State, United States, Includes
This discussion is only on includes, state and United States because of all that endless debate that is going around and around and no solid answers for the last 20 years that I know of. I have stated the correct argument in my Which One Are You but this is in a different perspective so that it might come across clearer. You cannot dispute the statutes and the English grammar contained herein that is within the statutes.
Let’s take State. Let us define State as should be done in the IRC to remove any doubt, or any other statute in any other Title for that matter whether federal or any of the 50 states.
Make believe IRC.
Definitions: When used in this code, unless otherwise distinctly stated elsewhere:
STATE: The term State means any of the 50 States that joined the Union of States under the Constitution and others when expressed.
UNITED STATES: The term United States means the 50 states, and, the possessions and territories of the Congress when so expressed.
Pretty straight forward and leaves no doubt. But the IRC in 7701 (a) (9) and (10) does not state this. Now 26 USC 6103 is another story. Go read it to prove to yourself, then look at all the other code sections, and see if you can find this exact 6103 definition for State. The way they define State for the rest of the Code does not include the meaning of United States in 6103.
You cannot define a word with the same word. Such as; State, The term State is a State. A total oxymoron if ever there was one.
So in order for the word State to mean the 50 States, the wording of the Statute would have to look like this.
STATE: The 50 States (NOW I HAVE JUST DEFINED WHAT STATE IS) includes American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, etc., etc.. This is the proper way to lump them all together and the word “includes” is now expansive. Does the IRS do this in the IRC? Definitely not but for one place, 6103.
Now look at the difference as to how they do state it.
State: The term State includes American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, etc., etc.
This does not include the 50 states, therefore the words immediately following the word includes defines State and the word includes is restrictive, meaning the word State only comprises what is stated and does not include the 50 states that are not mentioned. In other words in a statute the inclusion of one stated is the exclusion of ones not stated. That is a maxim of law. This is well stated in the Federalist Paper No. 83 by Hamilton:
…. the maxims on which they rely are of this nature: “a specification of particulars is an exclusion of the generals”; or, “The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.”
In the beginning of definitions 7701 (a), it states; “When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof;”
Now the word State meaning the 50 states is “distinctly expressed” in 26 USC 6103 and is entirely different from the rest of the definitions of State throughout the IRC. Now the larger words I used to emphasize what they are doing is never looked at in any of the arguments I have seen. This is also the key.
Since the IRC Title 26 is strictly for the Congress, A.K.A. United States (in Congress Assembled) and its possessions, it would be “manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof” to use the word includes when defining the word State to mean the 50 States of the Union.
It is so simple when understanding the English Language that it is beyond me that people go round and round chasing their tails and get nowhere when trying to insert words that are not there.
Remember Congress writes laws for itself and its possessions. The States write Laws for themselves. No State law can be used in another State. No State law can be used in the United States, i.e American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, etc., etc., and Washington, D.C.. You cannot take D.C. or Puerto Rico law and use it in any State of the Union.
All Titles of the USC are strictly meant for the United States and none of the States of the Union. The one exception is found in their Constitution at Article 1, Section 10, which limits the States, NOT the PEOPLE, because as the Padleford case stated, “No private man can complain of a breach of the Constitution because he, is not a party to it.” Others stated the constitution was strictly for the United States and not the States of the Union as they had their own constitutions; see Hepburn & Dundees v Ellezy and John Barron v The Mayor and City of Baltimore. Clearly theses last two cases stated the United States is not the States of the Union. It is that simple and people cannot understand it.
That definition of State in 7701 (a) (10), has, by their own definitions, EXCLUDED the 50 States and only says it is the District of Columbia. The definition of United States in 7701 (a) (9) can be clearly seen to not encompass the 50 states but only those possessions belonging to the United States, i.e American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, etc., etc..
So when 7701 (c) states that includes will not exclude things within the meaning of the term defined, it is evident that if it does not mention Guam and the Northern Mariana’s for instance, they are included but not the 50 states. Therefore, to include the 50 states would be “manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof” because they are not “distinctly expressed” except in 26 USC 6103. Now, since “includes” is used as a restrictive term throughout the IRC, it would be “manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof” to use it in 6103 and that is why the word “MEANS” is used to define the 50 states in the term State and, therefore, it has to be distinctly expressed as it is.
I give you this case because people try to interject things in a statute when they are not there.
“The starting point in any endeavor to construe a Statute is always the words of the Statute itself; unless Congress has clearly indicated that its intentions are contrary to the words it employed in the Statute, this is the ending point of interpretation.” Fuller v. United States, 615 F. Supp. 1054 (D.C. Cal 1985), West’s Key 188 quoting Richards v. United States, 369 US 1, 9, 82 S. Ct. 585, 590, 7 L. Ed. 2d. 492 (1962).
Congress has defined the “United States” in Social Security matters to be ONLY; the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands. The 50 States of the Union are not mentioned. Proof of this is found in the Omnibus Acts P.L. 86-70 and 86-624 and the Social Security Act itself. It is irrebuttable as stated in the following statutes.
42 U.S.C.405 (2)(c)(I) “It is the policy of the United States that, any State (or political subdivision thereof) may, in the administration of any tax…”
Describing “any state” is the following statute;
42 U.S.C. 405 (2)(c)(vi) defines State as; “for purposes of clause (I) of this subparagraph, the term “state” includes The District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.”
The above two statutes are supported by P.L. 86-70 & 86-624, wherein the term state is stated to have a special definition, not meaning the 50 States united by and under the Constitution. The term “include” has been deemed by the federal courts to be a word of “definition,” which in “Words and Phrases” is a “substitute for phraseology” and a word of limitation for the Internal Revenue Laws and the Federal Old Age Benefits Act which MAY be cited Social Security Act. That is why the true Title is found in Title II, Section 201, page 622.
What about the word “several States” found in the definitions in the IRC? Well this covers it very nicely because Congress chose which one of the definitions is wanted. Here is Ballentine’s Law Dictionary 3rd Ed. definition of “several.”
SEVERAL. Separate and distinct, implying diversity or division. More than two but not a multitude. Sometimes deemed to include as many as seven.
What a dream for Congress. How many federal states including Alaska and Hawaii existed before these two became States of the Union in 1959-1960? Exactly Seven.
Why on earth people want to include the 50 states in these definitions is beyond me, BUT it is exactly what the Congress relies on to subject you to what ever they want, as they write the definitions. Why on earth are there so many definitions for United States and State in a myriad of statutes laced throughout every one of the 50 Titles of the United States if the terms State and United States have the same universal meaning? Simply to steal from you rights and property through artifice of words.