Did you waive your right to earn wages, thereby making your wages taxable?

Prerequisite to understanding this essay:
Read The three rights of all mankind.
Read Freedom in America until you understand that you were free from federal laws until you volunteered
Read The Constitution does not change.


First you must understand the basics


Read my essay on how the lawyers changed the definition of the term LicenseHere.

If you applied for a license to do something, you agreed that you do not have a right to do it.

U.S. Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943) determined that government cannot convert a right into a government granted privilege and then charge a fee.

“The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to suppress its enjoyment. … Those who can tax the exercise of this practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance. Those who can tax the privilege … can close the doors to all those who do not have a full purse.”

Also see Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 US 147 (1969):

Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”

The Supreme Court ruled in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, at page 74, that you can carry on your own business without regulation, and you owe no duty to the state if you receive nothing except protection, and you have no duty to divulge your business on government forms, and you owe nothing to the public so long as you do not trespass upon their rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74:

The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state, or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights… An individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute.”



John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, paragraph 222:

222 “The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their [lives, liberty and] property …. it can never be supposed to be the will of the society that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the [lives, liberty and] property of the people,… … they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any  farther obedience, … Whensoever, therefore, the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society, and …grasp …or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people, by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people [to] provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society…. [this] holds true also concerning the supreme executor, who having a double trust put in him… acts also contrary to his trust when he employs the force, treasure, and offices of the society to corrupt… cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security… ”


U.S. Supreme Court in Butcher’s Union v. Crescent City, 111 U.S. 746, at 756, quotes from Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 10 :

…certain principles of morality are assumed to exist without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the declaration of independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: “We hold these truths to be self-evident” — that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement — “that all men are [111 U. S. 757] endowed” — not by edicts of emperors, or decrees of Parliament, or acts of Congress, but “by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” — that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away, except in punishment of crime — “and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these” — not grant them, but secure them — “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment.
The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hindrance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright.
It has been well said that the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper. — Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Bk. I, c. 10.”

Do you still have “the most sacred and inviolable” right to your labor, which is “the original foundation of all other property”? Or did you wave your right to earn wages, thereby making your wages taxable?

Definition of liberty in U.S. Supreme Court, Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 at page 14:

“Included in the right of personal liberty…is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money and other forms of property.  If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long established constitutional sense. “

LIBERTY INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT and engage in common occupations ” this liberty may not be interfered with” according to U.S. Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399. The term Liberty …

… denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his/her own conscience… the established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect.”

4. Governments can only tax a government granted privileges.  (and these usually involve regulated commerce, government property, or public office)

84 CJS Taxation §122:

“Under constitutional provisions with respect to the imposition of excises on commodities, the word “commodity ” has been held to include privileges and conveniences, especially those derived from some external source,72 the privileges and conveniences of transacting a particular business,73 such as the business of an attorney,74 an auctioneer,75 and a tavern keeper,76 but it is not broad enough to include every occupation which one may follow in the exercise of a natural right, without aid from the government, and without affecting the rights or interests of others in such a way as properly to call for governmental regulation.77

You might ask: What about Wickard v. Filburn?  Answer: Farmer Filburn was receiving government subsidizes.  For him, raising his own feed WAS a taxable government privilege. As the Supreme Court said in Wickard v Filburn 317 US 111 “It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes.”

5. Just what is employee and employer ?

Definition of employer.
The tax code definition of employer 26 U.S. Code 3401(d) uses confusing language to define that employers are those who pay wages, with exceptions and exceptions to exceptions. If you want to try to figure it out keep in mind that the phrase “a trade or business” includes only “the performance of the functions of a public office” according to 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26)

Are you effectively connected with the performance of a trade or business of the United States?

Definition of employee.
And, of course, the federal government’s definition of employee includes only federal employees. See Title 5 U.S. Code 2105. The definition of “employee” in Title 26 U.S. Code section 3401(c), which is the withholding law, say that employees includes only “an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof…” And the definition of “employee” in the Internal Revenue Code 7701(a)(20) make it sound as if insurance salesmen are the only employees. But also see the definition in 26 USC § 3121(d)(3) which also includes meat delivery drivers, and home workers who do piece work.  (By the way, the withholding law section 3401 of the Internal Revenue Code is within the estate and gift tax subtitle, not within the income tax subtitle ).


Now read my essay: Constitutional Taxation.

If you want to know HOW you waived your right to earn wages, read my eBook The Citizen Cannot Complain.

Consent to Be Governed: Why We Don’t Have Rights Anymore  America has been conquered by Collectivist Central Planners who are trained to cunningly deceive you. You waived your rights by submitting to legalities you did not understand. Learn their deceptions and don’t be enslaved again by the yoke of bondage.

Lawyer Corruption, a critical examination of how U.S. Justice has been slowly perverted for over two centuries. https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/1068688