Supreme Court To Hear Birthright Citizenship Case

Project USA, Time-Out Project, Issue 180: February 17, 2004 ^ | February 17, 2004 | Project USA email alert

[MamaTexan]

strange little conspiracy theories
not worry about yellow finge on the flag.

Huh?

See post #73
and lay off the Black, Jack.

[jimt]

No, babies do not kill America. As an aside, ideology-addled organizations always seek to rescind the inalienable rights of other citizens.

Ah, so you favor millions of illegals and their spawn living off the taxpayers of the US.

Thanks for setting that straight. May they move in next door to you, in a nice section 8 apartment building.

[Cultural Jihad]

Try to use logic and rationality for a change. You made the ludicrous claim that American-born, innocent, and helpless babies are somehow destroying our nation, not the policies of the Democratic welfare state.

[dpa5923]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Bump for later read...

It says and not or.

[jimt]

Try to use logic and rationality for a change.

Try reading for a change.

Anchor babies legitimizing millions of parasites on welfare is what will kill America as a great nation.

[MamaTexan]

and lay off the Black, Jack.

Pardon Sir.

I was caught in one of my more uncharitable moments and regretted it after hitting the post key.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I can't understand why everyone thinks the government is a superior power.

Government was created by man. By the very definition of that creation it is artificial.

People,(no matter their differing beliefs for that existence) are living beings. An artificial entity cannot be superior to a person... period.

To believe that allows the artificial to rule you.

[justshutupandtakeit]

That is not true. They can be deported should the government wish to deport them.

Unfortunately what is true is that often states and localities don't cooperate with the INS or HSA in apprehending and holding these people. They just let them go or don't even bother to determine status.

[MamaTexan]

and lay off the Black, Jack.

Pardon Sir.

I was caught in one of my more uncharitable moments and regretted it after hitting the post key.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I can't understand why everyone thinks the government is a superior power.

Government was created by man. By the very definition of that creation it is artificial.

People,(no matter their differing beliefs for that existence) are living beings. An artificial entity cannot be superior to a person... period.

To believe that allows the artificial to rule you.

[VRWC_minion]

The income tax does not apply to citizens outside of the District of Columbia and territories of the United States because the way "United States" is defined in the Internal Revenue Code does not include the states of the United States.

This argument is the result of functional illiteracy.

Section 7701(a)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code states that "The term 'United States' when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia."

Well, that contradicts the tax protesters, because it says that "United States" includes "the States." But the tax protesters then turn to the definition of "State":

"The term 'State' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title." I.R.C. section 7701(a)(10).

According to tax protesters, this definition excludes the states of the United States from the definition of "State," and "State" means only the District of Columbia. There are several things wrong with this "argument":

• The word "includes" is also defined by the Internal Revenue Code. According to section 7701(c), "The terms 'includes' and 'including' when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined." The states of the United States are within the normal meaning of the word "State," and so a definition that says that "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia does not exclude the states of the United States from the meaning of "State."

• A definition of "State" that equates "State" with "District of Columbia" turns the definition of "United States" into gibberish, because the definition then becomes a statement that "United States" "includes only the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia."

• The definition of "State" includes the District of Columbia "where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title." What happens if the construction is not necessary? If "State" does not include the District of Columbia, then references to "states" in the Internal Revenue Code would apply to nothing at all. Which is absurd.

So where do tax protesters get the idea that "includes" might be restrictive? Mainly from wishful thinking and poor reading skills.

"In definitive provisions of statutes and other writings, 'include' is frequently, if not generally, used as a word of extension or enlargement rather than as one of limitation or enumeration." American Surety Co. of New York v. Marotta, 287 U.S. 513 (1933).

What have the courts said about the claim that the United States does not include the states of the United States?

"In an affidavit attached to his amended petition, petitioner sets forth numerous, tax-protester type legal arguments, including, in petitioner's words, the following propositions:
"That the Republic of Illinois is 'without the United States';
"...
"The Congress excluded the 50 States from the definition of 'United States,' ...
"Petitioner attempts to argue an absurd proposition, essentially that the States of Illinois is not part of the United States. His hope is that he will find some semantic technicality which will render him exempt from Federal income tax, which applies generally to all U.S. citizens and residents. Suffice it to say, we find no support in any of the authorities petitioner cites for his position that he is not subject to Federal income tax on income he earned in Illinois. ... Petitioner's arguments are no more than stale tax protester contentions long dismissed summarily by this Court and all other courts which have heard such contentions." Nieman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1993-533.

"Ward reaches this twisted conclusion [that the Internal Revenue Code only applies to individuals located within Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the states, and the territories and possessions of the United States] by misinterpreting a portion of the Income Tax Code. The 1913 Act defined the words 'state' or 'United States" to 'include' United States territories and the District of Columbia; Ward asks this court to interpret the word 'include' as a term of limitation, rather than of definition. ... We find each of appellant's contentions to be utterly without merit." United States of America v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1987) (conviction of tax evasion affirmed, despite arguments of Lowell H. Beecraft Jr.).

"Steiner also argued that the word 'includes,' which appears throughout the tax laws, limits the court's jurisdiction under the tax laws. This argument has been specifically rejected in United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1164 (1985), in which this court held that the word 'includes' is one of expansion, not limitation." United States v. Steiner, 963 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1992).

[MamaTexan]

So you’re saying the government has the absolute authority to take however much of our property it wants just because it claims to have that power?

Wasn't there a revolution over this a while back?

[VRWC_minion]

So you’re saying the government has the absolute authority to take however much of our property it wants just because it claims to have that power?

Yep and it doesn't claim it. It has it.

[inquest]

What it looks like you're saying in your posts is that the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment extends only as far as Congress wants it to extend - that by tweaking the definition of "jurisdiction", they can enlarge or contract the citizenhip pool at pleasure. Do I have that wrong?

[Polybius]

What it looks like you're saying in your posts is that the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment extends only as far as Congress wants it to extend - that by tweaking the definition of "jurisdiction", they can enlarge or contract the citizenhip pool at pleasure. Do I have that wrong?

What I meant to say is that the original drafters of the XIV Amendment intended U.S. citizenship to be limited to those individuals whose parents were part of American society and not to the offspring of every pregnant tourist or illegal alien whose water happens to break on U.S. soil.

Then again, I am rather old fashioned, and believe in the concept of Constitutional "original intent".

Since, for the life of me, I can not see how the original intent of the XIV Amendment had anything to do with abortion, my archaic notions of "original intent" obviously don't carry much weight in this day and age.

[WOSG]

You have it almost but not quite right. Congress' powers to specify and to elucidate the exact boundaries of this "under the jurisdiction" clause are in the 14th amendment itself:

"Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

[inquest]

Maybe I should put my question in a different way: Does Congress have the power to deny citizenship to anyone who's had every honest reason to think of himself as a citizen his entire life? Myself or yourself, for example?

If not, how is the line drawn?

[WOSG]

Revoking citizenship? That's a completely different question from the scope of granting citizenship in the first place.

"had every honest reason to think " ... that's not a legal standard. Either someone was or was not a citizen.
My points have been about how we define who becomes a citizen, not how we revoke citizenship.

Only children born of legal residents or citizens in the US should be citizens in the first place.

[WOSG]

"What I meant to say is that the original drafters of the XIV Amendment intended U.S. citizenship to be limited to those individuals whose parents were part of American society and not to the offspring of every pregnant tourist or illegal alien whose water happens to break on U.S. soil. Then again, I am rather old fashioned, and believe in the concept of Constitutional "original intent"."

We are a bunch of old fuddy duddies.

[Lady Eileen]

bump

[inquest]

OK, so just for the record, then, is Hamdi currently a citizen? If he is, then that means Congress can't change that fact, right?

(Sorry if it seems like I'm asking a dumb question; I just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page on this matter)

[WOSG]

OK, so just for the record, then, is Hamdi currently a citizen?

YES

If he is, then that means Congress can't change that fact, right?

NO. Congress could change the law on how citizenship of naturalized citizens gets revoked. That could in the future cause him to lose his citizenship, although there is surely some 'ex post facto' nature of the rule, so that they cant simply change the law on naturalization itself and *retroactively* apply it to citizens.