It’s my understanding that about half of the “Titles” in the United States Code (USC) are each described as “positive” law. About half of those Titles are not identified as “positive” law, but, so far as I know, they are not given a distinctive description although it’s usually called “non-positive” law..
Perhaps it would be fair to say that the titles of the USC can be expressly described as either “law” or “positive law”. If that were true, then, whenever some officer, official or employee of what passes for federal government said “It’s the LAW!,” they might actually mean that whatever authority they’re referring to in the USC was something other than “positive law”. If that were true, then what would the government’s reaction be to claims where people said “It’s the positive law”?
It’s also my understanding that Title 26 (which deals with income taxes) of the USC is not identified as “positive law”.
I can’t prove it, but it’s my strong suspicion and belief that the income tax is only mandatory within territories and administrative districts “of the United States” but not within the States of the Union (“of The United States of America”).
Is it possible that all laws under the USC which are “positive” are mandatory only within all States of the Union while those laws under the USC that are “non-positive” are mandatory only within the territories?
It’s pure conjecture, but could it be that the primary difference between the “law”/ “non-positive law” and “positive law” of the USC ultimately a matter of venue?
If that conjecture were valid, it might follow that the income tax laws are only “constitutional” and “mandatory” within the territories, but are something like “private,” “consensual” and/or “voluntary” within the States of the Union.