Saturday, December 19, 2009

Born Into Slavery 2 of 4

Continued from Part 1


For the states to willingly subject themselves to legislation that would otherwise be unconstitutional, is indeed just that without the U.S. Constitution being amended to allow for such jurisdictional changes. The United States is a collective of fifty states, and for one state to relinquish power to the federal government without the express consent of the other forty-nine states, is to create a situation in which the federal government becomes more powerful, both economically and political. The economic power comes from any associated receipts transferred to it, and the political power arises from the federal government increasing its ranks through what is effectively the poaching of state citizens. If unchecked, a situation can arise in which a minority of states, who remain unyielding in their delegating of unexpressed sovereignty to the federal government via voluntary submission to unconstitutional laws, find themselves behooved to a bandwagon effect which manifests itself in economical and political upheaval within their borders. States that accept free federal benefits in exchange for sovereignty are more economically and politically competitive states, and thus the bandwagon effect makes them more appealing to citizens in other states who deny such federal benefits.

As far as the financing of Social Security is concerned, the money comes from none other than taxing directly every citizen in the country. As was stated above with regard to payroll taxes:

“In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))…” (26 U.S.C. 3101)

So says the laws of the United States, but the U.S. Constitution says the following with regard to direct taxes:

“No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” (U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 4)

In other words, the Constitution prohibits the taxation of individuals directly, unless said taxes are born equally by the states, or citizen population as a whole; with each person paying his representative share of the levied tax. An equal tax is a tax which makes no discriminations whatsoever, and is based solely on an individual’s usage of the taxed activity. But a direct tax, such as a real or personal property tax, is an inescapable tax for doing nothing, and thus the Constitution says of this tax that it should be levied by population count. With this approach, one citizen’s share will be exactly equal to his neighbors; all other discriminations notwithstanding.

As for usage based taxes, the U.S. Constitution states:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” (U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1)

This clause in the Constitution simply states the obvious: that Congress may impose any necessary taxes in order to finance the responsibilities required of the federal government. This clause deals with usage; i.e., activities that are regulated by the United States, and contradistinctive from the direct taxes mentioned above. The most clear cut example of this is a tax on imports, where only the importing states are subject to the tax because they are solely responsible for utilizing the service of the federal government with regards to receiving their imports. States not importing have nothing to do with the cost of regulating imports; i.e., not using the service, and thus, appropriately, have no tax liability.

So the Constitution makes a clear distinction between direct and indirect taxes: the former an individual cannot escape, the latter he can avoid by selectively changing his behavioral habits in response to the taxed activity. As a quick aside, many people mistakenly believe that the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the right to impose a direct tax, in the form of taxation on personal income, on the American citizen without the apportionment requirement outlined in Article I. The Sixteenth Amendment states:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” (U.S. Const. Am. XVI)

Similar to the numerous examples we find in the U.S. Code, here we see the use of equivocal language in the actual Constitution itself. Clearly, it would make more sense for the text of this amendment to use the word “direct” in front of taxes, since the taxation debate is, and has always been “direct” versus “indirect” taxes. The Congress would have you believe that this amendment gives the federal government jurisdiction to tax the direct incomes of Americans, but not the direct real property of Americans, because the amendment only specifies that incomes would no longer be subject to the apportionment requirement. But incomes are received by federal agencies and employees, and because the federal government regulates its agencies and employees, it has the legal and constitutional right to tax the incomes, of which its agencies generate, or that which it pays its employees, in whatever manner the federal government deems appropriate. To further belabor the point, consider the words of the U.S. Supreme Court shortly thereafter the amendment’s ratification:

“…the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed [240 U.S. 103, 113] in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived…” (Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112, (1916))

The Supreme Court here views the income tax as an excise tax, and thus it falls under the jurisdiction of an indirect tax, and not a direct tax. Thus, the wording of the Sixteenth Amendment, in all its perplexity, is no more than a clarification amendment of that which already existed in the Constitution before it.


Most financial assistance programs of the states for its destitute citizens are federally funded via federal grants.

"The sums made available under this section shall be used for making payments to States which have submitted, and had approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (hereinafter referred to as the “Secretary”), State plans for old-age assistance." (42 U.S.C. 301)

“Each eligible State shall be entitled to receive from the Secretary … a grant in an amount equal to the State family assistance grant.” (42 U.S.C. 603 (a)(1)(A))

This fawned gesture of goodwill of the federal government is financed with income tax dollars poached from the coffers of the American citizenry, under the assumed authority of the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Just as with the payroll taxes which are used for Social Security, the income taxes can only be imposed on individuals if they have a SSN.

“The social security account number issued to an individual for purposes of section 205(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act shall, except as shall otherwise be specified under regulations of the Secretary, be used as the identifying number for such individual for purposes of this title.” (26 U.S.C. 6109 (d))

The dollars from the income taxes are used to fund ambitious federal endeavors, both domestically and abroad. The moneys extracted from the citizens of a state via income taxes are returned to the states via grants with attached mandates. If a participating state fails to comply with a mandate, its grant funding from the federal government may be in jeopardy. What the citizens see as the legislation of their respective states, is really none other than federal mandates being expressed via state legislation. Through this insidious and surreptitious scheme, the states have been reduced to mere territorial status, with the federal government governing the internal affairs that take place within a state’s territorial borders. Citizens, with their SSN’s, have become a worthwhile investment, and very valuable commodities to the federal government, with the aiding and abetting of their respective states who have exchanged sovereignty for mandates.

“In order to furnish suitable notes for circulation as Federal reserve notes, the Secretary of the Treasury shall cause plates and dies to be engraved in the best manner to guard against counterfeits and fraudulent alterations…” (12 U.S.C. 418)

“The Commissioner of Social Security shall issue a social security card to each individual at the time of the issuance of a social security account number to such individual. The social security card shall be made of banknote paper, and (to the maximum extent practicable) shall be a card which cannot be counterfeited.” (42 U.S.C. 405 (c)(2)(G))

“A person who is assigned a social security number will receive a social security number card from SSA within a reasonable time after the number has been assigned….Social security number cards are the property of SSA and must be returned upon request.” (20 C.F.R. 422.103 (d))

As should be clearly evident, not just the SSN, but the social security card has value, and neither is the property of the assignee.


Children are minors, and as such cannot be compelled to receive an SSN. However, the federal government is more than willing to liberally grant SSN’s to whoever’s requesting. In the case of minor children, their parent or guardian would have to make such a request on their behalf; and the SSA is more than willing to work with parents in fulfilling such requests.

“…the Commissioner of Social Security is authorized to take affirmative measures to assure the issuance of social security numbers: to or on behalf of children who are below school age at the request of their parents or guardians;” (42 U.S.C. 405 (c)(2)(B)(i)(4))

“SSA may enter into an agreement with officials of a State, including, for this purpose, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and New York City, to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children. Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.” (20 C.F.R. 422.103 (b)(2))

Although their children do not need it, parents undergo the process of applying for a SSN for their newborn infants; a process made extremely easy and efficient by the SSA and their respective state’s public health department. Given the jurisdiction implications mentioned above, the last thing a parent should want to do is subject their child to yet another juristic body which extends beyond that of their respective state; unless of course it is deemed by them to be beneficial or absolutely necessary. But as it stands now, parents freely exchange vital information about themselves and/or their children in exchange for an SSN which neither they, nor their children can claim ownership.

“Where a parent has requested a social security number for a newborn child as part of an official birth registration process described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the State vital statistics office will electronically transmit the request to SSA's central office in Baltimore, MD, along with the child's name, date and place of birth, sex, mother's maiden name, father's name (if shown on the birth registration), address of the mother, and birth certificate number. This birth registration information received by SSA from the State vital statistics office will be used to establish the age, identity, and U.S. citizenship of the newborn child. Using this information, SSA will assign a number to the child and send the social security number card to the child at the mother's address.” (20 C.F.R. 422.103 (c)(2))


By virtue of enrollment in the federal Social Security plan, i.e., possession of a SSN card, one will have to submit to administrative jurisdiction in regards to any judicial matters. For internal matters pertaining to Social Security, the U.S. district courts serve in an appellate capacity only. It examines appeals to it for procedural errors only, and leaves untouched the juristic matters adjudicated on by the SSA in regards to any claims that a citizen may have against it.
“…The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing. The findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive,… “ (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))

So if one was to decide that he no longer needs his SSN, he must make an appeal to the SSA to release him from the program. He must ask their permission to relinquish possession of the SSN and card that he does not own, and return it to the rightful ownership of the SSA. The procedure of the SSA to withdraw an application submitted to it is to complete and submit their form SSA-521, entitled ‘Request for Withdrawal of Application.’ The formal request statement that must be consented to on form SSA-521 is as follows:

“I understand that… if a determination of my entitlement has been made, there must be repayment of all benefits paid on the application I want withdrawn, and all other persons whose benefits would be affected must consent to this withdrawal.” (SSA form ‘SSA-521’)

As can be seen, despite the fact that payroll taxes may have been deducted from one’s wages, he must return the full value of every benefit received which has been paid out in lieu of his SSN. The statement mentions nothing of returning the associated payroll taxes to the individual, or crediting them against the totality of prior benefits received required to be recompensed in full; and in addition, only with the consent of third parties who somehow benefit from your SSN. These would primarily be one’s debtors who use his SSN for business identity purposes, but may also include parties to court injunctions who receive annuities; i.e., alimony or child support payments, or other entanglements with state and local government agencies, and even business alliances, such as partnerships and corporations to which one may belong.

The language on the SSA-521 states that all of these interested parties must consent to the retirement of one’s SSN. Imagine a bank’s desire to take on more risk in regards to an outstanding mortgage to an individual who will be that much harder to track in the event of default, or an estranged spouse being okay with the risk to his alimony or child support payments, or the owners of a partnership being forced to dissolve because one of the owners does not have a SSN, and thus the State will not allow him to engage in proprietary endeavors without the threat of jail? These so-called interested parties will likely look after their own interests, as well as sister agencies of the SSA which use the SSN to administer their programs; such as the federal departments, and their state counterparts, of the U.S. Treasury, Labor, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, etc. whose reasons for objection may have purely political connotations. But in the unlikely event one somehow manages to win consent from all relevant parties, and pay off all of the so-called benefits ever received as a result of his being enrolled in Social Security, the SSA is still in the sole position as final arbiter, and will either grant or deny the request upon whatever political realities are currently afloat within the agency.

In relinquishing the SSN, the required form to retract is the SS-5, which is the application for obtaining a SSN. But herein lies a huge problem for most Americans: the SS-5 form likely does not exist. This is because most Americans have obtained their SSN’s via the official birth process of their state, a stratagem devised by the SSA and the respective states, and pounced upon by unsuspecting parents of the full scope of what the SSN entails. As stated previously:

“Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.” (20 C.F.R. 422.103 (b)(2))

So as can be seen, herein lies the conundrum: how can an SS-521 application for withdrawal, of an SS-5 application requesting an SSN, be complete if there is no relevant SS-5 form in existence? And so predictably, a request such as this will be denied by the SSA for lack of evidence, and upheld by the U.S. district courts on appeal for procedural integrity. The only recourse available to one in such a situation is to sue: 1) the health department of his birth state, 2) the state of his birth, and/or 3) the SSA. But most importantly, and also most unfortunately, he would have to sue his own parents for recourse; i.e., breach of trust in placing the interest of the SSA above his, their child, in obtaining the appropriate evidence for the circumstances and events surrounding his birth and obtaining of his SSN.

Continue to Part 3

No comments: