"Obama: Not MY president!"

[weazie]

Long-time lurker, first-time poster. Hello!

As you may know, some people believe Obama is ineligible to be president (because he was born elsewhere and/or does not fit the definition of a "natural born citizen" under the U.S. Constitution) . There have been several lawsuits filed challenging Obama's eligibility, but with no success.

As the legal defeats mount (and Obama's presidency's right around the corner), more than one disaffected person has declared that they're not going to pay taxes because Obama can't legally collect them. (That's how it works: disbelief in elections nullifies federal law.)

Whether they will actually follow through is another matter, but if someone does, Obama-not-a-natural-born-citizen defense ought to be added to the TP lore.

[Demosthenes]

Welcome to Quatloos, Weazie!

[jg]

...As the legal defeats mount (and Obama's presidency's right around the corner), more than one disaffected person has declared that they're not going to pay taxes because Obama can't legally collect them. (That's how it works: disbelief in elections nullifies federal law.)...

Sorry, but that does not make sense.
The status of any one officer of the government does not invalidate, void or even suspend any or all of the laws of the country.
Whether or not there is a president (properly elected and qualified or not) does not change the validity of the law.

Disbelief does not nullify law.

[LPC]

An interesting notion. I'll be on the lookout for it.

[Demosthenes]

Sorry, but that does not make sense.

A legal theory made by TPs that doesn't make sense? Say it ain't so!

[fortinbras]

Sorry, but that does not make sense.

Yes, it doesn't, and that's exactly why the Obama-as-foreign-born myth should be counted among TP (or Sovereign) mythologies.

[grixit]

Just wait until someone objects because he's merely a 14th Amendment citizen.

[LPC]

...As the legal defeats mount (and Obama's presidency's right around the corner), more than one disaffected person has declared that they're not going to pay taxes because Obama can't legally collect them. (That's how it works: disbelief in elections nullifies federal law.)...

Sorry, but that does not make sense.
The status of any one officer of the government does not invalidate, void or even suspend any or all of the laws of the country.
Whether or not there is a president (properly elected and qualified or not) does not change the validity of the law.

That's what you think, reality-breath.

And there's also an argument that Ohio was not a state until 1953, so Ohio was not a state when Taft was born in 1857, so Taft was not a natural born citizen and was ineligible to be President, so the 16th Amendment and every other law enacted while he was President is invalid.

Great stuff.

[Weathervane]

And there's also an argument that Ohio was not a state until 1953, so Ohio was not a state when Taft was born in 1857, so Taft was not a natural born citizen and was ineligible to be President, so the 16th Amendment and every other law enacted while he was President is invalid.

Great stuff.

And since Virginia wasn't a state when George Washington was born...

[Gregg]

And there's also an argument that Ohio was not a state until 1953, so Ohio was not a state when Taft was born in 1857, so Taft was not a natural born citizen and was ineligible to be President, so the 16th Amendment and every other law enacted while he was President is invalid.

Great stuff.

And since Virginia wasn't a state when George Washington was born...

well, that doesn't count, there is an excecption in the Constitution that covers people born before the United States was a country.

[Joey Smith]

Deadbeats are always going to fail to pay their taxes, and it really doesn't matter what the theory is. Once one theory is debunked, they move on to another, then another, then another.

[Gregg]

Deadbeats are always going to fail to pay their taxes, and it really doesn't matter what the theory is. Once one theory is debunked, they move on to another, then another, then another.

Exactly, and that's how we ended up listening to dingbats debating hte meaning of "includes"

[SteveSy]

Deadbeats are always going to fail to pay their taxes, and it really doesn't matter what the theory is. Once one theory is debunked, they move on to another, then another, then another.

Exactly, and that's how we ended up listening to dingbats debating hte meaning of "includes"

Jeez, I know....

I mean if you go to Google and search for "includes the following" those stupid people, including universities, use it to provide a complete list when defining something. Then again, maybe they have secret items they don't list which require a super secret handshake to gain knowledge of.

[fortinbras]

For those who didn't understand the business about "includes", the TPs point to provisions in the Internal Revenue Code that say things like "the United States includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands" or "income includes dividends and royalties" -- and then they go outside the Code, to one or another dictionary, to find a definition that says that "includes" means "only"; therefore they argue that the United States means only DC, PR and VI, but not the 50 States, etc.

The fly in the ointment, such as it is, is that the same Internal Revenue Code has its own definition for "includes" - in §7701(c):

The terms includes and including when used in a definition contain in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

... which is pretty much how most of us use the word "includes". The US Supreme Court upheld this definition of "includes".

[SteveSy]

For those who didn't understand the business about "includes", the TPs point to provisions in the Internal Revenue Code that say things like "the United States includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands" or "income includes dividends and royalties" -- and then they go outside the Code, to one or another dictionary, to find a definition that says that "includes" means "only"; therefore they argue that the United States means only DC, PR and VI, but not the 50 States, etc.

The fly in the ointment, such as it is, is that the same Internal Revenue Code has its own definition for "includes" - in §7701(c):

The terms includes and including when used in a definition contain in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

... which is pretty much how most of us use the word "includes". The US Supreme Court upheld this definition of "includes".

I was mainly talking about the definition of an employee...but I guess that works. I can see why people get confused, but I don't necessarily agree with their interpretation. I will say that what you quoted clarifies nothing, its all in how you look at it. "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined", that could easily mean it doesn't exclude anything that's similar to those things listed in the definition provided by the code. Let's assume for the sake of argument that is what the code intended to mean. How would you word it to mean the definition provided is not exclusive and is intended to include things similar to those listed? If you feel more comfortable answering in a new thread be my guest.

Let's be honest here, the code uses many common words in a way that have little or no similarity to the same words used in everyday speech. For instance the word firearm as used by the code excludes, but not explicitly, rifles and includes things like grenades, bombs, missiles and rockets.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I will temporarily don my "Mr. Language Person" hat and point out that the confusion for some would be reduced by the insertion of word "also" before the word "includes."

However, this would be considered grammatically redundant by Mr. Language Person.

[SteveSy]

I will temporarily don my "Mr. Language Person" hat and point out that the confusion for some would be reduced by the insertion of word "also" before the word "includes."

However, this would be considered grammatically redundant by Mr. Language Person.

For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

But its already redundant isn't it? Why is there an "also" in there at the end? Also, isn't an "employee...of the United States" already included in the general term employee by default? lol Seriously, assuming you had no preconceived ideas about who or what will pay taxes, its reasonable some people could conclude what some of the TP's have.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

For those who didn't understand the business about "includes", the TPs point to provisions in the Internal Revenue Code that say things like "the United States includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands" or "income includes dividends and royalties" -- and then they go outside the Code, to one or another dictionary, to find a definition that says that "includes" means "only"; therefore they argue that the United States means only DC, PR and VI, but not the 50 States, etc.

The fly in the ointment, such as it is, is that the same Internal Revenue Code has its own definition for "includes" - in §7701(c):

The terms includes and including when used in a definition contain in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

... which is pretty much how most of us use the word "includes". The US Supreme Court upheld this definition of "includes".

I was mainly talking about the definition of an employee...but I guess that works. I can see why people get confused, but I don't necessarily agree with their interpretation. I will say that what you quoted clarifies nothing, its all in how you look at it. "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined", that could easily mean it doesn't exclude anything that's similar to those things listed in the definition provided by the code. Let's assume for the sake of argument that is what the code intended to mean. How would you word it to mean the definition provided is not exclusive and is intended to include things similar to those listed? If you feel more comfortable answering in a new thread be my guest.

Let's be honest here, the code uses many common words in a way that have little or no similarity to the same words used in everyday speech. For instance the word firearm as used by the code excludes, but not explicitly, rifles and includes things like grenades, bombs, missiles and rockets.

Quatloos' very own LPC discusses tax protester notions of "includes" here: A belief that the word “includes” is restrictive..

[fortinbras]

Yes a similar argument is used where the Tax Code says something on the order of "employees includes civil servants" - and then people argue that non-civil servants don't have to pay taxes.

Yes, the Tax Code uses a lot of specialized meanings, but it generally provides definitions for them. In the case of the word "includes", although the Code does contain its own definition (and has done so since the 1920s if not earlier), TPs deliberately avoid admitting that the Code has its own definition, and make a point of going to outside sources, namely dictionaries, to find a different meaning (and not the one that most dictionaries put first).