The Fully Falsifiable Empirical Proof of American Sovereignty
— constructed using a falsify-or-yield format —Any theory that purports to alter or abolish elements from a self-authenticating, mutually observable, fully triangulated count of reality-
or institution that substitutes itself as the measure of reality instead of the measurer of reality-
bears the burden of demonstrating valid cause for placing itself above reality.
-reality can be definitively catalogued and this particular framework represents that definitive count-A full counting of man must begin with each man's natural, original condition of awareness and will being the exclusive originator of his own actions, making him the commander of cause & effect in a realm governed by cause & effect;It is from this separate and equal station that man lives, disposes of property any way he affords himself that does not diminish another doing the same, and organizes associations among himself including instituting, sustaining, operating and reconciling governance;It is a natural offense to the original condition of man whenever any Form of Governance becomes destructive to securing the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle;Then, it becomes the necessary right, the duty, to throw off such governance; and
— to assume among the powers of earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle—To entitle is to grant title; to transfer and endow with ownership;
the title which describes the separate and equal apex station of one among others with each owning the whole, and none having authority to diminish another is joint tenancy; joint tenancy describes the intrinsic separate and equal apex condition of each man as his the natural original station entitled to by birth;It is from this separate and equal station that man lives, disposes of property any way he affords himself that does not diminish another doing the same, and organizes associations among himself including instituting, sustaining, operating and reconciling governance;With each man's natural, original condition of awareness and will being the exclusive originator of his own actions, making him the commander of cause & effect in a realm governed by cause & effect...***1) Man exists in a realm governed by cause and effect;2) Each man is aware of himself and is the exclusive initiator of action upon himself;3) The awareness of self and ability to act on self forms a closed self-authorization-action circuit observed as will that no outside force can overcome; "whether a gun is placed to his head or gold placed at his feet, only the individual can choose whether or not to bend his knees."4) This makes his will not subject to cause and effect and his actions the deliberate use of cause and effect.
-Libet's "free wont" proves "Readiness Potential" is a tool5) Ownership is Authority to control; Rights are self-authorized Actions that control; Privileges are Owner-permitted Actions; Liberty is the total of one's rights and privileges;6) Ownership mechanically produces rights; Different forms of ownership produce different bodies of rights;7) Original Ownership |awareness of self & action on self| is the original, natural, pre-political condition of each healthy adult's exclusive authority over their own actions;
evidenced by each individual's consciousness' awareness and will forming an exclusive self authorization-action circuit;8) Ownership with its mechanically generated rights and privileges is intrinsic to living; the fundamental law of the land; and is antecedent to and responsible for creating and sustaining the American state;9) American civics is the logical extrapolation of the fundamental force of ownership;10) Each American is born with both private and joint national ownership, each mechanically generating a distinct bodies of rights;
-Private ownership produces total use rights; joint ownership produces ordinary use rights; both are procedurally recognized as standing.-11) Legitimate Governance turns on self-ownership; only an owner may consent. Any structure lacking this original condition of individual self-ownership is illegitimate;12) The American People fund their infrastructure by permitting American Government to be in the business of parsing, licensing, taxing, regulating, and enforcing privileged access to the People's jointly owned assets;13) The object of American jurisprudence is to reconcile man-made rules with the fundamental force of ownership;14) The Supreme Court is the highest interpretive body within the United States Government;15) The Dicta cited are not controlling by stare decisis, but are facts of law acknowledged by the Court;16) The unmanifest can only become manifest through the individual;** All groups are reifications, and however organized, consist of individuals building on one another's personal attainments;*17) Reality exists independent of any individual or group of individuals;18) Reality is self-authenticating and free of contradictions;19) A principle is an aspect of reality and exists without contradiction;20) Truth is the degree to which information aligns with reality;21) Logic requires consistency; reality alone is consistent.22) It only takes one counter to collapse an ontological thesis.23) The ability to counter is available to each individual.
***
"In this state, as in all republics, it is not the legislation, however transcendent its powers, who are supreme — but the people. To suppose that they may violate the fundamental law is to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that the men acting by virtue of delegated powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.".
— Warning v. Mayor of Savannah, 60 Ga. 93
***
“At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country...
The citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty...
...that the joint and equal sovereigns of this country should, in the very Constitution by which they...bring into action and enforce this great and glorious principle —
that the people are the sovereign of this country, and consequently that fellow citizens and joint sovereigns cannot be degraded by appearing with each other in their own courts to have their controversies determined.”
— Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)
***The American’s Original Claim:
“...to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them... That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
— Declaration of Independence

This Realm's Composition
3 elements: matter / energy & Consciousness
2 constants: cause / effect & Ownership**Matter and energy are subject to the constant of cause and effect pressure mediation towards equilibrium.
Matter and energy combine to form various material properties. Property is the medium Consciousness acts upon to exist in this realmConsciousness is the aware initiator of force that commands cause and effect in a realm governed by cause and effect.Consciousness itself is composed of awareness and will which forms a closed self authorization circuit that deliberately governs cause and effect to control properties.
-Awareness is the ability to perceive and measure self: "I am Here."
-Will is exclusive the ability to act on self: "Only I control me."Together, awareness and will form the self-authorization loop that makes the individual unit of consciousness the ultimate authority over oneself — and defines the fundamental constant of ownership.Fundamental OWNERSHIP is the THE CLOSED SELF-AUTHORIZATION CIRCUITOwnership is the fundamental constant of man | an invariant condition of exclusive conscious control.
Ownership is the irreducible, natural condition of authority each individual intrinsically holds to exclusively determine and act upon their own self.Each man's Awareness and Will forms a closed self-authorization action loop, making each individual the exclusive mover of self.Awareness: "I am Here" is his perception and measure self, and
Will: "Only I control me" (exclusive ability to initiate action on self)This is the intrinsic—original—natural—invariant condition of each Man, making it a fundamental constant, like the law of gravity.
It's how you know you're you...
no outside force can make you act upon yourself .
"Whether a gun is pointed at a man's head or gold is placed at his feet, only he can choose to bend his own knees."The action of living itself is the exercise of ownership - conscious exclusive control over self. There is no living without awareness of self, and action upon self.***Yes, this refutes behaviorism and determinism. Every brain scan experiment -Libet, Soon, Haynes- evidences free will under laboratory conditions. No deterministic theory has ever demonstrated the ability to willfully initiate readiness potential or override a conscious agent's capacity to initiate and veto its own pre-action impulses — and every such initiation and veto falsifies the claim that will is reducible to cause and effect-Full refutation at the end of this civics proof.

Two Elements: Will & Property | One Authority: Ownership
Two Classes of Actions: Rights & PrivilegesOwnership is the original AUTHORITY to control property
Rights are Self-Authorized Actions with One’s own property
Privileges are Owner-Permitted Actions with the Owners property
Liberty is the total of all rights and privileges available to the individual; recognized by the fifth amendmentOwnership mechanically produces rights, which is procedurally recognized as standing.
One must substantiate ownership to claim authority over derivative rights**************Private Property Ownership originates all self-authorized actions that control including: to Use, Defend, Exclude & Dispose*Private Property begins with one's own soul, mind, body, labor and extends outwards to include all the tangible and intangible properties one acquires.

Privately Owned Wheelbarrow
It is an original Right for me to move my dirt with my wheelbarrow anyway I can afford myself.It is privilege aka "2nd class right" for you to move your dirt with my wheelbarrow and you must consent to my terms and conditions.
→ Owner-permitted privilege | “2nd Class Right” | Extraordinary Use Permission RequiredNotice The Same Act With The Same Property Is a Right for me and a privilege for You“RIGHT - a constitutional Right means a Right protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of Right or original Rights; it acknowledges them.“Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27“The dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights. In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property.” Lynch v. Household Finance Corp. (1972)

American Law is the extrapolation and application of Ownership. Every statute and rule made by every government nests on the same exact joint tenancy title law of rights, privileges, agency, duties, breaches, and remedies. This is held as the highest reconciliation point of American Jurisprudence.

The Unique American Power Structure
There are three parties to every state worldwide:
The SovereignThe Sovereign’s GovernmentThe Sovereign’s Property & SubjectsThe American’s Original Claim:
“...to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them... That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
— Declaration of IndependenceFrom this Separate and Equal Apex station, the People organize, delimit, delegate, confer, and sustain each of their republican governments.“We the People of the United States... do ordain and establish...” — Preamble, Federal Constitution
“...in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers...” — Preamble, Bill of Rights
“...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” — Fifth Amendment
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” — Ninth Amendment
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” — Tenth Amendment“At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country...
The citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty...
...that the joint and equal sovereigns of this country should, in the very Constitution by which they...bring into action and enforce this great and glorious principle —
that the people are the sovereign of this country, and consequently that fellow citizens and joint sovereigns cannot be degraded by appearing with each other in their own courts to have their controversies determined.”
— Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)“The question is not what power the federal government ought to have, but what powers, in fact, have been given by the people... The federal union is a government of delegated powers. It has only such as are expressly conferred upon it, and such as are reasonably to be implied from those granted. In this respect, we differ radically from nations where all legislative power, without restriction of limitation, is vested in a parliament or other legislative body subject to no restrictions except the discretion of its members."
— U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)“The government of the Union, then, is emphatically and truly a government of the people. In form and substance, it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.”
— McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)"In this state, as in all republics, it is not the legislation, however transcendent its powers, who are supreme — but the people. To suppose that they may violate the fundamental law is to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that the men acting by virtue of delegated powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.".
— Warning v. Mayor of Savannah, 60 Ga. 93The American system is a joint tenancy instantiated in law, ratified in founding documents, and confirmed in jurisprudence.Each American possesses an undivided, apex, co-equal claim to the national domain, both material and legal, absent a superior claim.This fundamental claim exists at birth but is dependent upon understanding and fluency.

The Supremacy of Fundamental Law
"The rights of life and personal liberty are natural rights of man. To secure these rights... is the primary duty of government, and not to impair them."
— Marr v. Enloe, 9 Yer. 489 (1836)"That government can scarcely be deemed to be free where the rights of property are left solely dependent on the will of the legislative body, without any restraint. The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to require that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred."
— Wilkinson v. Leland, 27 U.S. 627 (1829)"... being necessary to the security of a free State..."
— [Reference — Second Amendment context]Therefore:

Jointly Owned Wheelbarrow
Joint Tenancy originates Self-Authorized Ordinary Use, Defense, Exclusion, and Regulation
➤ but NOT *DisposalAll Extraordinary Use Including
Disposal And Non-Owner Use
➤ Requires PermissionIt is an original Right for me to move my dirt with our wheelbarrow —because that is an ordinary use by an owner.It is an original Right for another Joint Tenant to move their dirt with our wheelbarrow —because that is an ordinary use by an owner.It is a privilege for anyone to use our jointly owned wheelbarrow as a sled— because that is an extra-ordinary useIt is a privilege for anyone to change the title of our wheelbarrow —such as turning it into private or foreign-owned property
(e.g., through commercial or international conversion)because that is an extra-ordinary useIt is a privilege for a non-Joint Tenant to use our wheelbarrow in any manner —because they have no original claim→ Owner-permitted privilege | “2nd Class Right” | Extraordinary Use — Permission Required*************Notice The Same Act With The Same Property Is a Right for me and a privilege for YouPrivate Use by Owner → Right
Ordinary Use by Joint Tenant → Right
Extraordinary Use → Privilege
Any Use by Non-Owner → Privilege

...A distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance or permission. In the latter case, the power to exclude altogether generally includes the lesser power to condition and may justify a degree of regulation not admissible in the former."
— Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924)"...The sovereign state has plenary control of streets and highways under its police power, and may absolutely prohibit their use for private business gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or as an instrumentality for private gain.
The former is a common Right; the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, legislative power is confined to regulation; as to the latter, it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition."
— Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wash. 516"Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of the limitations upon his authority.”
— Federal Crop Ins. Corp v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947)"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (1950)

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON GOVERNMENT BUSINESS OPERATIONS"Insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
— Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."
— Bennett v. Boggs"...A statute passed by a legislature for the purpose of depriving a citizen of his rights, which had vested anterior to its passage, would be void; and any law which divests rights vested by pre-existing laws must be void… That statute which would deprive a citizen of rights of person or property, without a regular trial according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land."
— Hoke v. Henderson (1833)"The State cannot diminish the rights of the people."
— Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them."
— Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)"Since a state may not strike down the rights of liberty or property directly, it may not do so indirectly."
— Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)
"The object of a license is to confer a right or power which does not exist without it."
— Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37 (Cal. App. 1945)"Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do, as such license would be meaningless."
— Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2961"There is no such thing in the theory of our national government as unlimited power of taxation in Congress. There are limitations, as he justly observes, of its powers arising out of the essential nature of all free governments; there are reservations of individual rights, without which society could not exist**, and which are respected by every government. The right of taxation is subject to these limitations."— Citizens' Savings Loan Ass'n v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874); Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U.S. 487 (1882)ALL AMERICAN GOVERNMENT IS FORBIDDEN FROM:
"No state shall convert a liberty into a license and charge a fee therefore."
— Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
— Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 486 (1926)
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."
— Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 946 (9th Cir. 1973)
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them."
— Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
"An ordinance which makes the enjoyment of constitutional freedoms contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official—as by requiring a permit or license at official discretion—is an unconstitutional prior restraint."
— Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313 (1958)
"The government may not require a person to give up a constitutional right—here the right to receive just compensation when property is taken for a public use—in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by the government where the benefit sought has little or no relationship to the property."
— Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. 595 (2013)
"The government 'may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests'... For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited."
— Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972)
"It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values... [they] may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning."
— Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972)
Young v. Hawaii (2021) — 9th Circuit: "Rights don't become second-class just because they are controversial."
Wrenn v. District of Columbia (2017) — DC Circuit: "The law made the Second Amendment a second-class right."
Heller v. District of Columbia (2016) — "Turning the Second Amendment into a second-class right."
NY State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2022) — Supreme Court ruled lower courts cannot apply different constitutional tests for the Second Amendment than for other enumerated rights."In this state, as in all republics, it is not the legislation, however transcendent its powers, who are supreme — but the people. To suppose that they may violate the fundamental law is to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that the men acting by virtue of delegated powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.".
— Warning v. Mayor of Savannah, 60 Ga. 93ALL AMERICANS CAN THEREFORE:"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 neighbor to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate 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......Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation."
— Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)"If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void."
— Wingfield v. Fielder, 2d Cal. 3d 213 (1972)
"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."
— People v. Battle (Cal. App.)
"A law subjecting the right of free expression in publicly owned places to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, and definite standards, is unconstitutional, and a person faced with such a law may ignore it and exercise his First Amendment rights."
— Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969)
"If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."
— Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham; Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938); Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939); Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313 (1958); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965)
"The liberty mentioned in [the Fourteenth] amendment means not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation."
— Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)
"The Constitution protects personal rights of privacy... The right of privacy in the marital relation is fundamental and basic—a personal right 'retained by the people' within the meaning of the Ninth Amendment."
— Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)“There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today. Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can "seize" and "search" him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country. See: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 39 (1967).

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON GOVERNMENT BUSINESS OPERATIONS"The object of a license is to confer a right or power which does not exist without it."
— Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37 (Cal. App. 1945)"Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do, as such license would be meaningless."
— Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2961"There is no such thing in the theory of our national government as unlimited power of taxation in Congress. There are limitations, as he justly observes, of its powers arising out of the essential nature of all free governments; there are reservations of individual rights, without which society could not exist**, and which are respected by every government. The right of taxation is subject to these limitations."— Citizens' Savings Loan Ass'n v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874); Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U.S. 487 (1882)ALL AMERICAN GOVERNMENT IS FORBIDDEN FROM:
"No state shall convert a liberty into a license and charge a fee therefore."
— Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
— Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 486 (1926)
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."
— Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 946 (9th Cir. 1973)
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them."
— Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
"An ordinance which makes the enjoyment of constitutional freedoms contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official—as by requiring a permit or license at official discretion—is an unconstitutional prior restraint."
— Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313 (1958)
"The government may not require a person to give up a constitutional right—here the right to receive just compensation when property is taken for a public use—in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by the government where the benefit sought has little or no relationship to the property."
— Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. 595 (2013)
"The government 'may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests'... For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited."
— Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972)
"It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values... [they] may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning."
— Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972)
Young v. Hawaii (2021) — 9th Circuit: "Rights don't become second-class just because they are controversial."
Wrenn v. District of Columbia (2017) — DC Circuit: "The law made the Second Amendment a second-class right."
Heller v. District of Columbia (2016) — "Turning the Second Amendment into a second-class right."
NY State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2022) — Supreme Court ruled lower courts cannot apply different constitutional tests for the Second Amendment than for other enumerated rights.ALL AMERICANS CAN THEREFORE:"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 neighbor to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate 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......Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation."
— Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)"If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void."
— Wingfield v. Fielder, 2d Cal. 3d 213 (1972)
"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."
— People v. Battle (Cal. App.)
"A law subjecting the right of free expression in publicly owned places to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, and definite standards, is unconstitutional, and a person faced with such a law may ignore it and exercise his First Amendment rights."
— Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969)
"If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."
— Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham; Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938); Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939); Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313 (1958); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965)
"The liberty mentioned in [the Fourteenth] amendment means not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation."
— Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)
"The Constitution protects personal rights of privacy... The right of privacy in the marital relation is fundamental and basic—a personal right 'retained by the people' within the meaning of the Ninth Amendment."
— Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)“There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today. Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can "seize" and "search" him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country. See: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 39 (1967).

“The power to tax is the power to destroy.” Mcculloch v Maryland"There is no such thing in the theory of our national government as unlimited power of taxation in Congress. There are limitations, as he justly observes, of its powers arising out of the essential nature of all free governments; there are reservations of individual rights, without which society could not exist, and which are respected by every government. The right of taxation is subject to these limitations."— Citizens' Savings Loan Ass'n v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874); Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U.S. 487 (1882)American Income taxesTitle 26
P (GI − D) TR = TaxP ∈ {0, 1}
(1 = privilege exercised; 0 = no privilege)GI = Gross incomeD = DeductionsTR = Tax rateTax = Tax owedArticle I, Section 8 commerce is the subject;
Income is the measuring stickJudicial Confirmation:
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights."
— Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, 238 (D. Mont. 1922)"The treasury cannot by interpretive regulations make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."
— Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F.2d 575 (8th Cir. 1943)Administrative Scope:
American income taxes are excise taxes imposed on Article I, Section 8 commerce, administered through imposts, duties, or excises.
Title 26 does not attempt to codify the entire economy or rights of the American people, it only define the administrative duties of those engaged in privileged activity and handling such incomes.

The Constitutional Grant of Taxation Power
"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. Constitution, Article I, Section 8Congress cites Article I, Section 8 for its constitutional authority and uses this framework to pass each income tax because it contains Congress’s complete taxation power."The subject matter of taxation open to the power of the Congress is as comprehensive as that open to the power of the states, though the method of apportionment may at times be different.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.
If the tax is a direct one, it shall be apportioned according to the census or enumeration. If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it shall be uniform throughout the United States. Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty."
— Cf. Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U.S. 378, 403-405 (1933); Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 12 (1916)

Direct Taxes
“The power to tax is the power to destroy.” Mcculloch v Maryland"...Direct taxes bear upon persons, upon possessions, and enjoyment of rights."
— Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)"The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right... It has been well said that 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 he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of the most sacred property."
— Butchers Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883)"Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property — partaking of the nature of each — 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 or other forms of property."
— Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)"...The classification of direct was adopted for the purpose of rendering it impossible to burden by taxation accumulations of property, real or personal, except subject to the regulation of apportionment."
— Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

Indirect Taxes"(a) Article I of the Constitution affords Congress broad power to lay and collect taxes. That power includes direct taxes — those imposed on persons or property — and indirect taxes — those imposed on activities or transactions. Direct taxes must be apportioned among the States according to each State’s population, while indirect taxes are permitted without apportionment but must 'be uniform throughout the United States.' Taxes on income are indirect taxes, and the Sixteenth Amendment confirms that taxes on income need not be apportioned."
— Moore v. United States (2024)"...In view of the instances which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such...
We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. But this is not such an act."
— Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co."...The Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock case that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution."
— Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)"...The fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such, unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent. In which case, the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it."
— Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)"Whether the tax is to be classified as an 'excise' is in truth not of critical importance. If not that, it is an 'impost' or a 'duty'... A capitation or other 'direct' tax it certainly is not."
— Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548, 581-82 (1937)"An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right but is an excise tax. The legislature may declare as 'privileged' and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, but it has no power to declare as ‘privilege’ and tax for revenue purposes occupations that are common right."
— Simms v. Ahrens, 271 S.W. 720 (1925)"The term ‘excise tax’ and ‘privilege tax’ are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably." — American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877 (1932)"The requirement to pay excise taxes involves the exercise of a privilege... but the legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege."
— Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)"The obligation to pay an excise is based upon the voluntary action of the person taxed in performing the act, enjoying the privilege, or engaging in the privilege which is the subject of the excise, and the element of absolute unavoidable demand is lacking."
— People ex rel. Attu Gem v. Nagles, 1 Cal. 232; Bank of Commerce & Trust Co. v. Senter, 149 Tenn. 441"Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities.Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.The requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and* if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable.It is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods."
— Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911); Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., p. 680"The income tax is therefore not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on an activity or owning property which produces income."
— F. Morse Hubbard, Legislative Draftsman, 1942 Congressional Testimony"When the Court refers to an income tax as being in the nature of an excise, it is merely stating that the tax is not on the property itself, but rather a fee for the privilege of receiving gain from the property. The tax is based on the amount of the gain, not the value of the property."
— John R. Luckey, Legislative Attorney, CRS Report for Congress 92-303A (1992)Notice: Every major income tax (1861, 1862, 1864, 1868, 1894, 1913, 1916, 1939, 1954, 1986, and modern Title 26) has been enacted as a provision of an Article I, Section 8 enumerated subject:
tariffs, duties, imposts, or excises applied to privileged or regulated activity.Fundamental Ownership Statement
The American has the original, pre-political, self-evident, ontological, natural-born authority to control his property — including to defend and dispose through contract for the purpose of acquisition and accumulation. This is an inescapable, ordinary, and rightful act of living.

The Joint Tenancy Taxation Boundary
The joint tenancy framework perfectly delimits taxation power:Each American, as joint tenant in sovereignty, can regulate and tax extraordinary use of jointly owned property and any use by non-joint tenants.But no joint tenant can tax another joint tenant's ordinary use of jointly owned property or private property rights.This is why the direct tax classification exists:
As Brushaber confirmed, it was:"Adopted for the purpose of rendering it impossible to burden by taxation accumulations of property"— Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916)Except through apportionment — requiring extraordinary political consensus among the joint tenant owners before their agent government can tax the fundamental act of property accumulation.

“Tickets Please” — Conversion of rights into privileges
Each agency is hired to hunt for violations and is incentivized to find the most profitable interpretation of any act.An agency will observe an act that could be either a right or a privilege, presume it to be a privilege, and invoke the strictest penalties for breaching the statutorily prescribed terms of use; leaving the responsibility to the prosecuted individual:First, to recognize he is engaged in an adversarial process with a peer.Second, to invoke and justify the law he wishes to govern the controversy by demonstrating his proper standing and claiming the derivative rights which secure his property.The errant assertion of rules that govern privileges upon those acting by right results in a conversion of rights into privileges through mal-administrative prosecution.A state cannot convert a right into a privilege through the legislature or through executive prosecution.However bad the government is acting, it is only playing the complementary part to each one of us making errant attestations on paperwork:Attesting that we are, or plan to be, engaged in privileged activity;Or failing to refute attestations made by others about us to administrative agencies.

Lets Get This Machine HummingRunning our country per the letter of the law creates a property accumulation machine. Both for the individual American, as he is unburdened by taxation to accumulate property and for our estate, as we are able to partition off extraordinary use for a fee. Each body of ownership multiplying itself.Currently, our administrative machine of property accumulation is being used improperly both by us and by our government.
I therefore propose a simple two step solution:
A simple Miranda warning notice on all administrative paperwork including, licenses, taxes, fees, and as a heading to every administrative law.“Notice to the People, equal fellow citizens, and joint tenants in the sovereignty:
You may have the Right to engage in this activity lawfully without licensure.
DO NOT FILE FOR ORDINARY USE.”This ensures The People administrative due process. It would allow people to self sort correctly, reduce drag on the machine, and insulate the people from the liability of Mal enforcement. And unwind the administrative state as people understand and start sorting themselves correctly.Add the positive duty of ascertaining the standing of the party before further prosecution.This provides due process where the entire weight of the administrative states legal prowess is held in just a handful of forms and attestations which have significant deleterious effect on the citizen if he handles it errantly.

Bonus Discussion — Clarifications from Brushaber and Other Notables
“That the authority conferred upon Congress by § 8 of Article I "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises" is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation...…that there was authority given, as the part was included in the whole, to lay and collect income taxes……the conceded complete and all-embracing taxing power was subject…to limitations resulting from the requirements of Art. I, § 8, cl. 1….,. the two great subdivisions embracing the complete and perfect delegation of the power to tax and the two correlated limitations……the classification of direct was adopted for the purpose of rendering it impossible to burden by taxation accumulations of property, real or personal, except subject to the regulation of apportionment...…the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as suchunless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent,in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it.…the Amendment demonstrates…that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation……the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock case that the word "direct" had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution ."— Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916)"A statutory provision which is not a legitimate police regulation cannot be made such by being placed in the same act with a police regulation, or by being enacted under a title that declares a purpose which would be a proper object for the exercise of that power.It being self-evident that, unless all things are held in common, some persons must have more property than others, it is from the nature of things impossible to uphold freedom of contract and the right of private property without at the same time recognizing as legitimate those inequalities of fortune that are the necessary result of the exercise of those rights.The Fourteenth Amendment recognizes 'liberty' and 'property' as coexistent human rights, and debars the states from any unwarranted interference with either. Since a state may not strike down the rights of liberty or property directly, it may not do so indirectly, as by…"— Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)"The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation."— Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)"The sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable."— South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988)""The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulations make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."— Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F.2d 575 (8th Cir. 1943)