Mostly correct. If you affirm you are, it's not so much that it "applies to you", it's that they have legal justification for inferring it applies to you even if it doesn't.
Agreed.
Careful readers will note that you then switched from the SAL to the US Code, but that's okay in this case because the slight differences are not significant (sometimes they are).
Correct, and there is a specific reason for that.
The Statutes at Large are the ACTUAL statues passed by Congress, in CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, from the first one passed by the 1st Congress through today.
The United States Code is an indexed version, where those statutes are ordered by subject matter, which makes them much easier to find.
In the early days, it didn't matter because someone could just look them up in the SAL.
But eventually, they figured out that this would be near impossible (especially without computers) to find ALL the statutes that (a) created, (b) modified, (c) added to, and (d) repealed a particular statute (or even a particluar sentence or phrase within a statute) on a particluar subject.
So, in the 1870's (IIRC) they started to organize them into the "code" so they could be found by subject matter.
But over more time, they started thinking that maybe someone doing the indexing might be forgetting some things, either on accident or on purpose.
In the 1950's (IIRC), they set up a congressional task force to go through ALL the 50 titles of the USC to verify if everything that was ever passed by Congress, by way of subject matter, was correctly copied from the SAL to the USC -- leaving nothing out, and adding nothing in.
But even that was too big a task. Today, you will note that there is a statement that SOME titles of the USC are "positive law," which means they were verified that ALL of the SAL's were included into the USC for that particular title (subject matter).
That is only about HALF of the USC, though. The rest has never been officially verified -- INCLUDING Title 26, the tax code.
The SAL are the ONLY true, valid law that is considered evidence of "what the law is" on something.
But it is way too unweildy to really use. Legally speaking, the USC is considered "the law" UNLESS the SAL can be shown to differ. In that case, the SAL is the law, not the USC.
But for practical purposes, it would be impossible to pull up definitions that may have been changed, added, etc. over the past 100+ years.
So, I showed the ORIGINAL 1913 income tax in its entirety by way of SAL, and then went to USC for current day status of definitions.
Also, I agree with your conclusion, but did not want to go into depth with yet another aspect of this issue.
Thanks for your imput, and people should probably look into what you say in your last paragraph.
Mostly correct. If you affirm you are, it's not so much that it "applies to you", it's that they have legal justification for inferring it applies to you even if it doesn't.
Agreed.
Careful readers will note that you then switched from the SAL to the US Code, but that's okay in this case because the slight differences are not significant (sometimes they are).
Correct, and there is a specific reason for that.
The Statutes at Large are the ACTUAL statues passed by Congress, in CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, from the first one passed by the 1st Congress through today.
The United States Code is and indexed version, where those statutes are ordered by subject matter, which makes them much easier to find.
In the early days, it didn't matter because someone could just look them up in the SAL.
But eventually, they figured out that this would be near impossible (especially without computers) to find ALL the statutes that (a) created, (b) modified, (c) added to, and (d) repealed a particular statute (or even a particluar sentence or phrase within a statute) on a particluar subject.
So, in the 1870's (IIRC) they started to organize them into the "code" so they could be found by subject matter.
But over more time, they started thinking that maybe someone doing the indexing might be forgetting some things, either on accident or on purpose.
In the 1950's (IIRC), they set up a congressional task force to go through ALL the 50 titles of the USC to verify if everything that was ever passed by Congress, by way of subject matter, was correctly copied from the SAL to the USC -- leaving nothing out, and adding nothing in.
But even that was too big a task. Today, you will note that there is a statement that SOME titles of the USC are "positive law," which means they were verified that ALL of the SAL's were included into the USC for that particular title (subject matter).
That is only about HALF of the USC, though. The rest has never been officially verified -- INCLUDING Title 26, the tax code.
The SAL are the ONLY true, valid law that is considered evidence of "what the law is" on something.
But it is way too unweildy to really use. Legally speaking, the USC is considered "the law" UNLESS the SAL can be shown to differ. In that case, the SAL is the law, not the USC.
But for practical purposes, it would be impossible to pull up definitions that may have been changed, added, etc. over the past 100+ years.
So, I showed the ORIGINAL 1913 income tax in its entirety by way of SAL, and then went to USC for current day status of definitions.
Also, I agree with your conclusion, but did not want to go into depth with yet another aspect of this issue.
Thanks for your imput, and people should probably look into what you say in your last paragraph.
Mostly correct. If you affirm you are, it's not so much that it "applies to you", it's that they have legal justification for inferring it applies to you even if it doesn't.
Agreed.
Careful readers will note that you then switched from the SAL to the US Code, but that's okay in this case because the slight differences are not significant (sometimes they are).
Correct, and there is a specific reason for that.
The Statutes at Large are the ACTUAL statues passed by Congress, in CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, from the first one passed by the 1st Congress through today.
The United States Code is and indexed version, where those statutes are ordered by subject matter, which makes them much easier to find.
In the early days, it didn't matter because someone could just look them up in the SAL.
But eventually, they figured out that this would be near impossible (especially without computers) to find ALL the statutes that (a) created, (b) modified, (c) added to, and (d) repealed a particular statute (or even a particluar sentence or phrase within a statute) on a particluar subject.
So, in the 1870's (IIRC) they started to organize them into the "code" so they could be found by subject matter.
But over more time, they started thinking that maybe someone doing the indexing might be forgetting some things, either on accident or on purpose.
In the 1950's (IIRC), they set up a congressional task force to go through ALL the 50 titles of the USC to verify if everything that was ever passed by Congress, by way of subject matter, was correctly copied from the SAL to the USC -- leaving nothing out, and adding nothing in.
But even that was too big a task. Today, you will note that there is a statement that SOME titles of the USC are "positive law," which means they were verified that ALL of the SAL's were included into the USC for that particular title (subject matter).
That is only about HALF of the USC, though. The rest has never been officially verified.
The SAL are the ONLY true, valid law that is considered evidence of "what the law is" on something.
But it is way too unweildy to really use. Legally speaking, the USC is considered "the law" UNLESS the SAL can be shown to differ. In that case, the SAL is the law, not the USC.
But for practical purposes, it would be impossible to pull up definitions that may have been changed, added, etc. over the past 100+ years.
So, I showed the ORIGINAL 1913 income tax in its entirety by way of SAL, and then went to USC for current day status of definitions.
Also, I agree with your conclusion, but did not want to go into depth with yet another aspect of this issue.
Thanks for your imput, and people should probably look into what you say in your last paragraph.
Mostly correct. If you affirm you are, it's not so much that it "applies to you", it's that they have legal justification for inferring it applies to you even if it doesn't.
Agreed.
Careful readers will note that you then switched from the SAL to the US Code, but that's okay in this case because the slight differences are not significant (sometimes they are).
Correct, and there is a specific reason for that.
The Statutes at Large are the ACTUAL statues passed by Congress, in CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, from the first one passed by the 1st Congress through today.
The United States Code is and indexed version, where those statutes are ordered by subject matter, which makes them much easier to find.
In the early days, it didn't matter because someone could just look them up in the SAL.
But eventually, they figured out that this would be near impossible (especially without computers) to find ALL the statutes that (a) created, (b) modified, (c) added to, and (d) repealed a particular statute (or even a particluar sentence or phrase within a statute) on a particluar subject.
So, in the 1870's (IIRC) they started to organize them into the "code" so they could be found by subject matter.
But over more time, they started thinking that maybe someone doing the indexing might be forgetting some things, either on accident or on purpose.
In the 1950's (IIRC), they set up a congressional task force to go through ALL the 50 titles of the USC to verify if everything that was ever passed by Congress, by way of subject matter, was correction copied from the SAL to the USC.
But even that was too big a task. Today, you will note that there is a statement that SOME titles of the USC are "positive law," which means they were verified that ALL of the SAL's were included into the USC for that particular title (subject matter).
That is only about HALF of the USC, though. The rest has never been officially verified.
The SAL are the ONLY true, valid law that is considered evidence of "what the law is" on something.
But it is way too unweildy to really use. Legally speaking, the USC is considered "the law" UNLESS the SAL can be shown to differ. In that case, the SAL is the law, not the USC.
But for practical purposes, it would be impossible to pull up definitions that may have been changed, added, etc. over the past 100+ years.
So, I showed the ORIGINAL 1913 income tax in its entirety by way of SAL, and then went to USC for current day status of definitions.
Also, I agree with your conclusion, but did not want to go into depth with yet another aspect of this issue.
Thanks for your imput, and people should probably look into what you say in your last paragraph.