Bond vs U.S.

Image via Wikipedia

Surely, there must be some mistake.

On June 16th, A.D. 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in the case of Bond v U.S..  This case involves the standing of private individuals to invoke the 10th–and, to lesser degree, the 9th–Amendments.  The total document (syllabus, opinion and concurring opinion) released by the Supreme Court is 19 pages.

As I read that case, I find excerpts on almost every page that strike me as mind-boggling, explosive and even revolutionary.  I can’t recall reading another case in the past 28 years that filled me with such excitement, glee and even hope.

I see this decision as so extraordinary, that I can’t imagine how the Supreme Court (in a 9 to 0 decision (!!!)), would dare write this opinion without fearing for their lives.

This case seem so good, that my fundamental reaction is:  Surely, there must be some mistake.

 

Title 26 is not the Internal Revenue Code

Image via Wikipedia

The United States Code (USC) consists of 51 “Titles”.  Each “Title” deals with a different subject matter.  For example, Title 26 deals with internal revenue tax laws.

Roughly half of those 51 Titles have been enacted into “positive law”; about half have not.

Title 26 has not been enacted into positive law.

A friend mine, Dick Clark, passed away a few years ago.  He’d been at war with the IRS for most of 20 years before he passed, and had written a book on the subject.   As part of his research, Dick asked the National Archives for a list of those Titles in the USC that had been enacted into “positive” law and those Titles that had not.  The National Archives provided the requested list.

I never saw the list.  But Dick told me that, surprisingly, of the 51 Titles on the National Archive list—only one, Title 26, had an asterisk and associated footnote at the bottom of the list.  The footnote said something like “Title 26 is identical to the Internal Revenue Code”.

The implication was extraordinary.  Title 26 was not the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)  Title 26 and the IRC were two different documents.  Yes, they might be “identical” in terms of verbiage, but they were not identical in terms of authority.

 

Notes on “Territory” and “People”

Image via Wikipedia

It appears to me (and others) that the States of the Union (“The States”) may have been rendered insolvent and non-functional when the federal government removed gold (A.D. 1933) and silver (A.D. 1968) from domestic circulation.

Article 1.10.1 of The Constitution of the United States declares that “No State [of the Union] shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”  Note that this prohibition applies only to States of the Union–not to territories and/or the federal government.  How can the governments of the States of the Union continue to function constitutionally if there’s no gold or silver in circulation with which to pay debts or collect fines and fess?

Thus, it appears possible that the governments of the States of the Union could have been virtually destroyed by simply removing gold and silver coin from domestic circulation.  Which is exactly what the federal government has done.