enacted irs code vs not enacted title 26

[Shoonra]

Positive law means the law in the exact words enacted by Congress. What's in the Statutes at Large is always positive law.

The US Code began as "prima facie" law, meaning that, since there had been the equivalent of a cut-and-paste job breaking up the original statutes in separate sections, then shuffling all those sections together in a logical sequence, some words had to be changed for the newly rearranged sections to make sense. These changes were done by editors, not by the Congress. Therefore the sections of the Code were only presumed to be accurate statements of the statutes and the only evidence that could disprove that would be the text of the original statutes themselves (in Statutes at Large, although if there was a doubt about the Statutes at Large version, the final evidence would be the enrolled copy with the three signatures).

In the case of Title 26, it is my recollection that the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted as one humongous Act, with the all sections intended for Title 26, written and numbered exactly as intended for Title 26 of the Code, so that when enacted the statute of 1954 became Title 26 without any further editing, which means that Title 26 was positive law. After 1954, amendments to the tax code made explicit reference to amending the sections of Title 26, which is further evidence that the Title 26 of the US Code was positive law, some courts have even said so. But even if it were not positive law but only prima facie law, the only way to show that the Code text is in error is to point to the different text in the enacted statute(s).

[idknow]

as i wrote previously, i amend to add that

i have not been able to find free sources of the statutes online as non-graphic pages. I've only been able to find tiff images of OLD books and they aint small in size!

Before joining this board, I recognised that the statutes were paramount and superior to the code zipfiles i already knew about.

I continue my search.

What we need is to demand that Congress and the Printer and the GAO publish unmunged text (html markup is fine) on the web. They are without excuse to deny us; our "obeience" to law requires us to be able to read it.

</tirade> there is more to add to this - i'm too pissed

your anointed brother idknow
--

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Positive law means the law in the exact words enacted by Congress. What's in the Statutes at Large is always positive law.

The US Code began as "prima facie" law, meaning that, since there had been the equivalent of a cut-and-paste job breaking up the original statutes in separate sections, then shuffling all those sections together in a logical sequence, some words had to be changed for the newly rearranged sections to make sense. These changes were done by editors, not by the Congress. Therefore the sections of the Code were only presumed to be accurate statements of the statutes and the only evidence that could disprove that would be the text of the original statutes themselves (in Statutes at Large, although if there was a doubt about the Statutes at Large version, the final evidence would be the enrolled copy with the three signatures).

In the case of Title 26, it is my recollection that the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted as one humongous Act, with the all sections intended for Title 26, written and numbered exactly as intended for Title 26 of the Code, so that when enacted the statute of 1954 became Title 26 without any further editing, which means that Title 26 was positive law. After 1954, amendments to the tax code made explicit reference to amending the sections of Title 26, which is further evidence that the Title 26 of the US Code was positive law, some courts have even said so. But even if it were not positive law but only prima facie law, the only way to show that the Code text is in error is to point to the different text in the enacted statute(s).

[B Rookard]

The Statutes at Large can be found in any Law Library.

Even a very good non-law university library might have them.

They can be accessed. It might require you to make a trip ... but it can be done.

For example, here in Michigan, in the Detroit Area ... just go to Wayne State University downtown ... free, easy access for everyone. Non-students can use the library.

[Libertarian]

In California, where I am, every county is required to maintain a law library which is free to the public. Each of those county libraries has the Statutes at Large.

[Shoonra]

The US House of Representatives Office of the Law Revision Counsel has a continually updated text of the US Code on his website:

http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml

Using the THOMAS website of the Library of Congress you can see the original statutes for the last twenty years or so.

There's nothing secretive about the Statutes at Large, nor the US Code. One very important reason for the US Code was that EVERYONE wanted a resource that had the general laws arranged logically, instead of chronologically, with all the amendements, repeals, and other updates reliably reflected. The Congress tried this the first time in 1872, producing the Revised Statutes with only Congressional members and staff doing the work, and as soon as it was printed, people discovered scores, maybe hundreds, of mistakes including overlooked amendments and repeals. So in 1924, the Congress actually hired the expert editors of West Publishing to do the job -- West had already been publishing its own unofficial compilation. The result was the US Code, first made available to the public in 1927; the same year, West published its own multi-volume set with the official text and their own editorial blandishments, including countless quotations from court decisions on almost every section, as US Code Annotated (USCA). Sometime later Bobbs-Merrill started publishing its own commercial edition of the US Code, with its own casenotes and blandishments, originally called "Federal Code Annotated" but it changed publishers around 1973 and is now known as US Code Service (USCS). And there are some other commercial editions, such as Gould's.

The official edition of the US Code is published as a complete set every 6 years, with annual supplement volumes in between the full editions. THe USCA and USCS get quarterly supplemental booklets to the set, and then every volume gets updated with an annual pocket part; when the pocket part for a volume gets too thick, that volume is replaced with an updated volume (or two). The official edition of the USC is not copyrighted because produced entirely with taxpayers' money, but the editorial embellishments of the USCA and USCS are copyrighted -- that is, the text of the statute sections is not copyrighted but the editorial casenotes are.

[summergarden]

Any of you legal beagles out there know the difference between being "enacted by act" and being "enacted by law"?

You will find at the beginning of the IRS code book that it says the Title 26 shall be cited as the "Internal Revenue Title" and known as the Internal Revenue Code. It was enacted by an Act of Congress.

Does it sound familiar to anyone out there, that an Act of Congress is only applicable locally? I seem to recall that the District of Columbia, (D.C.),
according to the Constitution is still only supposed to be 10 square miles.

In the beginning of the US Code where the 50 Titles are listed, at the bottom of the page is a key with symbols that show which of the 50 Titles have been enacted into law.

I got a copy of that from the law library. You might even be able to get it on internet. Look and see if Title 26 has that little symbol that designates it has been "enacted by law", NO! NO! it's not there. Why not? Other Titles on the list have it.

Look at Congress.......... how come it's not there either. Do you suppose that they are just a bunch of empty suits since the Revolution when the Southern States walked of the Union?

Anyway, D.C's jurisdiction lies within those 10 squares, except for those buildings, forts, etc. that have been ceded to the US for needful uses that are in the several union states.

If you can get ahold of the records of when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted into the union of states, it will evidence that the 48 states then, were not territories or possessions of the U.S.

The fact is that each of the states is foreign to each other and are countries.

This whole tax thing exploded during the war. It's been called the "Donald Duck" tax because the story is, that the IRS went to Walt Disney and asked for help to get the American people to give money for the war effort, and because he wanted to be patriotic, Disney made a "Donald Duck" cartoon that appealed to the public to contribute. In the statutes its called a "Victory Tax". The Victory tax was repealed...... but nobody ever told the public.

Just goes to show ya...... it's nothing but a bunch of quackery!

Summergarden

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by summergarden

I seem to recall that the District of Columbia, (D.C.),
according to the Constitution is still only supposed to be 10 square miles.

Nope, it's 10 miles squared or 10 to the second power = 100 square miles

[Akira]

cdsea10,

Welcome to the forum !

I am not a US citizen... so don't quote me...

But allow me to offer some sources for possible answers...


the Statutes at Large... table of contents...

As I recall... those statutes/titles that were passed into positive law, have an asterisk next to them, those that were not, do not have the asterisk... check it out !..

typo? prima facie? At the very least, it's amusing !


You seem to understand the importance of the enacting clause... you may want to look up 'ex post facto' law, as is mentioned in both federal constitutions.


I recommend downloading Mike Badnarik's Constituion Seminar. It is essential tool for anyone hoping to understand the law, and I think he discusses the above issues in it.

Know your vocabulary... in law, words are weapons...


The unknowing are slaves to liars....

For HIS Glory,
Akira