FAQ: Doesn’t the constitution allow anyone to consent to anything through “comity” just like many other countries in the world can?

By ftsig-admin | February 23, 2026

INTRODUCTION:

QUESTION 1:

You begin the following article with a quote from Massachusetts v. United States SCOTUS opinion condoning comity and consent:

Microsoft Copilot: Defeating the Administrative State, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-defeating-the-administrative-state/

The quote says:

“We have repeatedly held that the Federal Government may impose appropriate conditions on the use of federal property or privileges [franchises, Form #05.030] and may require that state instrumentalities comply with conditions [obligations, Form #12.040] that are reasonably related to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs. See, e. g., Ivanhoe Irrigation Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275, 294 -296 (1958); Oklahoma v. Civil Service Comm’n, 330 U.S. 127, 142 -144 (1947); United States v. San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16 (1940); cf. National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 853 (1976); Fry v. United States, 421 U.S. 542 (1975). A requirement that States, like all other users, pay a portion of the costs of the benefits [Form #05.040] they enjoy from federal programs is surely permissible [meaning CONSTITUTIONAL] since it is closely related to the [435 U.S. 444, 462] federal interest in recovering costs from those who benefit and since it effects no greater interference with state sovereignty than do the restrictions which this Court has approved.”

[Massachusetts v. United States, 435 U.S. 444, 461-462 (1978);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16842193024599209893]

Did the justices get it wrong? Or have you changed your mind?

You added a parenthetical that said “[meaning CONSTITUTIONAL]”. You even all-capped “constitutional.” But for years you have been saying “UN-constitutional,” because it “alienates unalienable rights” and “destroys the separation of powers.” Where do you stand on this issue currently?

I have always maintained that volunteering for anything is constitutional.

Whether or not they let you UNDO the “volunteering” is a different issue.

After all, it is a maxim of law that he who consents cannot claim an injury.

“Volunti non fit injuria.
He who consents cannot receive an injury. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2279, 2327; 4 T. R. 657; Shelf. on mar. & Div. 449.

Consensus tollit errorem.
Consent removes or obviates a mistake. Co. Litt. 126.

Melius est omnia mala pati quam malo concentire.
It is better to suffer every wrong or ill, than to consent to it. 3 Co. Inst. 23.

Nemo videtur fraudare eos qui sciunt, et consentiunt.
One cannot complain of having been deceived when he knew the fact and gave his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 145.”

[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

ANSWER 1:

1. Comity is incompatible with the notion of enforcement. The case you cited involved enforcement, so it can’t purely be comity.

comity. Courtesy; complaisance; respect; a willingness to grant a privilege, not as a matter of right, but out of deference and good will. Recognition that one sovereignty allows within its territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial act of another sovereignty, having due regard to rights of its own citizens. Nowell v. Nowell, Tex.Civ.App., 408 S.W.2d 550, 553. In general, principle of “comity” is that courts of one state or jurisdiction will give effect to laws and judicial decisions of another state or jurisdiction, not as a matter of obligation, but out of deference and mutual respect. Brown v. Babbitt Ford, Inc., 117 Ariz. 192, 571 P.2d 689, 695. See also Full faith and credit clause.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 267]

COMITY. Courtesy; a disposition to accommodate. 2. Courts of justice in one state will, out of comity, enforce the laws of another state, when by such enforcement they will not violate their laws or inflict. an injury on some one of their own citizens; as, for example, the discharge of a debtor under the insolvent laws of one state, will be respected in another state, where there is a reciprocity in this respect. 3. It is a general rule that the municipal laws of a country do not extend beyond its limits, and cannot be enforced in another, except on the principle of comity. But when those laws clash and interfere with the rights of citizens, or the laws of the countries where the parties to the contract seek to enforce it, as one or the other must give way, those prevailing where the relief is sought must have the preference. 2 Mart.Lo.Rep.N.S. 93; S.C. 2 Harr.Cond.Lo. Rep. 606, 609; 2 B. & C. 448, 471; 6 Binn. 353; 5 Cranch, 299; 2 Mass. 84; 6 Mass. 358; 7 Mart.Lo.R. 318. See Conflict of Laws; Lex loci contractus.

[Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856; https://famguardian.org/Publications/Bouviers/bouvierc.txt]

Comity from a CIVIL perspective accompanied by civil enforcement is therefore an oxymoron because where there is enforcement, consent can be compelled.

2. Every country can and does implement the “comity” (consent) that makes voluntary, unenforceable cooperation possible. An example of that kind of comity is a treaty between nations, which can always be terminated unilaterally by either party.

3. When comity operates, it operates:

3.1. EXTRACONSTITUTIONALLY and

3.2. Outside the bounds of the constitutional protections

3.3. Outside even civil statutes that implement it because those statutes cannot destroy the separation of powers between the states and the national government or between public and private.

4. Thus, consent/comity cannot EXPAND a statutory definition such as that of “State” in 4 U.S.C. 110(d):

4.1. The U.S. Supreme court did this in Howard v. Commissioners, 344 U.S. 624, 626, 73 S.Ct. 465, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953) by treating a statutory “State” as in 4 U.S.C. 110(c) as including states of the Union when the definition only includes territories and possessions.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18372489629702488730

4.2 This breaks down the separation of powers, which no statute or judge can do without treason.

4.3. This also makes the judge into a legislator by unilaterally adding things to definitions that aren’t expressly there. Of this kind of judicial abuse and tyranny, the designer of our three branch system of government with separation of powers said:

“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.

Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression [sound familiar?].

There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.”

[. . .]

In what a situation must the poor subject be in those republics! The same body of magistrates are possessed, as executors of the laws, of the whole power they have given themselves in quality of legislators. They may plunder the state by their general determinations; and as they have likewise the judiciary power in their hands, every private citizen may be ruined by their particular decisions.” [The Spirit of Laws, Charles de Montesquieu, 1758, Book XI, Section 6;
SOURCE: http://famguardian.org\Publications\SpiritOfLaws\sol_11.htm]

4.4. Judges adding things to statutory definitions that do not expressly appear also violates the reasonable notice provisions of the constitution by not notifying the public of everything that is “included” in the definition.

Requirement for Reasonable Notice, Form #05.022
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/ReasonableNotice.pdf

4.5. Using the “includes” and “including” terms in 26 U.S.C. 7701(c) doesn’t rectify the above, because it still fails the reasonable notice requirement of the constitution to SOMEWHERE in the statutes specify the thing you want “included”, such as constitutional states of the Union. See:

Includes & including, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/special-language/includes-including/

5. If the court wants to account for comity, it has to explicitly say so. It was silent in this case and THUS:

5.1. Refused to recognize and enforce all private rightsPRI that might be affected by the definition. This violates the constitutional oath and fiducriary duty of public officers to protect such rights.

“As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. [1] Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts. [2] That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves. [3] and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. [4] It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. [5] Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy.[6]”

[63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247]

__________________

FOOTNOTES:

[1] State ex rel. Nagle v Sullivan, 98 Mont 425, 40 P.2d. 995, 99 A.L.R. 321; Jersey City v Hague, 18 N.J. 584, 115 A.2d. 8.

[2] Georgia Dep’t of Human Resources v. Sistrunk, 249 Ga. 543, 291 S.E.2d. 524. A public official is held in public trust. Madlener v. Finley (1st Dist) 161 Ill.App.3d. 796, 113 Ill Dec 712, 515 N.E.2d. 697, app gr 117 Ill Dec 226, 520 N.E.2d. 387 and revd on other grounds 128 Ill.2d. 147, 131 Ill.Dec. 145, 538 N.E.2d. 520.

[3]Chicago Park Dist. V. Kenroy, Inc., 78 Ill.2d. 555, 37 Ill.Dec. 291, 402 N.E.2d. 181, appeal after remand (1st Dist) 107 Ill.App.3d. 222, 63 Ill.Dec.134, 437 N.E.2d. 783.

[4] United States v. Holzer (CA7 Ill) 816 F.2d. 304 and vacated, remanded on other grounds 484 U.S. 807, 98 L.Ed.2d. 18, 108 S.Ct. 53, on remand (CA7 Ill) 840 F.2d. 1343, cert den 486 U.S. 1035, 100 L.Ed.2d. 608, 108 S.Ct. 2022 and (criticized on other grounds by United States v. Osser (CA3 Pa) 864 F.2d. 1056) and (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States v Little (CA5 Miss) 889 F.2d. 1367) and (among conflicting authorities on other grounds noted in United States v. Boylan (CA1 Mass) 898 F.2d. 230, 29 Fed.Rules.Evid.Serv. 1223).

[5] Chicago ex rel. Cohen v Keane, 64 Ill.2d. 559, 2 Ill.Dec. 285, 357 N.E.2d. 452, later proceeding (1st Dist) 105 Ill.App.3d. 298, 61 Ill.Dec. 172, 434 N.E.2d. 325.

[6]Indiana State Ethics Comm’n v. Nelson (Ind App) 656 N.E.2d. 1172, reh gr (Ind App) 659 N.E.2d. 260, reh den (Jan 24, 1996) and transfer den (May 28, 1996).

5.2. Hid the consent or election process. This violates the notion in the Declaration of Independence that all just CIVIL powers are by consent. Justice is not possible without expressly acknowledging consent.

5.3. Made a voluntary provision look mandatory.

5.4. Made a “proprietaryPRI power” deceptively look like a “sovereignPUB power”.

5.5. Destroyed the separation of powers and the separation between public and private without explaining the authority for doing so. There IS no authority! See:

Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SeparationOfPowers.pdf

5.6. Acted with a criminal financial conflict of interest in violation of 18 U.S.C. 208, 28 U.S.C. 144, and 28 U.S.C. 455. Comity cannot be used to introduce conflicts of interest into the judicial sphere or the law would conflict with itself or the constitution or both. Real “law” cannot mandate an impossibility that conflicts with other law. Coherence is mandatory. See:

META AI: Can a privilege not expressly authorized by statute be granted purely by judicial discretion if the judges pay derives from fees connected to paying for the delivery of the privilege?, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/meta-ai-can-a-privilege-not-expressly-authorized-by-statute-be-granted-purely-by-judicial-discretion-if-the-judges-pay-derives-from-fees-connected-to-paying-for-the-delivery-of-the-privilege/

5.7. Foreclosed everyone from using PAROLE consent or implied through ACTIONS from being used to cause a waiver of sovereign immunity without express statutory consent. If they are going to say STATES can consent to act or be treated like federal territories merely by their conduct without express written consent, then anyone must be able to do the same thing to the federal government through the same mechanisms, and those mechanisms must be described and applied EQUALLY to ALL. By their silence, they are elevating themselves above the states and destroying equity between the governed and the governors. This creates an extraconstitutional hierarchy that implements a civil religion as described in:

Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf

After all, if you can’t control when and how and under what circumstances your consent is actionable, then you don’t really own yourself. Those who write the definition of when that happens literally own YOU. If perfect equity is not at all times recognized and enforced, collectivism, socialism and violations of the First Amendment prohibition against compelled association and state religion are decimated.

6. If the defects of item 5 above were remedied, we wouldn’t have a problem with it, but because they aren’t, the court was engaging in sophistry, criminal activity, and unconstitutional actions. They can only be rendered constitutional and legitimate by eliminating the defects in Item 5 and by NO OTHER METHOD.

7. Until the defects are remedied, the court is engaging in unilaterally alienating rights that are supposed to be unalienable as described in:

Unalienable Rights Course, Form #12.038
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/UnalienableRights.pdf

8. The U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the above concepts when they held:

“The question is, therefore, presented (says the opinion), whether, in view of these facts, the legislature of a State can, by the charter of a lottery company, defeat the will of a people authoritatively expressed, in relation to the further continuance of such business in their midst. We think it cannot. No legislature can bargain away the public health or the public morals. The people themselves cannot do it, much less their servants. The supervision of both these subjects of governmental power is continuing in its nature, and they are to be dealt with as the special exigencies of the moment may require. Government is organized with a view to their preservation, and cannot divest itself of the power to provide for them. For this purpose the legislative discretion is allowed, and the discretion cannot be parted with any more than the power itself.”

[Butcher’s Union v. Crescent City Co, 111 U.S. 746, 753 (1884);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2843870813948488667]

For the SAME reasons, no private individual can “bargain away” the MOST FUNDAMENTAL protection of private property at the heart of every government, which is the separation of powers itself.

To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: “Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 759 (1991) (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting). “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” Gregory v. [505 U.S. 144, 182] Ashcroft, 501 U.S., at 458 . See The Federalist No. 51, p. 323. (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the “consent” of state officials. An analogy to the separation of powers among the branches of the Federal Government clarifies this point. The Constitution’s division of power among the three branches is violated where one branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached-upon branch approves the encroachment. In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 118 -137 (1976), for instance, the Court held that Congress had infringed the President’s appointment power, despite the fact that the President himself had manifested his consent to the statute that caused the infringement by signing it into law. See National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S., at 842 , n. 12. In INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 944 -959 (1983), we held that the legislative veto violated the constitutional requirement that legislation be presented to the President, despite Presidents’ approval of hundreds of statutes containing a legislative veto provision. See id., at 944-945. The constitutional authority of Congress cannot be expanded by the “consent” of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States.

[New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d. 120 (1992); SOURCE: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=505&invol=144]

9. You may want or expect a simpler answer, but this is the simplest way to describe all the negative effects of destroying the separation of powers by:

9.1. Allowing judges to add things to definitions that just aren’t there and can’t be expanded by adding “includes” or “including” to the definition without listing the class of things that ARE expressly included such as constitutional states, which are NOT within the general class of “territories and possessions” found in 4 U.S.C. 110(d).

9.2. Allowing any private party to effective EXPAND statutory definitions by their actions that produce implied consent. They can’t act as de facto legislators even if judges look the other way.

10. We don’t want to have to repeat this again. LISTEN UP!

10.1. We are not sophists and we’re not equivocating, but YOU are by adding classes of things to “state” that don’t appear in the statutory definitions.

10.2. We’re clarifying the ONLY way we aware of to implement comity and consent without corrupting the government, creating criminal conflicts of interest, or turning government into a mafia business that maximizes revenue by destroying unalienable rights that are its SOLE function to protect. That would make it a de facto government as described in:

De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/DeFactoGov.pdf

10.3. Any attempt to avoid or not reconcile the issues created by allowing judges to unilaterally expand definitions and destroy the separation of powers constitutes a conspiracy against the private rightsPRI protected by that very separation.

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that “the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,” and that “without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.”^[*] Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.

[Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 725 (1869);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1134912565671891096]

To reduce the powers of a state by treating it as a federal territory in 4 U.S.C. 110(d) is exactly the kind of “destruction” spoken of above. You advocate that destruction when you read things into definitions that aren’t expressly there and can’t be added by presumption without violating the rules of statutory construction. They are NOT within the general class “territories and possessions”, and can’t be placed there by their unilateral consent EITHER. States are free to act in a purely private capacity through comity and under the Clearfield Doctrine, but when they do, they cease to be acting as a government and must be approached in equity and not as a matter of legislative privilege or “sovereign power”.

10.4. If you have a better way to make the law and the courts consistent, please specify what it is. Otherwise, you agree with all the above under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6).

QUESTION 2:

So, all this time when you have been saying, “It’s not constitutional!” What you really meant to say is,

“The Constitution is irrelevant because it’s extra constitutional.”

Do I have that correct?

ANSWER 2:

The constitution doesn’t expressly authorize it so its EXTRACONSTITUTIONAL and therefore EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE.
1.1. Therefore it must be implemented with private law or private policy that is and must be non-governmental.
1.2. If it is represented as governmental, you are being deceived. Comity must be nongovernmental and private.
1.3. The PRIVATE side of government is FOREIGN to the CONSTITUTIONAL side. Thus, FOREIGN/PRIVATE for government work the OPPOSITE that they do for PEOPLE.
Anything non-governmental must:
2.1. Waive official, judicial, and and sovereign immunity.
2.2. Operate in equity and common law and not statute law.
2.3. Operate as a proprietorial power and not sovereign power.
2.4. Operate under Article III instead of Article I of the Constitution.
SCOTUS cannot act in a private capacity, so they can’t cooperate with non-governmental activities. Its not in the constitutional charter. If they cooperate and represent their ruling as governmental, they are deceiving the public.
Statutes that operate independent of domicile are also non-governmental and purely contractual and private.
4.1. All legitimate civil statutory law is built upon DOMICILE and VOLUNTARY membership as its foundation.
4.2. The constitution implements a PRIVATE Membership Association (PMA) from a civil perspective. People outside that PMA are private and protected by the Bill of Rights and not the CIVIL statutory law.
4.3. If they won’t let you refuse membership, they are violating the First Amendment, which is why it IS the First Amendment and why we STILL need the common law and equity.
If things didn’t operate this way, the Ninth and Tenth Amendment reservation of state and personal powers would be violated or at least rendered useless.

James Madison, the man at the Constitutional Convention from whose notes the Bill of Rights was written explained why the above MUST be the case, as did other founding fathers:

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”

[James Madison. House of Representatives, February 7, 1792, On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties]

_________________________________________________________________________________

It has been urged and echoed, that the 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,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it… For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars… But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? (Federalists #41)

[Federalist #41. Saturday, January 19, 1788, James Madison]

_______________________________________________________________________

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.

They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please…. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

That of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

[Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1020.htm and
http://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/jefferson/thomas-jefferson-opinion-on-national-bank-1791]

The introduction of the corruption of government using the above mechanisms was acknowledged by Microsoft Copilot in the above interchange in Q16:

A. Helvering v. Davis (1937)

Doctrinal move:

Upholds Social Security as a public right, not a private contract.

Introduces the idea that Congress has plenary power to tax and spend for the general welfare.

Representative language (paraphrased):

The discretion to decide what is for the general welfare belongs to Congress.

[Microsoft Copilot: Defeating the Administrative State, FTSIG
Question 16; SOURCE: https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-defeating-the-administrative-state/]

Congress doesn’t have that power. Article 1, Section 8 has that power and fully and exclusively implements it already. So in the above case, SCOTUS turned into an unaccountable engine of corruption of our government as Thomas Jefferson accurately predicted they would:

Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government
29. The Judicial Branch
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1270.htm

The U.S. Supreme Court in the above ruling:

In practical effect “hijacked the public trust” and turned it into a sham trust in the above case, according to the Founding Fathers.
Implemented pure collectivism and eliminated individualism and private rights. See:
Collectivism and How to Resist It Course, Form #12.024
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/Collectivism.pdf
Replaced proprietary power with sovereign power and now owns EVERYONE and EVERYTHING as our NEW LANDLORD, just like God.
Replaced capitalism with pure socialism:
Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf
Converted our government from a de jure government to a de facto government:
De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/DeFactoGov.pdf
Turned our government from a SERVANT into an CORPORATE EMPLOYER of EVERYONE. “Benefits” are your PAY inside this mandatory job. The Civil statutory code is you new mandatory employment agreement:
Corporatization and Privatization of the Government, Form #05.024
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/CorpGovt.pdf

The process the TYRANTS used to implement all the above in slow motion is thoroughly documented in:

How Scoundrels Corrupted Our Republican Government, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/HowScCorruptOurRepubGovt.htm

Welcome to the Matrix, Neo!

The Real Matrix*, SEDM
https://sedm.org/media/the-real-matrix/

Posted in FAQs and tagged comity, consent