot be degraded by appearing with each other in their own courts to have their controversies determined.”
— Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)--------------------------
The 11th Amendment then constitutionally blocks the federal government from being used against the people of each state by citizens of other states or foreign entities,-Protecting their sovereignty from external attack."The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
11th amendment (1795)
---------------------------------------
"There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and overrule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power.
"Calder v. Bull (1798)
-"It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply."
Marbury v Madison (1803)
-“The government of the Union, then, is emphatically and truly a government of the people. In form and substance, it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit...The power to tax is the power to destroy.”
McCulloch v Maryland (1819)”
-"The question is not what power the Federal Government ought to have, but what powers, in fact, have been given by the people.
It hardly seems necessary to reiterate that ours is a dual form of government; that in every state there are two governments -- the state and the United States.
Each State has all governmental powers save such as the people, by their Constitution, have conferred upon the United States, denied to the States, or reserved to themselves.
The federal union is a government of delegated powers. It has only such as are expressly conferred upon it and such as are reasonably to be implied from those granted.
In this respect, we differ radically from nations where all legislative power, without restriction or limitation, is vested in a parliament or other legislative body subject to no restrictions except the discretion of its members."
— U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
---------------The American system is a joint tenancy instantiated in law, ratified in founding documents, and confirmed in jurisprudence.
Each American possesses an undivided, apex, co-equal claim to the national domain, both material and legal, absent a superior claim.
This fundamental claim exists at birth but is dependent upon understanding and fluency to invoke.

Fundamental Restrictions on governmental business operations"That government can scarcely be deemed to be free where the rights of property are left solely dependent on the will of the legislative body, without any restraint. The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to require that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred."
— Wilkinson v. Leland, 27 U.S. 627 (1829)
-"...A statute passed by a legislature for the purpose of depriving a citizen of his rights, which had vested anterior to its passage, would be void; and any law which divests rights vested by pre-existing laws must be void… That statute which would deprive a citizen of rights of person or property, without a regular trial according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land."
— Hoke v. Henderson (1833)
-"The rights of life and personal liberty are natural rights of man. To secure these rights... is the primary duty of government, and not to impair them."
— Marr v. Enloe, 9 Yer. 489 (1836)
-"In this state, as in all republics, it is not the legislation, however transcendent its powers, who are supreme — but the people. To suppose that they may violate the fundamental law is to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that the men acting by virtue of delegated powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.".
— Warning v. Mayor of Savannah, 60 Ga. 93 (1868)
-"The State cannot diminish the rights of the people."
— Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)
-"When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed
to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
And the law is the definition and limitation of power.It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision, and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage.But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments...For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life at the mere will of another seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.
There are many illustrations that might be given of this truth, which would make manifest that it was self-evident in the light of our system of jurisprudence.
In reference to that right, it was declared by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in Capen v. Foster, 12 Pick. 485, 489, in the words of Chief Justice Shaw,
"that, in allcases where the constitution has conferred a political right or privilege, and where the constitution has not particularly designated the manner in which that right is to be exercised, it is clearly within the just and constitutional limits of the legislative power to adopt any reasonable and uniform regulations, in regard to the time and mode of exercising that right, which are designed to secure and facilitate the exercise of such right, in a prompt, orderly, and convenient manner;"
nevertheless, "such a construction would afford no warrant for such an exercise of legislative power as, under the pretence and color of regulating, should subvert or injuriously restrain the right itself."
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
-Determination by the legislature of what constitutes proper exercise of police power is not final or conclusive, but is subject to supervision by the courts.
Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 152 U. S. 137. (1894)
-"Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do, as such license would be meaningless."
— Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2961
-"A statutory provision which is not a legitimate police regulation cannot be made such by being placed in the same act with a police regulation, or by being enacted under a title that declares a purpose which would be a proper object for the exercise of that power.
It being self-evident that, unless all things are held in common, some persons must have more property than others,it is from the nature of things impossible to uphold freedom of contract and the right of private property without at the same time recognizing as legitimate those inequalities of fortune that are the necessary result of the exercise of those rights.The Fourteenth Amendment recognizes 'liberty' and 'property' as coexistent human rights, and debars the states from any unwarranted interference with either.Since a state may not strike down the rights of liberty or property directly, it may not do so indirectly…
— Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)
-"The sovereign state has plenary control of streets and highways under its police power, andmay absolutely prohibit their use for private business gain.
They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or as an instrumentality for private gain.
The former is a common Right; the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, legislative power is confined to regulation; as to the latter, it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition."
— Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wash. 516 (1917)
-...A distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance or permission. In the latter case, the power to exclude altogether generally includes the lesser power to condition and may justify a degree of regulation not admissible in the former."
— Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924)
-"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
— Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 486 (1926)
-"The object of a license is to confer a right or power which does not exist without it."
— Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37 (Cal. App. 1945)
-"An ordinance which makes the enjoyment of constitutional freedoms contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official—as by requiring a permit or license at official discretion—is an unconstitutional prior restraint."
— Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313 (1958)
-"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them."
— Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
-"The government may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests'... For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited."
— Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972)
-"It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values... [they] may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning."
— Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972)
-"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."
— Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 946 (9th Cir. 1973)
-"The government may not require a person to give up a constitutional right—here the right to receive just compensation when property is taken for a public use—in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by the government where the benefit sought has little or no relationship to the property."
— Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. 595 (2013)
-Young v. Hawaii (2021) — 9th Circuit: "Rights don't become second-class just because they are controversial."
Wrenn v. District of Columbia (2017) — DC Circuit: "The law made the Second Amendment a second-class right."
Heller v. District of Columbia (2016) — "Turning the Second Amendment into a second-class right."
NY State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2022) — Supreme Court ruled lower courts cannot apply different constitutional tests for the Second Amendment than for other enumerated rights.

The perfect, complete, plenary delegation of taxing power"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States..."
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8
-“The power to tax is the power to destroy.”
McCulloch v Maryland (1819)
-"There is no such thing in the theory of our national government as unlimited power of taxation in Congress. There are limitations, as he justly observes, of its powers arising out of the essential nature of all free governments; there are reservations of individual rights, without which society could not exist, and which are respected by every government. The right of taxation is subject to these limitations."
— Citizens' Savings Loan Ass'n v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874); Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U.S. 487 (1882)"The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation."— Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
-----
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." -Sixteenth Amendment
----"The subject matter of taxation open to the power of the Congress is as comprehensive as that open to the power of the states, though the method of apportionment may at times be different.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.
If the tax is a direct one, it shall be apportioned according to the census or enumeration.
If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty."
— Cf. Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U.S. 378, 403-405 (1933); Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 12 (1916)
-"The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment... A tax otherwise within the lawful power of a state cannot be adjudged contrary to due process merely because its enforcement may or will result in restricting or even destroying particular occupations or businesses. P. [292 U. S. 44]...
The due process clause applies if the Act be so arbitrary as to compel the conclusion that it does not involve an exertion of the taxing power, but constitute, in substance and effect, the direct exertion of a different and forbidden power, as, for example, the confiscation of property.
P. [292 U. S. 44"] -Magnano Co. v. Hamilton, 292 U.S. 40 (1934)"...And the license tax is fixed in amount and unrelated to the scope of the activities of petitioners or to their realized revenues.
It is not a nominal fee Page 319 U. S. 114 imposed as a regulatory measure to defray the expense of policing the activities in question. [Footnote 8]
It ist...The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment. Magnano Co. v. Hamilton, 292 U. S. 40, 292 U. S.44-45, and cases cited...(addressing the dissent) It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v Aldrich, 316 U. S. 174, and cases cited.But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution.
-Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. at 115 (1943)
...AND MURDOCK THE DISSENT..."The ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of a tax measure is -- has the state given something for which it can ask a return? Although the fostering of commerce was one of the chief purposes for organizing the present Government, that commerce may be burdened with a tax by the United States. Internal Revenue Code, § 3469, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Code § 3469.-murdock dissent" -Murdock v Pennsylvania dissent 1943
____________________
Did the state give something-
if not, no privilege?
if yes, continue...For which it can ask a return...given your standing?
if no, no privilege
if yes, privilege.
____________________

Indirect Taxes:"it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods.
...the legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege." -flint v stone traceyAll indirect taxes, including those structured as income taxes, rests on the ruling logic of Flint v. Stone Tracey and must fall within the category of duties, imposts, or excises—as per Article I, §8, cl.1.
--
"First. We adhere to the opinion already announced-that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.
Second. We are of the opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes...
...In view of the instances which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such...We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. But this is not such an act."
— Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895)"Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities.
Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.The requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable.It is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods....but the legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege.""— Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911); Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., p. 680
--Taxation Key, West 53 - The legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege."As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court had decided in the Pollock Cas that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a C corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation..."
-Stratton's Independence, LTD v. Howbert, 231 US 399.414 (1913)-----------------------------------------------
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.- Sixteenth amendment 1916
-----------------------------------------------
Brushaber addressed the income tax provisions within the Tariff Act of 1913 (Underwood Tariff Act, ch. 16, 38 Stat. 114, October 3, 1913), specifically Section II,
“That the authority conferred upon Congress by § 8 of Article I "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises" is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation...…that there was authority given, as the part was included in the whole, to lay and collect income taxes……the conceded complete and all-embracing taxing power was subject…to limitations resulting from the requirements of Art. I, § 8, cl. 1….,. the two great subdivisions embracing the complete and perfect delegation of the power to tax and the two correlated limitations…...the tax was not in the class of direct taxes because of its ownership, but rather on its use, and was therefore an excise, duty, or impost;…the classification of direct was adopted for the purpose of rendering it impossible to burden by taxation accumulations of property, real or personal, except subject to the regulation of apportionment...…the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent,in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it.…the Amendment demonstrates…that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation…...the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock case that the word "direct" had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution ."
— Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
-“The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights.”
— Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, 238 (D. Mont. 1922)
-"in other words, excise includes every form of charge imposed by public authority for the purpose of raising revenue upon the performance of an act, the enjoyment of a privilege, or the engaging in an occupation. The obligation to pay an excise is based upon the voluntary action of the person taxed in performing the act, enjoying the privilege or engaging in the occupation which is subject of the excise and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking."
— Bank of Commerce & Trust Co. v. Senter,260 S.W. 144, 149 Tenn. 569. 1924
-"An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right but is an excise tax. The legislature may declare as 'privileged' and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, but it has no power to declare as ‘privilege’ and tax for revenue purposes occupations that are common right."
— Simms v. Ahrens, 271 S.W. 720 (1925)
-"The term ‘excise tax’ and ‘privilege tax’ are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably." — American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877 (1932)
-"Whether the tax is to be classified as an 'excise' is in truth not of critical importance. If not that, it is an 'impost' or a 'duty'... A capitation or other 'direct' tax it certainly is not."
— Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548, 581-82 (1937)
-"The ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of a tax measure is -- has the state given something for which it can ask a return?
--Murdock v Pennsylvania dissent 1943"The income tax is therefore not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on an activity or owning property which produces income."
— F. Morse Hubbard, Legislative Draftsman, 1942 Congressional Testimony
-"The sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were __otherwise taxable."— South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988)"
-"When the Court refers to an income tax as being in the nature of an excise, it is merely stating that the tax is not on the property itself, but rather a fee for the privilege of receiving gain from the property. The tax is based on the amount of the gain, not the value of the property."
— John R. Luckey, Legislative Attorney, CRS Report for Congress 92-303A (1992)
-“(a) Article I of the Constitution affords Congress broad power to lay and collect taxes. That power includes direct taxes—those imposed on persons or property—and indirect taxes—those imposed on activities or transactions. Direct taxes must be apportioned among the States according to each State’s population, while indirect taxes are permitted without apportionment but must “be uniform throughout the United States,” §8, cl. 1. Taxes on income are indirect taxes, and the Sixteenth Amendment confirms that taxes on income need not be apportioned.- MOORE ET UX. v. UNITED STATES 2024~ (a) Article I...taxes on income are indirect taxes imposed on activities or transactions permitted without apportionment, §8, cl. 1... and the Sixteenth Amendment confirms
** that taxes on income need not be apportioned.~ Moore v. United States (2024)Notice: Every major income tax (1861, 1862, 1864, 1868, 1894, 1913, 1916, 1939, 1954, 1986, and modern Title 26) has been enacted as a provision of an Article I, Section 8 enumerated subject:
tariffs, duties, imposts, or excises applied to privileged or regulated activity.“For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail in this state, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers at the rate…”- Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 6051"The limitations of the Constitution are not maxims of social wisdom, but definite controls on the legislative process."

RESIDENT v DOMICILLIEARY
Domicile determines rights; residence can trigger privileges/taxes.Domicile = CONSUMING YOUR OWN RESOURCES
you’re in your own estate, consuming your own resources, ordinary use, untaxable as a privilege.Residing = VERB CONSUMING ANOTHER PEOPLE'S RESOURCES: FOREIGN to the PEOPLE OF a state.
you’re in someone else’s estate, consuming their resources, which means you’re in the “extraordinary use” category — and that’s the realm where privileges can be taxed, regulated, licensed, or even denied.Premising that...she was a citizen of that state within the meaning of the Constitution, Art. III, § 2, and the Judicial Code of March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1087, Gassies v. Ballon, 6 Pet. 761; Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U. S. 135, 143 U. S. 161; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, we will take these questions up in turn...The very meaning of domicil is the technically preeminent headquarters that every person is compelled to have in order that certain rights and duties that have been attached to it by the law may be determined. Bergner & Engel Brewing Co. v. Dreyfus, 172 Mass. 154, 157.
— Williamson v. Osenton, 232 U.S. 619, 625 (1914)“A ‘resident’ is a person who lives in a place, whether temporarily or permanently. A ‘domiciliary’ is a person who lives in a place with the intent to make it his permanent home. One may be a resident of one place and domiciled in another.”
— Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398, 424 (1939)

DIRECT TAXES
“The power to tax is the power to destroy.” Mcculloch v Maryland (1819)
"...Direct taxes bear upon persons, upon possessions, and enjoyment of rights."
— Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)
"...The classification of direct was adopted for the purpose of rendering it impossible to burden by taxation accumulations of property, real or personal, except subject to the regulation of apportionment."
— Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

IT IS THE INDIVIDUAL AMERICAN'S DUTY TO INVOKE THE LAW.
"Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of the limitations upon his authority.”
— Federal Crop Ins. Corp v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947)"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (1950)THE AMERICAN CAN THEREFORE STAND“The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right,...It has been well said that “property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of the most sacred property.”
- Butchers Union Co. v Crescent city Co. 111US 746 (1883)
-"...Without doubt, it (14th amendment) denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men...
-Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36; Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U. S. 746; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578; Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U. S. 549; Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33; Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. 590; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 246 U. S. 357; Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U. S. 312; Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U. S. 525; Wyeth v. Cambridge Board of Health, 200 Mass. 474. -
-Constitutional rights are original rights and are constitutionally recognized and protected:
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbor to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution...
...Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation."
— Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)
-
"In our opinion that section, in particular mentioned, is an invasion of the personal liberty, as well as of the right of property, guaranteed by that Amendment.
Such liberty and right embraces the right to make contracts for the purchase of the labor of others and equally the right to make contracts for the sale of one's own labor."
-Adair v United States 208 U.S. 161, 172 (1908)
-“Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property-partaking of the nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property.”
- Coppage v Kansas 236 U.S 1 (1915)
-"Without doubt, it (14th amendment) denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men...
...That the State may do much, go very far, indeed, in order to improve the quality of its citizens, physically, mentally and morally, is clear; but the individual has certain fundamental rights which must be respected. The protection of the Constitution extends to all....... Perhaps it would be highly advantageous if...but this cannot be coerced by methods which conflict with the Constitution -- a desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means....Although such measures have been deliberately approved by men of great genius, their ideas touching the relation between individual and State were wholly different from those upon which our institutions rest, and it hardly will be affirmed that any legislature could impose such restrictions upon the people of a State without doing violence to both letter and spirit of the Constitution....But the means adopted, we think, exceed the limitations upon the power of the State and conflict with rights assured to plaintiff in error...mere abuse incident to an occupation ordinarily useful is not enough to justify its abolition, although regulation may be entirely proper..."
— Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)-"The Constitution protects personal rights of privacy... The right of privacy in the marital relation is fundamental and basic—a personal right 'retained by the people' within the meaning of the Ninth Amendment."
— Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
-"If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."
— Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham; Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938); Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939); Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313 (1958); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965)
-"A law subjecting the right of free expression in publicly owned places to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, and definite standards, is unconstitutional, and a person faced with such a law may ignore it and exercise his First Amendment rights."
— Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969)
-"If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void."
— Wingfield v. Fielder, 2d Cal. 3d 213 (1972)
-"Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right."
— People v. Battle (Cal. App.)  in 50 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1. 1975
-"Michigan law grants a tenant by the entirety some of the most essential property rights: the right to use the property, to receive income produced by it, and to exclude others from it. See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374, 384 (1994) ("[T]he right to exclude others" is " 'one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property''' (quoting Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164, 176 (1979))); Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419, 435 (1982) (including "use" as one of the "[p]roperty rights in a physical thing")...(the right to "dispose" of an item is a property right).
-
United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274 (2002)

Proposal
"Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of the limitations upon his authority.”
— Federal Crop Ins. Corp v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947)"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (1950)Each administrative agency is hired to hunt for revenue through discovering violations, and are incentivized to find the most profitable interpretation they can construct.An agency will observe an act that could be either a right or a privilege, presume it to be a privilege based on attestations made about the violator, and invoke the strictest penalties for breaching the statutorily prescribed terms of use;this leaves it to the to prosecuted to first and foremost understand he is engaged in an adversarial process with a peer; and second, to understand that it is his own responsibility and no one else's defend himself by invoking and substantiating the law he wishes to govern the controversy, beginning by claiming and demonstrating his proper standing, then claiming his rights that are mechanically produced from that standing.A state cannot convert a right into a privilege through the legislature or through executive prosecution...not even through its so called "police" powers which are always under judicial review...that means always subject to being pushed back by Americans asserting their original rights against the statute in court.However bad the government is acting, it is only playing the complimentary part to each one of us making errant attestations on paperwork about each other... that we are planning on or actually engaging in the class of privileged activity;...and by executing this paperwork we attest under penalties of perjury that we are someone-the state given something for which it can ask a return.-an extraordinary | privileged user of the people's national estate.Running our country per the letter of the law creates a property accumulation machine. Both for the American's private estate, as he is unburdened by taxation to accumulate property;
and for the Americans national estate, as his representatives partition off extraordinary access for a fee.
Both estates multiplying themselves without the principle, the people, the property, or their rights ever being diminished, and the American getting his law enforced and his infrastructure paid for while maintaining free ordinary access. Brilliant.Currently, our administrative machine of property accumulation is being used improperly both by us and by our government.
I therefore propose a simple two step solution:
A simple Miranda warning notice on all administrative paperwork including, licenses, taxes, fees, and as a heading to every administrative law.
“Notice to the People, equal fellow citizens, and joint tenants in the sovereignty:
You may have the Right to engage in this activity lawfully without licensure.
DO NOT FILE FOR ORDINARY USE.”
This ensures The People administrative due process. It would allow people to self sort correctly, reduce drag on the machine, and insulate the people from the liability of Mal enforcement. And unwind the administrative state as people understand and start sorting themselves correctly.
Add the positive duty of ascertaining the standing of the party before further prosecution.
This provides due process where the entire weight of the administrative states legal prowess is held in just a handful of forms and attestations which have significant deleterious effect on the citizen if he handles it errantly.

...THIS IS MY ENTIRE CIVICS POSITION...
Come join us for BBQ this Sunday as MC2 takes down establishment gurus and overcomes your industry's most common objections.
Executives: 12:30-1:30 Advanced leadership fundamentals
American Civics 1:30-2:30
6-figure Salesman: 2:30-3:30 Lead Generation
and One-Call-Closing
RSVP For Alpine 91901 Location [email protected]

• Meet [email protected]

OPEN DOJO
-Einstein Reified Space-
-Marx Dismissed Private Property-
-Engels Dismissed Freewill-

• ApplyingForce.com

PHYSICS BUSTED
Dialectical Physics Busted!
Noumenal Force + Noumenal Medium = Phenomenal structure

• Einstein Busted by [email protected]

Marx-Engels Exposed and Defeated
Full refutation of Marx-Engel Dialectic Materialism; all its errant subsets including determinism, behaviorism and its political derivatives.
— constructed using a falsify-or-yield format —

• Free-Will Counted by [email protected]

Separate and Equal Station Is The Law
Americans have both private, and national estates yielding private and ordinary use rights; Americans cannot diminish another American's rights by any convenience including government
— constructed using a falsify-or-yield format —

• American Civics by [email protected]

Separate and Equal Station is the law ii
Dicta confirming the separate and equal station describe the conditions of a joint tenancy.
— constructed using a falsify-or-yield format —

• American Dicta by [email protected]

The Architecture of free-will
-the only falsifiable model of cognition-
|I AM HERE|<+>|I MOVE ME|

• Free-Will Mapped by [email protected]