CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES PERTINENT TO PLAINTIFF'S CASE
Filed: December 29, 1997
********************************************************************
Comes now the Plaintiff, before this Court, to lay before the Court the following constitutional questions that are pertinent to his case.
In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall stated:
"If one of the heads of departments commits any illegal act, under colour of his office, by which an individual sustains an injury, it cannot be pretended that his office alone exempts him from being sued in the ordinary mode of proceeding, and being compelled to obey the judgement of the law." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, S. Ct., pg. 71.
And:
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." supra., pg. 73.
George Washington, in his Farewell Address stated:
"Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.- But the constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all." The Life of Washington, Vol. V, pp. 289-290.
The Plaintiff therefore lays the following constitutional questions before this Court for a determination.
1. (a) The Social Security Act of 1935 (74th Congress. Sess. I. Ch. 531. August 14, 1935) states the following under the heading of "COLLECTION AND PAYMENT OF TAXES":
Sec. 807. (a) The taxes imposed by this title shall be collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury and shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States as internal-revenue collections. U.S. Stat. at Large, 1935, pg. 637.
(b) Title 26 U.S.C., § 7802 (a) states:
(a) Commissioner of Internal Revenue.- There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall have such duties and powers as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.
(c) Title 26 U.S.C., § 7803 (a) states:
(a) Appointment and Supervision.- The Secretary is authorized to employ such number of persons as the Secretary deems proper for the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws, and the Secretary shall issue all necessary directions, instructions, orders, and rules applicable to such persons.
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: The following laws clearly have vested taxing powers in the Executive Branch of Government. Does the Constitution, as written today, allow the exercise of taxing powers in Executive officials?
2. During the years that the Plaintiff filed and paid income tax upon his labor, he was stupid and uninformed. He was led to believe there was a legal duty to file and pay income tax upon his labor.
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: Does the Constitution, as written today, allow officers of Government to capitalize upon and exploit the ignorance of people to coerce them into sacrificing the fruits of their labor to the Federal Government thereby bringing them into a condition of servitude with the Federal Government?
3. The pleadings in this case clearly show that officers of the Federal Government, in the exercise of their taxing powers, have arbitrarily interfered with Plaintiff's right to contract his labor.
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: Does the Constitution, as written today, allow officers of the Federal Government to arbitrarily interfere with a citizen's right to contract labor by using their tax laws?
4. Both the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue are officers of the Executive branch of the Federal Government. They are the ones empowered to make all necessary directions, instructions, orders, and rules in the enforcement of the tax laws.
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: Does the Constitution, as written today, allow the Executive branch of the Federal Government to exercise legislative powers?
5. In studying the Revenue Acts of Congress from 1913 thru 1932, I could find nowhere where the Congress attempted to impose taxation upon the salaries of the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, or the Judges in the lower federal courts. In fact, the Congress was careful not to do this. The only logical conclusion to this matter, that being, why the Justices of the Supreme Court and the Judges of the lower federal courts have to pay income tax upon their salaries, is that the Supreme Court itself imposed the taxation upon the salaries of the Justices of the Supreme Court and the Judges of the lower federal courts in the case of O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277.
When a citizen is before the federal court in a tax case, that citizen, by the Constitution, has a right to stand before a judge that is completely independent from the other departments.
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS: (1) Does the Constitution, as written today, allow the Judicial Department of the Federal Government to exercise taxing powers?; (2) Does the Constitution, as written today, give the Executive branch of Government the power to impose income taxation upon the salaries of the Justices of the Supreme Court and the Judges in the lower federal courts, thereby diminishing their compensation?
6. Article IV, § 3 of the Constitution states:
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
The issues before this court show that the Federal Government is governing within the States at their own pleasure as regards the labor of the people, thereby joining the States into one great Federal State.
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: Does the Constitution, as written today, allow the Federal Government to govern in the States at their own pleasure in light of Article IV, § 3 of the Constitution? 7. The final question is in reference to the status of the plaintiff.
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION: If the federal government can use its tax laws to despoil the plaintiff of his labor against his will, what is the status of the plaintiff in relation to the federal government?
These are serious constitutional questions that must be addressed by the Court. I sincerely hope that the Court will not take them lightly.
Respectfully submitted this 29th day of December, 1997.
Adrian C. Banks,
Pro Se