Saturday, July 14, 2012
Taxing Non Use
The improbable stitching of legalistic words by John Roberts constructed to “Constitutionally Authenticate” the taxing a “Use” was first presented in the Hylton Case dicta issued in December of 1796 by the Supreme Court.
The issue decided by the Five Progressive Justices inclusive of, and led by John Roberts, was to hide in plain sight the unconstitutional coercion of taxing the American State Citizen in an individual capacity by imposing the judicially legislatively created application of taxing “use” or in this instance, “non use”. John Robert’s historical legacy will be known as the Chief Justice that judicially created exaction of “non use”.
There is no constitutional authority for a sitting judicial bench to judicially legislate the imposition of fiscal exaction upon that which does not exist. Yet, John Roberts’ action was not the first time that the Court protected Congressional overreach. The first time was back in December of 1796 on behalf of Alexander Hamilton’s infamous Carriage Tax of 1794. This judicial legislation of taxing “use” was first presented in the Hylton Decision from December of 1796 which substantiated Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton’s desire to tax the “use” of Private Property as a way to overcome the restrictive Constitutionally limited Direct Tax.
The Hylton Decision issued in December 1796 by the statutory Judicial Panel of Six sitting as the Supreme Court , stated that the Federal Legislature may impose an excise tax for the Private “use” of Property.
It was another 113 years before the Court, now a statutory panel of Nine , once again stated the Federal Legislature may indirectly tax the “use” of Private Property. Chief Justice Douglas Edward White opined that the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 was a tax upon the “use” of Private Property.
The little referenced case dicta is Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913) issued in December 1913. The Property in “use” that was subsequently “excised” was “Income”. This judicial sleight of hand was moved to overcome the Pollack Decision from 1894 where the Court had clearly affirmed wealth arising from Private Property fell strictly within the Constitutional realm of Direct Taxation. In the 1913 case dicta of Stratton’s Independence, Ltd, the Income arising from property was judicially legislated to be defined as “excisable use”.
There sat the Chief Justice Edward Douglas White, who artfully imposed the judicially legislatively created term of art “use” in 1913, as the judicial two step to surreptitiously surmount the Direct Tax restrictions for appointment when exacting Rights to Property.
The Corporate Excise Tax of August 5, 1909, 36 Stat. 11, 61st Congress Session I Chapter 6, § 38 page 112, was reliant upon the sleight of hand known as judicial “interpretation” of a legislative enactment. This Corporate Excise Tax enactment did not define the term that was applied by the Court to justify its artfully crafted Decision. The judicially applied term was “use”.
Imposing a tax upon a singular American State Citizen would be known as a Caption Tax, but alas, the statutory panel of nine has avoided that Constitutional Reality since Chief Justice Edward Douglas White artfully legislated from the Bench in the Brushaber decision issued in January of 1916 wherein the accretions of wealth disbursed by a Corporation to a singular American Individual was judicially legislated to be defined as a “taxable source derived” from a Corporate “use”.
This was the first time that the Court, in the Brushaber Decision, applied what is now known today to be the Congressionally enacted statutory mandate to Directly Tax a Singular American. In the instant case of Brushaber, the Court determined that the disbursement of the accretions of wealth, was “derived from a taxable source”, that had been judicially legislated by the Judicial bench, to be known and defined as “use”.
When John Roberts was confronted with the artfully crafted Patient Protection and Health Care Affordability Act he was facing down the historical reality of the judicially legislatively created term “use”, or as previously stated “non use” as an exactable source of property.
The judicially created concept that “non use” is intangible property of a singular American that then may subsequently be exacted is the end result of a judicially crafted corruption dating back to Alexander Hamilton’s Carriage Tax. Alexander Hamilton’s Carriage tax was one of the reasons that Thomas Jefferson secured the passage of the Judicial Act of 1802, wherein by legislative enactment fifty percent of the Federal Judiciary was terminated with statutory prejudice.
The Federal judiciary eventually recovered from Thomas Jefferson’s success. The Federal Judiciary then easily fell back into historical errors when it constructed its judicial presence to follow the ideologically driven processes designed by Frank J. Goodnow in 1911.
Frank J. Goodnow presented the expedient political concept of using Stare Decisis to overtly usurp constitutional limitations. The end result over the past 101 years is that the Federal Judiciary has become a repressive political tool from where the Progressives compel their oppressive reach of National Socialism by imposing the Statist hand of tyrannical oppression under the color of “judicial decisions”.
It is time we Americans once again stand up come this 113th Congress and require the newly elected Federal Legislature to put on their “Thomas Jefferson” and legislatively terminate the Federal Judicial System.
Then turn to Article III, and not clause 1 of said article, to, for the first time in the Republic’s History sit a Judicial Bench Constitutionally known as the one Supreme Court.