I am going to respectfully poke a hole in some of its 2nd half.

OK. I am happy to reconsider my position. I want to know the truth, either way.

You cannot equate that with "x is defined narrowly as y."

Actually, yes I can. The word "includes" has a long legal history of meaning the definition is confined to what the term defines, as well as anything within its "class."

It means that x contains y as well as everything commonly known to be x.

No, not "commonly known," but those things that are in the "same class."

Let's look at the FULL language of that definition for "State":

(a)(10) The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

They COULD HAVE defined it like this:

(a)(10) The term “State” shall be construed to include all States of the Union, and the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

But they DIDN'T.

Why?

Because they WANTED people to do what you are doing.

They wanted people to ASSUME the States are included in the definition.

BUT ...

DC is a FEDERAL TERRITORY. Therefore, it is NOT of the "same class" as the 50 States.

It cannot be "included" with the 50 States because it is a DIFFERENT JURISDICTION, and the Constitution (even with the 16th Amendment) does NOT grant Congress the power to DIRECTLY tax the People if they do not have any direct federal tie.

This is why the Brushaber case was taken up. It was just confusing enough to slide through. Union Pacific Railroad was a corporation that was CHARTERED BY THE FEDS, making any dividends received something connected to a federal privilege, rather than a fundamental right.

Also interesting is that I have heard (have not read it myself, but I have full confidence in the person who read it from the document) that the IRS came out with a statement to its agents right after the Brushaber decision. In that letter, it said that the SCOTUS had recently ruled that a NON-RESIDENT ALIEN'S receipt of dividends were taxable.

Frank Brushaber declared himself, in his original complaint, to be a "citizen of New York."

The States are ALIEN to the federal government, and NOT a part of it.

This is why they allow double jeopardy cases to go ahead, where a State prosecutes someone, and then the feds prosecute for the same exact crime. Two different sovereigns.

So, you cannot have the word "includes" in a definition of "State" without also saying, "The term 'State' shall include Alabama, Alaska, ... etc., and also the District of Columbia."

If you ONLY say it includes DC, then the CLASS of items under "includes" is NOT any of the States.

Notice, it says "The term 'States" ..." and they DO NOT mention ANYTHING about the actual States. They ONLY list DC. The fact that they are defining "States" is irrelevant. It could have been the term "Jabberwoky includes DC."

They did it ON PURPOSE.

Very confusing, I know. But this is the word games they play.

So yes, the word "includes" CAN mean things not listed, but ONLY if they are of the SAME CLASS. And federal jurisdiction is NOT of the same class as State.

They HAD to say "... where such construction is necessary ..." BECAUSE if they didn't have that in there, then it would be unconstitutional.

The construction IS NECESSARY, BECAUSE they ONLY have LIMITED jurisdiction, per the Constitution.

It is up to YOU to understand it, or your attorney. But even if your attorney does understand it, not 1 in 1,000 of them would ever have the BALLS to challenge the law as it is written. Most of them are fucking cowards.

...it implies that "states" (not actually being defined here) include the 50 states... plus DC. Likewise, employees, not actually defined, include those particular salesman with all other typical employees.

No! Absolutely not! You can NEVER simply "imply" that the legislature must have meant this or that.

That would make the law VOID FOR VAGUENESS.

I know that the regulators (government employees) have long been doing this garbage in their regulations.

And SCOTUS is taking up cases on this very subject (the Chevron doctrine).

We will see, but I expect them to strike down that doctrine as unconstitutional.

The words the legislature uses MUST be taken VERBATIM.

You cannot simply add things you like to what the legislature wrote.

That is NOT Rule of Law.

I am going to respectfully poke a hole in some of its 2nd half.

OK. I am happy to reconsider my position. I want to know the truth, either way.

You cannot equate that with "x is defined narrowly as y."

Actually, yes I can. The word "includes" has a long legal history of meaning the definition is confined to what the term defines, as well as anything within its "class."

It means that x contains y as well as everything commonly known to be x.

No, not "commonly known," but those things that are in the "same class."

Let's look at the FULL language of that definition for "State":

(a)(10) The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

They COULD HAVE defined it like this:

(a)(10) The term “State” shall be construed to include all States of the Union, and the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

But they DIDN'T.

Why?

Because they WANTED people to do what you are doing.

They wanted people to ASSUME the States are included in the definition.

BUT ...

DC is a FEDERAL TERRITORY. Therefore, it is NOT of the "same class" as the 50 States.

It cannot be "included" with the 50 States because it is a DIFFERENT JURISDICTION, and the Constitution (even with the 16th Amendment) does NOT grant Congress the power to DIRECTLY tax the People if they do not have any direct federal tie.

This is why the Brushaber case was taken up. It was just confusing enough to slide through. Union Pacific Railroad was a corporation that was CHARTERED BY THE FEDS, making any dividends received something connected to a federal privilege, rather than a fundamental right.

Also interesting is that I have heard (have not read it myself, but I have full confidence in the person who read it from the document) that the IRS came out with a statement to its agents right after the Brushaber decision. In that letter, it said that the SCOTUS had recently ruled that a NON-RESIDENT ALIEN'S receipt of dividends were taxable.

Frank Brushaber declared himself, in his original complaint, to be a "citizen of New York."

The States are ALIEN to the federal government, and NOT a part of it.

This is why they allow double jeopardy cases to go ahead, where a State prosecutes someone, and then the feds prosecute for the same exact crime. Two different sovereigns.

So, you cannot have the word "includes" in a definition of "State" without also saying, "The term 'State' shall include Alabama, Alaska, ... etc., and also the District of Columbia."

If you ONLY say it includes DC, then the CLASS of items under "includes" is NOT any of the States.

Notice, it says "The term 'States" ..." and they DO NOT mention ANYTHING about the actual States. They ONLY list DC. The fact that they are defining "States" is irrelevant. It could have been the term "Jabberwoky includes DC."

They did it ON PURPOSE.

Very confusing, I know. But this is the word games they play.

So yes, the word "includes" CAN mean things not listed, but ONLY if they are of the SAME CLASS. And federal jurisdiction is NOT of the same class as State.

They HAD to say "... where such construction is necessary ..." BECAUSE if they didn't have that in there, then it would be unconstitutional.

The construction IS NECESSARY, BECAUSE they ONLY have LIMITED jurisdiction, per the Constitution.

It is up to YOU to understand it, or your attorney. But even if your attorney does understand it, not 1 in 1,000 of them would ever have the BALLS to challenge the law as it is written. Most of them are fucking cowards.

...it implies that "states" (not actually being defined here) include the 50 states... plus DC. Likewise, employees, not actually defined, include those particular salesman with all other typical employees.

No! Absolutely not! You can NEVER simply "imply" that the legislature must have meant this or that.

That would make the law VOID FOR VAGUENESS.

I know that the regulators (government employees) have long been doing this garbage in their regulations.

And SCOTUS is taking up cases on this very subject (the Chevron doctrine).

We will see, but I expect them to strike down that doctrine as unconstitutional.

The words the legislature uses MUST be taked VERBATUM.

You cannot simply add things you like to what the legislature wrote.

That is NOT Rule of Law.

I am going to respectfully poke a hole in some of its 2nd half.

OK. I am happy to reconsider my position. I want to know the truth, either way.

You cannot equate that with "x is defined narrowly as y."

Actually, yes I can. The word "includes" has a long legal history of meaning the definition is confined to what the term defines, as well as anything within its "class."

It means that x contains y as well as everything commonly known to be x.

No, not "commonly known," but those things that are in the "same class."

Let's look at the FULL language of that definition for "State":

(a)(10) The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

They COULD HAVE defined it like this:

(a)(10) The term “State” shall be construed to include all States of the Union, and the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

But they DIDN'T.

Why?

Because they WANTED people to do what you are doing.

They wanted people to ASSUME the States are included in the definition.

BUT ...

DC is a FEDERAL TERRITORY. Therefore, it is NOT of the "same class" as the 50 States.

It cannot be "included" with the 50 States because it is a DIFFERENT JURISDICTION, and the Constitution (even with the 16th Amendment) does NOT grant Congress to DIRECTLY tax the People if they do not have any direct federal tie.

This is why the Brushaber case was taken up. It was just confusing enough to slide through. Union Pacific Railroad was a corporation that was CHARTERED BY THE FEDS, making any dividends received something connected to a federal privilege, rather than a fundamental right.

Also interesting is that I have heard (have not read it myself, but I have full confidence in the person who read it from the document) that the IRS came out with a statement to its agents right after the Brushaber decision. In that letter, it said that the SCOTUS had recently ruled that a NON-RESIDENT ALIEN'S receipt of dividends were taxable.

Frank Brushaber declared himself, in his original complaint, to be a "citizen of New York."

The States are ALIEN to the federal government, and NOT a part of it.

This is why they allow double jeopardy cases to go ahead, where a State prosecutes someone, and then the feds prosecute for the same exact crime. Two different sovereigns.

So, you cannot have the word "includes" in a definition of "State" without also saying, "The term 'State' shall include Alabama, Alaska, ... etc., and also the District of Columbia."

If you ONLY say it includes DC, then the CLASS of items under "includes" is NOT any of the States.

Notice, it says "The term 'States" ..." and they DO NOT mention ANYTHING about the actual States. They ONLY list DC. The fact that they are defining "States" is irrelevant. It could have been the term "Jabberwoky includes DC."

They did it ON PURPOSE.

Very confusing, I know. But this is the word games they play.

So yes, the word "includes" CAN mean things not listed, but ONLY if they are of the SAME CLASS. And federal jurisdiction is NOT of the same class as State.

They HAD to say "... where such construction is necessary ..." BECAUSE if they didn't have that in there, then it would be unconstitutional.

The construction IS NECESSARY, BECAUSE they ONLY have LIMITED jurisdiction, per the Constitution.

It is up to YOU to understand it, or your attorney. But even if your attorney does understand it, not 1 in 1,000 of them would ever have the BALLS to challenge the law as it is written. Most of them are fucking cowards.

...it implies that "states" (not actually being defined here) include the 50 states... plus DC. Likewise, employees, not actually defined, include those particular salesman with all other typical employees.

No! Absolutely not! You can NEVER simply "imply" that the legislature must have meant this or that.

That would make the law VOID FOR VAGUENESS.

I know that the regulators (government employees) have long been doing this garbage in their regulations.

And SCOTUS is taking up cases on this very subject (the Chevron doctrine).

We will see, but I expect them to strike down that doctrine as unconstitutional.

The words the legislature uses MUST be taked VERBATUM.

You cannot simply add things you like to what the legislature wrote.

That is NOT Rule of Law.

I am going to respectfully poke a hole in some of its 2nd half.

OK. I am happy to reconsider my position. I want to know the truth, either way.

You cannot equate that with "x is defined narrowly as y."

Actually, yes I can. The word "includes" has a long legal history of meaning the definition is confined to what the term defines, as well as anything within its "class."

It means that x contains y as well as everything commonly known to be x.

No, not "commonly known," but those things that are in the "same class."

Let's look at the FULL language of that definition for "State":

(a)(10) The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

They COULD HAVE defined it like this:

(a)(10) The term “State” shall be construed to include all States of the Union, and the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

But they DIDN'T.

Why?

Because they WANTED people to do what you are doing.

They wanted people to ASSUME the States are included in the definition.

BUT ...

DC is a FEDERAL TERRITORY. Therefore, it is NOT of the "same class" as the 50 States.

It cannot be "included" with the 50 States because it is a DIFFERENT JURISDICTION, and the Constitution (even with the 16th Amendment) does NOT grant Congress to DIRECTLY tax the People if they do not have any direct federal tie.

This is why the Brushaber case was taken up. It was just confusing enough to slide through. Union Pacific Railroad was a corporation that was CHARTERED BY THE FEDS, making any dividends received something connected to a federal privilege, rather than a fundamental right.

Also interesting is that I have heard (have not read it myself, but I have full confidence in the person who read it from the document) that the IRS came out with a statement to its agents right after the Brushaber decision. In that letter, it said that the SCOTUS had recently ruled that a NON-RESIDENT ALIEN'S receipt of dividends were taxable.

Frank Brushaber dclared himself, in his original complaint, to be a "citizen of New York."

The States are ALIEN to the federal government, and NOT a part of it.

This is why they allow double jeopardy cases to go ahead, where a State prosecutes someone, and then the feds prosecute for the same exact crime. Two different sovereigns.

So, you cannot have the word "includes" in a definition of "State" without also saying, "The term 'State' shall include Alabama, Alaska, ... etc., and also the District of Columbia."

If you ONLY say it includes DC, then the CLASS of items under "includes" is NOT any of the States.

Notice, it says "The term 'States" ..." and they DO NOT mention ANYTHING about the actual States. They ONLY list DC. The fact that they are defining "States" is irrelevant. It could have been the term "Jabberwoky includes DC."

They did it ON PURPOSE.

Very confusing, I know. But this is the word games they play.

So yes, the word "includes" CAN mean things not listed, but ONLY if they are of the SAME CLASS. And federal jurisdiction is NOT of the same class as State.

They HAD to say "... where such construction is necessary ..." BECAUSE if they didn't have that in there, then it would be unconstitutional.

The construction IS NECESSARY, BECAUSE they ONLY have LIMITED jurisdiction, per the Constitution.

It is up to YOU to understand it, or your attorney. But even if your attorney does understand it, not 1 in 1,000 of them would ever have the BALLS to challenge the law as it is written. Most of them are fucking cowards.

...it implies that "states" (not actually being defined here) include the 50 states... plus DC. Likewise, employees, not actually defined, include those particular salesman with all other typical employees.

No! Absolutely not! You can NEVER simply "imply" that the legislature must have meant this or that.

That would make the law VOID FOR VAGUENESS.

I know that the regulators (government employees) have long been doing this garbage in their regulations.

And SCOTUS is taking up cases on this very subject (the Chevron doctrine).

We will see, but I expect them to strike down that doctrine as unconstitutional.

The words the legislature uses MUST be taked VERBATUM.

You cannot simply add things you like to what the legislature wrote.

That is NOT Rule of Law.

I am going to respectfully poke a hole in some of its 2nd half.

OK. I am happy to reconsider my position. I want to know the truth, either way.

You cannot equate that with "x is defined narrowly as y."

Actually, yes I can. The word "includes" has a long legal history of meaning the definition is confined to what the term defines, as well as anything within its "class."

It means that x contains y as well as everything commonly known to be x.

No, not "commonly known," but those things that are in the "same class."

Let's look at the FULL language of that definition for "State":

(a)(10) The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

They COULD HAVE defined it like this:

(a)(10) The term “State” shall be construed to include all States of the Union, and include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

But they DIDN'T.

Why?

Because they WANTED people to do what you are doing.

They wanted people to ASSUME the States are included in the definition.

BUT ...

DC is a FEDERAL TERRITORY. Therefore, it is NOT of the "same class" as the 50 States.

It cannot be "included" with the 50 States because it is a DIFFERENT JURISDICTION, and the Constitution (even with the 16th Amendment) does NOT grant Congress to DIRECTLY tax the People if they do not have any direct federal tie.

This is why the Brushaber case was taken up. It was just confusing enough to slide through. Union Pacific Railroad was a corporation that was CHARTERED BY THE FEDS, making any dividends received something connected to a federal privilege, rather than a fundamental right.

Also interesting is that I have heard (have not read it myself, but I have full confidence in the person who read it from the document) that the IRS came out with a statement to its agents right after the Brushaber decision. In that letter, it said that the SCOTUS had recently ruled that a NON-RESIDENT ALIEN'S receipt of dividends were taxable.

Frank Brushaber dclared himself, in his original complaint, to be a "citizen of New York."

The States are ALIEN to the federal government, and NOT a part of it.

This is why they allow double jeopardy cases to go ahead, where a State prosecutes someone, and then the feds prosecute for the same exact crime. Two different sovereigns.

So, you cannot have the word "includes" in a definition of "State" without also saying, "The term 'State' shall include Alabama, Alaska, ... etc., and also the District of Columbia."

If you ONLY say it includes DC, then the CLASS of items under "includes" is NOT any of the States.

Notice, it says "The term 'States" ..." and they DO NOT mention ANYTHING about the actual States. They ONLY list DC. The fact that they are defining "States" is irrelevant. It could have been the term "Jabberwoky includes DC."

They did it ON PURPOSE.

Very confusing, I know. But this is the word games they play.

So yes, the word "includes" CAN mean things not listed, but ONLY if they are of the SAME CLASS. And federal jurisdiction is NOT of the same class as State.

They HAD to say "... where such construction is necessary ..." BECAUSE if they didn't have that in there, then it would be unconstitutional.

The construction IS NECESSARY, BECAUSE they ONLY have LIMITED jurisdiction, per the Constitution.

It is up to YOU to understand it, or your attorney. But even if your attorney does understand it, not 1 in 1,000 of them would ever have the BALLS to challenge the law as it is written. Most of them are fucking cowards.

...it implies that "states" (not actually being defined here) include the 50 states... plus DC. Likewise, employees, not actually defined, include those particular salesman with all other typical employees.

No! Absolutely not! You can NEVER simply "imply" that the legislature must have meant this or that.

That would make the law VOID FOR VAGUENESS.

I know that the regulators (government employees) have long been doing this garbage in their regulations.

And SCOTUS is taking up cases on this very subject (the Chevron doctrine).

We will see, but I expect them to strike down that doctrine as unconstitutional.

The words the legislature uses MUST be taked VERBATUM.

You cannot simply add things you like to what the legislature wrote.

That is NOT Rule of Law.

I am going to respectfully poke a hole in some of its 2nd half.

OK. I am happy to reconsider my position. I want to know the truth, either way.

You cannot equate that with "x is defined narrowly as y."

Actually, yes I can. The word "includes" has a long legal history of meaning the definition is confined to what the term defines, as well as anything within its "class."

It means that x contains y as well as everything commonly known to be x.

No, not "commonly known," but those things that are in the "same class."

Let's look at the FULL language of that definition for "State":

(a)(10) The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

They COULD HAVE defined it like this:

(a)(10) The term “State” shall be construed to include all States of the Union, and include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

But they DIDN'T.

Why?

Because they WANTED people to do what you are doing.

They wanted people to ASSUME the States are included in the definition.

BUT ...

DC is a FEDERAL TERRITORY. Therefore, it is NOT of the "same class" as the 50 States.

It cannot be "included" with the 50 States because it is a DIFFERENT JURISDICTION, and the Constitution (even with the 16th Amendment) does NOT grant Congress to DIRECTLY tax the People if they do not have any direct federal tie.

This is why the Brushaber case was taken up. It was just confusing enough to slide through. Union Pacific Railroad was a corporation that was CHARTERED BY THE FEDS, making any dividends received something connected to a federal privilege, rather than a fundamental right.

Also interesting is that I have heard (have not read it myself, but I have full confidence in the person who read it from the document) that the IRS came out with a statement to its agents right after the Brushaber decision. In that letter, it said that the SCOTUS had recently ruled that a NON-RESIDENT ALIEN'S receipt of dividends were taxable.

Frank Brushaber dclared himself, in his original complaint, to be a "citizen of New York."

The States are ALIEN to the federal government, and NOT a part of it.

This is why they allow double jeopardy cases to go ahead, where a State prosecutes someone, and then the feds prosecute for the same exact crime. Two different sovereigns.

So, you cannot have the word "includes" in a definition of "State" without also saying, "The term 'State' shall include Alabama, Alaska, ... etc., and also the District of Columbia."

If you ONLY say it includes DC, then the CLASS of items under "includes" is NOT any of the States.

Notice, it says "The term 'States" ..." and they DO NOT mention ANYTHING about the actual States. They ONLY list DC. The fact that they are defining "States" is irrelevant. It could have been the term "Jabberwoky includes DC."

They did it ON PURPOSE.

Very confusing, I know. But this is the word games they play.

So yes, the word "includes" CAN mean things not listed, but ONLY if they are of the SAME CLASS. And federal jurisdiction is NOT of the same class as State.

They HAD to say "... where such construction is necessary ..." BECAUSE if they didn't have that in there, then it would be unconstitutional.

The construction IS NECESSARY, BECAUSE they ONLY have LIMITED jurisdiction, per the Constitution.

It is up to YOU to understand it, or your attorney. But even if your attorney does understand it, not 1 in 1,000 of them would ever have the BALLS to challenge the law as it is written. Most of them are fucking cowards.