Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)

LINK TO CASE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1134912565671891096

SIGNIFICANCE:

  1. Defines the term “state” as consisting of people, territory, and government.
  2. Defines what a “state” means in a geographical sense.
  3. Establishes the political sense of “state” as the principal sense, rather than the geographical sense, but ONLY in a constitutional context and NOT a civil statutory context.

HOWEVER, the CONTEXT of discussion in this case is the CONSTITUTIONAL context, not the CIVIL STATUTORY context. Therefore, in a CIVIL context the POLITICAL sense is NOT the principal sense.

The Constitution (Bill of Rights) protects main PRIVATE property. Civil statutes protect and regulate PUBLIC property.

When you invoke a civil privilege you surrender PRIVATE rights in exchange for PUBLIC privileges under the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine and the Public Rights doctrine of SCOTUS.

Yes, political statuses are invoked in the PUBLIC civil law, but only to describe CANDIDATES for the election. Otherwise, POLITICAL status is irrelevant and certainly not the default. The only exception seems to be Title 8, which is a mixture.

“In the Constitution the term state . . . . “

[Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)]

In the above case, where is the CIVIL law described as ALSO using the POLITICAL sense? Don’t presume that it is.

We don’t doubt that if they are implementing a CONSTITUTIONAL income tax pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, they must be talking about the constitutional and therefore political sense of the geographical reach of the tax. So “United States” COULD have its political and constitutional meaning in Title 26 by default. But it could also be the case that this is not a constitutional tax, and that it is a tax limited to territories and possessions NOT mentioned in the constitution as a purely CIVIL and not CONSTITUTIONAL tax.

The constitution is written by the PEOPLE of the SOVEREIGN state. The statutes are written by their SERVANT to manage only the SERVANT’S public/GOVERNMENT property. The two contexts are completely incompatible and have DIFFERENT authors and even a different target audience.

The POLITICAL context is based on ALLEGIANCE and is not always voluntary and not geographical BEYOND the point of birth. The CIVIL context is based on DOMICILE and always voluntary and geographical.

A truly constitutional tax would have a liability statute. There IS no liability statute for the income tax other than for withholding agents in I.R.C. 1461. So it’s just a donation program that is purely civil/territorial and not constitutional.