6978Re: [tips_and_tricks] The term "revenue law"
- Nov 16, 2004Angela,
I am not a professional, nor do I give advise, but I
will help you to understand something here; which may,
or may not, make things a bit clearer, and for sure
will arouse the ire of others on this list who will I
am sure disagree.
You appear to be making several presumptions of facts
not in evidence, as do others on this list, as to the
same is concerning the nature of the Federal Courts.
The first is that you think you have "judicial
courts". You see, the current courts known as United
States District Courts, are not judicial in nature,
they are legislative (i.e. Article I Administrative
tribunals), not judicial Courts under Article III.
Therefore, they can hear "Tax Matters" as only the
legislative branch of government can "lay and collect"
taxes.(In what may appear to be happening in
contradistinction to the separation of powers
doctrine, it is truly within their branch
[legislative] of governments authority.) However;
this, in and of itself, creates a separation of powers
controversy, as these Article I courts only have
authority within the federal zone over such things and
places where the Congress has exclusive legislative
authority. Therefore, any incursion into the states of
the Union outside the federal zone is in want of
lawful authority as you previously stated. You were
right, but for the wrong reasons.
--- Angela Stark <angelastark@...> wrote:
> " In the Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Hill, 123 US
> 681 the Supreme
> Court said"
> "The term `revenue law' when used in connection with
> the jurisdiction
> of the courts of the United States, means �a law
> which is "directly
> traceable" to the power granted to Congress by 8,
> Art. I of the
> Constitution, `to lay and collect taxes duties,
> imposts, and
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>