Source: http://losthorizons.com/N/37.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 13:44:43+00:00

Document:
It's Time To Celebrate Some 2019 Victories!
Be there for the next CtC Seminar in the Palmetto State!!
It's Time To Reserve A Seat, People!
By the way, I want to emphasize the importance of RSVPing if you wish to attend the seminar!!! In Dallas last month we lost a couple of people who arrived late and chose not to sit against the back wall with other overflows, which was the best that could be managed due to unexpected arrivals to a venue selected on the basis of RSVPs. You MUST PLEASE RSVP to Doreen as indicated in the information page linked above, and at the earliest opportunity.
We need to nip the sappers' bs in the bud from every direction, and happily, we're armed for bear.
Jefferson recognized that, very much contrary to the comforting image as the law's benign and faithful stewards which the state attempts to present to the naive, federal judges are the law's most dangerous enemies.
Judges do not work for the People. They are selected by the wielders and beneficiaries of state power, and it is the interests of those folks which receive support and protection from judges.
To put it plainly, judges do not get chosen and elevated to office because they are men and women likely to hinder and restrain the decisions and behavior of those by whom they are selected. It is, instead, exactly the opposite predisposition which recommends a candidate for judicial office.
Because of the threat judges represent to the security of the law, those of us on the law's side must diligently debunk the comforting myths wherever they are seen to be infecting our fellows. We must also go into every legal contest (and any other kind of debate) in which we will have to deal with one of these sappers wisely anticipating their sometimes gross and sometimes subtle attacks, and thoroughly armed against them.
ON THE INCOME TAX FRONT, members of the CtC-educated community go into the fray (on the rare occasions that it is necessary at all) heavily-armed with a massive arsenal of indisputable legal facts. By "legal facts" I mean authentic, provable, consistent and harmonious records of legislative intent-- at the level of Constitutional framing and subsequent statutory enactments by Congress-- as well as explicit and undisturbed rulings declaring the substance and effect of both classes of legislative expression by not only the United States Supreme Court, but by both executive and legislative officials as well.
Today we're going to discuss another arrow in the quiver-- one dictating HOW all the assembled legal fact must be read by members of the judiciary, under the terms of 'Constitutional avoidance' doctrine. That doctrine dictates that every statute must be read so as to keep it Constitutionally-valid, if possible.
Every other judicial pronouncement regarding the meaning and effect of any tax-related statute must be construed so as to harmonize with these explicit Supreme Court rulings. If out of harmony, such pronouncements would treat the statute involved as being a violation of the Constitution (even though not declaring it so and striking it down).
The Constitutional avoidance doctrine says this can't be done. All statutes must be construed so as to find them Constitutional, when it is possible to do so.
This doesn't mean that courts are expected to find for the Constitutionality of a given statute by construing the Constitution to accommodate the statute. It is the other way around.
The doctrine holds that courts must construe any given statute so as to harmonize it with the Constitution. Even if a statute contains language by which it could be read as contrary to the Constitution, it must be construed so as to subordinate to and harmonize with the Constitution if its language at all accommodates such a construction, or be thrown out.
As Justice Holmes said long ago: "A statute must be construed, if fairly possible, so as to avoid not only the conclusion that it is unconstitutional but also grave doubts upon that score." United 238 States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U. S. 394, 401 (1916) (citing United States ex rel. Attorney General v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366, 408 (1909)); see also Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 348 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). "This canon is followed out of respect for Congress, which we assume legislates in the light of constitutional limitations." Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173, 191 (1991); see also FTC v. American Tobacco Co., 264 U. S. 298, 305-307 (1924).
[W]here a statute is susceptible of two constructions, by one of which grave and doubtful constitutional questions arise and by the other of which such questions are avoided, the Court's duty is to adopt the latter. See, e. g., Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568, 575.
Here's an example of what this means: Say there were corrupt (or moronic) judges unwilling (or unable) to recognize that listing "federal employees" in the definitional examples of "employee" at 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) means that the term can't be rationally construed as inclusive of ALL employees, commonly-defined.
These judges might be tempted to misconstrue 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c). They might misconstrue the term, and the other tax provisions to which it relates, as applying to all employees, commonly-defined.
In doing so, our corrupt/moronic judges would be treating the income tax to which the statutory-term "employee" relates as falling on privileged and unprivileged activities alike. The Constitutional avoidance doctrine says that this cannot be done.
The doctrine says that § 3401(c) MUST be construed as referring only to a limited subclass of employees. Otherwise, the provisions of the tax to which 3401(c) relates apply would not be in harmony with the income tax as an excise, which the Supreme Court has said the tax is, as a Constitutional matter. This improper construction would also, and at the same time, have the tax applying as a Constitution-violating unapportioned capitation, which the Supreme Court has says it is not, and cannot be, under the Constitution.
Under the Constitutional avoidance doctrine, even if the language of the statute seems unlimited to our corrupt or moronic judges, they MUST read it more narrowly in order to keep it Constitutional.
Further, and regardless of whether any given judge can successfully be shown his or her obligations under the Constitutional avoidance doctrine, the rulings by such judges can and should thereby be read in accordance with Constitutional avoidance doctrine, as in, "Regardless of the ruling's seemingly expansive language, it must be taken to have been meant more narrowly, or else be seen as invalid." This should be pointed out any time a doctrine-violating ruling is represented as any kind of precedent, in any venue.
THE DOCTRINE APPLIES IN THE SAME WAY even to rulings by the Supreme Court itself, btw. Consider, for instance, a Supreme Court ruling in which the term "income" is used without definition. Such a ruling might be mistaken (or misrepresented) as implying court-approved application of the income tax to "all that comes in", if it could be taken just as written.
However, because the court's precedents already establish that the tax cannot apply to "all that comes in", and can only apply to the gainful exercise of federal privileges, the definitionally-infirm ruling must be read otherwise. Even though not present in the flesh, the "income" definition established by the reigning precedents must be read into newer ruling, which otherwise would be in conflict with settled law (and settled Constitutional law, at that), and this should always be pointed out whenever the question arises.
UNDERSTAND, MY FRIENDS, everything is on the side of the good guys in the matter of the truth about the tax-- everything except the bad guys. And the bad guys have got no game.
Go forth and slay monsters.
BTW, the Congressional Research Service's collection of statutory interpretation principles can be downloaded here.
BTW, II: A discussion in greater depth on the matter of judicial loyalties can be found here; and another on judicial GI-GO can be found here.
CARE TO COMMENT on this article? Click here.
*The Supreme Court's core rulings on the income tax represent a blessedly solid body of sound work, not least due to having been issued and settled well before the period in which sustained efforts by a burgeoning State to cultivate and exploit public misunderstanding of the tax began in the early 1940s. See more about that here.
Click here for a few words about why the well-settled Supreme Court rulings on the tax will never be reversed, for reasons even beyond the constraints of the unambiguous historical record and Constitutional language which they faithfully reflect.
Want to get these Lost Horizons newsletters delivered to your inbox? Click here and subscribe to the group. Leave all options at their default settings. Done!
But I now WILL charge a special something for access to some key portions of that work.
Opening selected pages on losthorizons.com comprising higher level legal resources now requires the submission of testimonial videos, as discussed, described and demonstrated here. The videos must be accompanied by scans of a recent educated filing along with responsive documents from the IRS, whether in the form of a check, a notice identifying and reflecting the filed return, or "return" and "account" transcripts for the year for which the return was filed.
Similarly, if an email comes my way asking for guidance or assistance, I had better already have your video posted.
I HATE TO PLAY IT THIS WAY. But I want to win.
Keep yourself to no more than 2 or 3 minutes, and keep in mind that the purpose is not to educate, but to INSPIRE, ENCOURAGE and ENERGIZE. Your video will be one of many to be shared. If you need to go longer to really say your piece, go for it (but long or short I may edit if something strikes me as wandering or off-key).
Identify yourself. Anonymity is for criminals and self-doubters, not CtC warriors.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3401
 § 3401
 § 3401