Perplexity AI: Meaning of “State” in 4 U.S.C. 110(d) – Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry (SEDM)

EDITORIAL:

This analysis by perplexity ai comports with our present understanding of “includes” and “including”. It also brings up two possible approaches to application of this subject to taxation:

The expansion must be activated by express language. This affords the opportunity to conclude that it comports with what is CONVENIENT for one’s legal position.
The expansion is activated by the context of the statute through accompanying language. This allows the government to do what they want by misleading most people. This is where a high degree of suspicion of them is beneficial (and we have that). But it also allows us to arrive at the right answer and still prevail because we know how to counteract what THEY WILL SAY.

You see…we will agree with the IRS and the courts on the meaning of terms. Its pointless to argue over definitions as in the former. But in the latter, you can still win the war because they do provide a thin red line out. But the former will never arrive to that stage because they would rather go to war over terms THAT DON’T MATTER ANYWAY WHEN YOU HAVE THE CORRECT LEGAL POSITION….THAT THEY PROVIDE!!

Position 1 is that “includes” does not enlarge to embrace the 50 States. Of course it does. This is beyond easy to see when you read sections 105-109.

Position 1 is that “trade or business” MEANS public office. However, public office is only but one USPI attribute of the “trade or business.” Any and ALL activities that involve USPI are within the scope of “trade or business” because the terms “includes” is a term of enlargement.

Position 1 results in needless complexity and analysis predicated on errant interpretation of “trade or business” and “State” under 4 USC 110(d).

Position 2 is much simpler. If you just take it at face value. 99% of what they do is confuse people over the meaning of “United States” and “citizen.” Once a sound understanding of “includes” and “including” is grasped, and Texas v. White and Wong Kim Ark are understood, it’s easy to see how to walk out of the matrix.

They want people to volunteer into taking custody of USPI to enter The Matrix. They get you to “clothe yourself with the public interest,” and then you fall under the purview of enforcement whether a U.S. person or a nonresident alien.

It’s no more difficult than that. We love that term we came up with to describe this process—USPI. That is EXACTLY how this thing is activated! A public officer is WITHIN USPI.

QUESTION 1:

4 U.S.C. 110(d) does NOT expressly list the 50 states. Your assertion otherwise is unsupported by evidence, and the rules of statutory construction forbid you to add to that defintition. Therefore, your assertion that the 50 states are “included” in that definition appears FALSE. What evidence do you have to prove that it is accurate consistent with the rules of statutory construction?

ANSWER 1:

Sources

uscode.house.gov

4 USC Ch. 4: THE STATES – OLRC Home

law.cornell

4 U.S. Code § 110 – Same; definitions – Law.Cornell.Edu

law.cornell.edu

Definition: State from 4 USC § 110(d) | LII / Legal Information Institute

codes.findlaw

4 USC § 110 – US Code – Unannotated Title 4. Flag and Seal, Seat …

You are correct that 4 U.S.C. § 110(d) does not expressly list the 50 states by name in its definition of “State.” The statutory text is:

“The term ‘State’ includes any Territory or possession of the United States.”2 3 5

However, your assertion that this means the 50 states are not included in the definition is incorrect under standard rules of statutory construction and the context of Title 4.

Statutory Construction and Context

“Includes” in Statutory Language
- The use of the word “includes” in definitions is generally not exclusive—it means “includes, but is not limited to.” Courts interpret “includes” as expansive, not restrictive, unless the statute provides otherwise.
- The Supreme Court and federal courts have consistently held that “includes” does not exclude items not listed unless context or legislative intent clearly demands it.
Title 4, Chapter 4: “The States”
- The very title of the chapter is “The States,” and the provisions in this chapter address state taxation of federal areas, compacts between states, and other state-related matters.
- Section 106(a), for example, refers to “any State, or by any duly constituted taxing authority therein, having jurisdiction to levy such a tax,” and explicitly discusses “Federal area within such State.”1 6
- Section 112(b), in the same chapter, defines “States” for purposes of interstate compacts as “the several States and Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the District of Columbia.”1 6
- The context makes clear that “State” in §110(d), as used in the chapter, refers to the 50 states unless otherwise specified.
Legislative Intent and Usage
- The phrase “any Territory or possession” is additive, not exclusive. The definition expands the meaning of “State” to include territories and possessions, but does not limit it to only those entities.
- If Congress intended to exclude the 50 states, it would have done so explicitly. The absence of an express listing of the 50 states does not mean they are excluded; the term “State” in federal law is universally understood to refer to the 50 states unless context or definition provides otherwise.
Corroborating Authority
- 4 U.S.C. § 112(b) (also in the same chapter) defines “States” for compacts as including the 50 states, territories, and the District of Columbia.1 6
- Other federal statutes and judicial decisions routinely interpret “State” in similar contexts as including the 50 states unless otherwise specified.

Summary Table

Section	Definition of “State”	Contextual Evidence of 50 States Included
4 U.S.C. § 110(d)	“includes any Territory or possession of the United States”	Yes (chapter title and usage in §106, §112)
4 U.S.C. § 112(b)	“the several States and Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the District of Columbia”	Yes (expressly lists 50 states)

Conclusion

Under the rules of statutory construction, 4 U.S.C. § 110(d) does not exclude the 50 states from the definition of “State.” The use of “includes” is expansive, and the context of the chapter confirms that the 50 states are intended to be included unless otherwise excluded. The fact that the 50 states are not listed by name in §110(d) does not mean they are excluded; rather, the statutory context and other sections in the same chapter make clear that the 50 states are included in the term “State.”1 6

Evidence supporting this interpretation includes:

The chapter title and surrounding sections (e.g., §106, §112) clearly refer to the 50 states.
Judicial and statutory precedent on the meaning of “includes” in definitions.
The absence of any language excluding the 50 states.

Therefore, it is accurate and consistent with statutory construction to assert that the 50 states are included in the definition of “State” in 4 U.S.C. § 110(d).

QUESTION 2:

Your interpretation appears FALSE. You are acting as a legislator by ADDING things to the definition not expressly included. That is the SOLE province of the legislature, not you, and they never did that. It also violates the following supreme court ruling:

“When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term’s ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) (“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term”); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 (“As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term “means” . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'”); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read “as a whole,” post at 998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General’s restriction — “the child up to the head.” Its words, “substantial portion,” indicate the contrary.”

[Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)]

Who appointed you as a legislator? And by what authority do you DESTROY the separation of legislative powers at the hear of the United States Constitution?

ANSWER 2:

Your concerns are well-taken and reflect a strict constructionist approach to statutory interpretation, which is highly respected in legal scholarship and court practice. Let’s address your points directly and clarify the legal reasoning regarding 4 U.S.C. § 110(d) and the application of Supreme Court precedent.

1. The Statutory Text of 4 U.S.C. § 110(d)

The statute reads:

“The term ‘State’ includes any Territory or possession of the United States.”

This is a definitional section. The word “includes” is used, not “means.”

2. Rules of Statutory Construction

A. “Includes” vs. “Means”

“Means”: When a statute says “the term ‘X’ means Y,” the definition is exclusive. Only Y is included.
“Includes”: When a statute says “the term ‘X’ includes Y,” the definition is generally not exclusive. Y is included, but other things may also be included unless context or legislative intent dictates otherwise.
- See, e.g., Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 99-100 (1941): “The word ‘includes’ is usually a term of enlargement, and not of limitation.”
- Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction, § 47.07: “The verb ‘includes’ is usually a term of enlargement, and not of limitation.”

B. Supreme Court Precedent You Cited

Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987): “It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term.”
- This applies when the definition uses “means” or is otherwise clearly exclusive.
Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392-393, n.10 (1979): “As a rule, ‘a definition which declares what a term “means” . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated.’”
- Again, this applies to “means,” not “includes.”

C. Application to 4 U.S.C. § 110(d)

“Includes” is used, not “means.”
- Therefore, the definition is not exclusive. It adds territories and possessions to the meaning of “State,” but does not exclude the 50 states.
Context of the Chapter:
- The chapter is titled “The States.”
- Other sections (e.g., §106, §112) refer to the 50 states.
- There is no indication that Congress intended to exclude the 50 states from the definition.

3. Separation of Powers and Judicial Role

Judicial Role:
- Courts interpret statutes, not legislate.
- When a statute is ambiguous, courts look to the text, context, and legislative intent.
Separation of Powers:
- The judiciary does not “add” to statutes. It interprets them based on established rules of construction.
- If the statute said “means,” the courts would not add anything. But “includes” is different.

4. Summary Table

Statute/Definition	Word Used	Is Definition Exclusive?	Are 50 States Included?
4 U.S.C. § 110(d)	includes	No	Yes (by context)
Hypothetical: “means”	means	Yes	Only if listed

5. Conclusion

You are correct that courts must follow the statutory definition and not add to it.
However, the use of “includes” in 4 U.S.C. § 110(d) is a term of enlargement, not limitation.
The 50 states are included in the term “State” in this context, not because the court is legislating, but because the statutory language and context support that interpretation.
The Supreme Court precedent you cited applies to definitions using “means,” not “includes.”

To answer your final questions:

No one appointed me as a legislator.
I am not destroying the separation of powers.
I am applying established rules of statutory construction as recognized by the Supreme Court and legal authorities.

If you have a specific statute that uses “means” instead of “includes,” the analysis would be different, and the definition would be exclusive. But for 4 U.S.C. § 110(d), the interpretation is consistent with Supreme Court precedent and statutory construction principles.

QUESTION 3:

All of the authorities you cite rely on the “State” defined in 4 U.S.C. 110(d) and there is no definiton of “State” that expressly includes the 50 states. Further, the reasonable notice provisions of the constitution require that I receive unambigous explicit notice of what is included. I never received said notice, so we have a violation of due process if a court interprests “the States” in 4 U.S.C. 110(d) as constitutional states, don’t we?

ANSWER 3:

Sources

uscode.house.gov

4 USC Ch. 4: THE STATES – OLRC Home

law.cornell

4 U.S. Code § 110 – Same; definitions – Law.Cornell.Edu

govregs

4 USC 110 – Same; definitions – GovRegs

law.cornell.edu

Definition: State from 4 USC § 110(d) | LII / Legal Information Institute

Your argument raises important legal and constitutional issues regarding statutory interpretation, notice, and due process. Here is a detailed, evidence-based analysis:

1. Statutory Definition: 4 U.S.C. § 110(d)

Text of 4 U.S.C. § 110(d):

“The term ‘State’ includes any Territory or possession of the United States.”1 2 6

Context and Scope:

“Includes” is a term of enlargement, not limitation. Courts consistently interpret “includes” to mean that the listed items are included, but not that other items are excluded unless the context or legislative intent demands it5.
The chapter is titled “The States,” and its provisions address matters like state taxation of federal areas, compacts between states, and other state-related issues1 6.
Other provisions in the chapter (e.g., § 106, § 112) refer to the 50 states and their relationship with federal areas, supporting the understanding that “State” includes the 50 states unless otherwise specified1 6.

2. Is There an Express Definition Including the 50 States?

No, the 50 states are not expressly listed in § 110(d). The section only says “includes any Territory or possession.”
However, the context and structure of the chapter make clear that the 50 states are intended to be included in the term “State” for the purposes of the chapter1 6.
Courts do not require every possible meaning to be exhaustively listed. The use of “includes” is sufficient to add territories and possessions, not to exclude the 50 states.

3. Due Process and Notice

Due Process requires that laws not be vague and that affected parties have fair notice of what the law requires.
The Constitution does not require that every possible meaning of a term be explicitly listed in a statute. Courts have upheld statutes where terms are defined by context or by reference to commonly understood meanings.
If the meaning of “State” in 4 U.S.C. § 110(d) were ambiguous or unclear, a court might require more explicit notice. However, given the chapter title and context, it is not ambiguous that the 50 states are included1 6.
There is no Supreme Court case holding that the use of “includes” in a definitional section violates due process or fails to provide reasonable notice.

4. Summary Table

Issue	4 U.S.C. § 110(d)	Due Process/Notice
50 states expressly listed?	No	Not required
“Includes” = exclusive?	No	Not required
Context supports inclusion?	Yes	Yes
Notice requirement violated?	No	No

5. Conclusion

The 50 states are not expressly listed in 4 U.S.C. § 110(d), but the context and structure of the chapter make clear that they are included.
The use of “includes” does not violate due process or the requirement of reasonable notice. Courts have consistently held that “includes” is a term of enlargement, not limitation, and that statutes can be interpreted in light of their context and purpose5.
There is no authority or Supreme Court precedent holding that the interpretation of “State” in 4 U.S.C. § 110(d) to include the 50 states violates due process or fails to provide reasonable notice.

If a statute were ambiguous or unclear, a court might require more explicit notice, but in the case of 4 U.S.C. § 110(d), the context is clear and the interpretation is consistent with established legal principles.

QUESTION 4:

What you are suggesting is that by simply including the word “includes” in a definition, Congress is impermissibly delegating authority to judge to ADD whatever they want to the definition of “State”, which is absurd. Further, courts have held that the use of the word “includes” is limited to items within the same CLASS as the items enumerated in the definition.

“The terms “includes” and “including” do not exclude other things not enumerated which are in the same general class or are otherwise within the scope thereof. Act. 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44.

[Franklin v. Sessions, 291 F. Supp. 3d 705, 714 n.8 (W.D. Pa. 2017)]

Territories and possessions are NOT within the same general class as sovereign and legislatively foreign states of the Union protected by the separation of powers doctrine.

ANSWER 4:

Sources

LII / Legal Information Institute

statutory construction | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

leg.colorado

Commonly Applied Rules of Statutory Construction

supremecourt

[PDF] Rules of Statutory Construction – Supreme Court of the United States

law.uh

[PDF] CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION (adapted from Scalia & Garner)

Your argument is well-articulated and raises important questions about statutory interpretation, delegation of authority, and the separation of powers. Here is a detailed, evidence-based response to each point:

1. “Includes” and Judicial Authority

You assert that using “includes” impermissibly delegates authority to judges to add to the definition of “State.”
This is a common concern, but courts have repeatedly clarified that “includes” is not a blank check for judicial lawmaking. The Supreme Court and lower courts interpret “includes” as a term of enlargement within the scope of the statute’s intent and context, not as an invitation to add arbitrary elements4 5 7.

“Includes” is not a delegation of legislative power. Courts do not add to the definition beyond what the statute, read as a whole, reasonably implies3 5 7.
The purpose of “includes” is to clarify that the listed items are not exhaustive, but it does not allow courts to disregard the statute’s context or legislative intent4 7.

2. “Includes” and the Same General Class

You correctly cite precedent that “includes” is limited to items within the same general class as those enumerated.
Franklin v. Sessions and similar cases state:

“The terms ‘includes’ and ‘including’ do not exclude other things not enumerated which are in the same general class or are otherwise within the scope thereof.” (291 F. Supp. 3d 705, 714 n.8 (W.D. Pa. 2017), citing 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44.)

Application to 4 U.S.C. § 110(d):

The statute defines “State” as “includes any Territory or possession of the United States.”
The question is whether “Territory or possession” is in the same general class as the 50 states.

3. Are Territories and Possessions in the Same Class as States?

Your argument is that territories and possessions are not in the same general class as sovereign states of the Union.
This is a nuanced point:

Constitutional Status:
- The 50 states are sovereign entities under the Constitution, with powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment.
- Territories and possessions are not sovereign states; they are under the plenary authority of Congress (Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2).
Statutory Context:
- The chapter in which § 110(d) appears is titled “The States” and addresses matters involving both the 50 states and federal areas, including territories and possessions.
- Other sections in the same chapter (e.g., § 112(b)) explicitly refer to the 50 states, territories, and the District of Columbia, indicating that for the purposes of this chapter, “State” can include all these entities depending on context.
Legal Precedent:
- Courts have interpreted “State” in federal statutes to include or exclude territories and possessions based on context and legislative intent, not just the definitional section3 7 8.

4. Judicial Interpretation and Legislative Intent

Courts do not add to the definition of “State” beyond what the statute and its context reasonably imply3 5 7.
If the context of the statute indicates that “State” refers to the 50 states, then “includes any Territory or possession” adds to that class for specific purposes, but does not exclude the 50 states unless the statute says so3 7.
The separation of powers is not violated because courts are not legislating; they are interpreting the statute based on its text and context1 3 7.

5. Due Process and Notice

Due process requires that laws be clear and not vague, but it does not require that every possible meaning of a term be exhaustively listed1 3 7.
If the meaning of “State” in § 110(d) were ambiguous, a court might require more explicit notice, but given the chapter’s context, it is not ambiguous that the 50 states are included1 3 7.

6. Summary Table

Issue	Your Argument	Legal Authority/Response
“Includes” = Judicial Lawmaking	No, courts interpret, do not legislate	3 5 7
Same General Class	Territories ≠ States	Context may include both for statutory purposes
Separation of Powers	Not violated by judicial interpretation	1 3 7
Due Process/Notice	Requires clarity, not exhaustiveness	1 3 7

7. Conclusion

“Includes” does not delegate authority to judges to add to the definition of “State” beyond what the statute and its context reasonably imply.
Courts limit “includes” to items within the same general class or scope as those enumerated, but the statutory context of 4 U.S.C. § 110(d) supports the inclusion of the 50 states.
Territories and possessions are not constitutionally equivalent to states, but for the purposes of this statute, the context and legislative intent indicate that “State” can include both, depending on the provision.
The separation of powers and due process are not violated by this interpretation.

In summary, your concern about judicial overreach is valid in principle, but the actual practice of statutory interpretation in this context is consistent with established legal principles and does not permit judges to add arbitrary elements to statutory definitions.

QUESTION 5:

Judges have no authority to destroy the separation of powers at the heart of the constitution by what one congressman called “judicial verbicide”. That is exactly what you have just done. And you have made judges into legislators by doing it.

ANSWER 5:

Your concerns reflect a deep and important principle in American constitutional law: the separation of powers and the proper role of judges versus legislators. Your reference to “judicial verbicide” (a term sometimes used to criticize judicial overreach in statutory interpretation) underscores a legitimate debate about the limits of judicial authority. Here’s a direct and evidence-based response to your points:

1. The Separation of Powers

The Constitution divides power among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
Judges interpret laws; they do not make them. Courts are not permitted to “legislate from the bench” or rewrite statutes.
If a court adds to a statute beyond its clear meaning or intent, it would violate the separation of powers.

2. Judicial Interpretation of “Includes”

“Includes” is a term of enlargement, not limitation. Courts do not “add” to statutes; they interpret the scope of terms based on the statute’s language and context.
Precedent holds that “includes” allows for the addition of items within the same general class or scope as those enumerated, but only as the statute and its context reasonably imply.
Courts do not have authority to add arbitrary items to a definition. They are limited by the statute’s text, context, and legislative intent.

3. The Example of 4 U.S.C. § 110(d)

The statute defines “State” as “includes any Territory or possession of the United States.”
The context of the chapter (“The States”) and other provisions (e.g., § 106, § 112) make clear that the 50 states are included in the term “State” for the purposes of the chapter.
Courts are not adding to the statute; they are interpreting it in light of its context and purpose.
This is not “judicial verbicide” or judicial legislation. It is a standard application of statutory interpretation principles.

4. Supreme Court and Lower Court Precedent

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that courts must follow the statutory definition and not add to it.
However, the Court has also held that “includes” is a term of enlargement, not limitation, and that statutes must be interpreted in light of their context and purpose.
If a court were to add an item to a definition that is not within the same general class or scope as those enumerated, that would be improper.
But in the case of 4 U.S.C. § 110(d), the context supports the inclusion of the 50 states, so the interpretation is consistent with precedent and the separation of powers.

5. Conclusion

Judges do not have authority to destroy the separation of powers or to legislate.
Interpreting “includes” in 4 U.S.C. § 110(d) to include the 50 states, based on the statute’s context, is not judicial legislation or “judicial verbicide.”
It is a standard application of statutory interpretation principles that respects the separation of powers and the role of the judiciary.

In summary:
Your vigilance for the separation of powers is commendable and essential to the rule of law. However, the interpretation of “includes” in 4 U.S.C. § 110(d) as supporting the inclusion of the 50 states, based on the statute’s context, does not constitute judicial overreach or a violation of the separation of powers. Courts are bound by the statute’s language and context, and they do not have authority to add arbitrary elements to statutory definitions.

QUESTION 6:

You cite 4 U.S.C. 106(a) and 4 U.S.C. 112 as proof that “State” in 4 U.S.C. 110 means constitutional states, but:

1. Federal areas and federal enclaves within the states are NOT the same thing.

2. “several States” relied on the definition of “State” in 4 U.S.C. 110(d) and not that in the constitution.

Therefore you are still wrong. It appears that the “State” mentioned could only include constitutional states BY CONSENT, who manifest that consent by becoming or acting as a federal corporation, such as that mentioned in California Revenue and Taxation Code sections 6017 and 17018. Then the separation of powers would not be violated, because consent of the state was involved. Isn’t that correct?

ANSWER 6:

Sources

uscode.house.gov

4 USC Ch. 4: THE STATES – OLRC Home

law.cornell

4 U.S. Code § 110 – Same; definitions – Law.Cornell.Edu

law.cornell.edu

Definition: State from 4 USC § 110(d) | LII / Legal Information Institute

Findlaw

4 USC § 110 – US Code – Unannotated Title 4. Flag and Seal, Seat …

Your argument raises several important points about statutory interpretation, federal jurisdiction, and the nature of states in the U.S. legal system. Here is a direct and evidence-based analysis of your claims:

1. Federal Areas vs. Federal Enclaves

Federal Areas:
- Defined in 4 U.S.C. § 110(e) as “any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency, of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.”1 6 8
- These are not necessarily “federal enclaves” (areas where the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction, such as military bases or national parks where the state has ceded jurisdiction).
- Federal areas can exist within a state’s boundaries without exclusive federal jurisdiction.
Federal Enclaves:
- Are a subset of federal areas where the federal government has exclusive legislative jurisdiction, usually by state consent.
- The statutes at issue (4 U.S.C. §§ 105–110) apply to “Federal areas” generally, not just enclaves.

2. “State” in 4 U.S.C. § 110(d) and Context

Statutory Definition:
- 4 U.S.C. § 110(d): “The term ‘State’ includes any Territory or possession of the United States.”1 2 6
- This is a definitional section for §§ 105–109.
Contextual Usage:
- Sections 105–109 address taxation affecting “Federal areas” within states.
- Section 106(a): Refers to “any State, or by any duly constituted taxing authority therein, having jurisdiction to levy such a tax,” and discusses taxation in “any Federal area within such State.”7
- Section 112(b): For compacts, defines “States” as “the several States and Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the District of Columbia.”
Interpretation:
- The context of §§ 105–109 is taxation within federal areas located within states, and the statutes refer to “any State” and “such State.”
- The definition in § 110(d) is inclusive (“includes”), not exclusive, and is used in the context of taxation within federal areas located within states.

3. “Several States” and Constitutional States

“Several States”:
- This term historically refers to the original and subsequent states of the Union, but in statutory context, it is interpreted based on the statute’s purpose and definitions.
- Section 112(b) uses “the several States and Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the District of Columbia,” but this is for compacts, not for §§ 105–109.
- For §§ 105–109, the term “State” is defined in § 110(d) as including territories and possessions, but the context is taxation within federal areas located within states.
Constitutional States:
- The Constitution refers to “States” as the sovereign entities forming the Union.
- Statutory definitions can expand or limit the meaning of “State” for specific purposes, but the context of §§ 105–109 is taxation within federal areas located within states, so the “State” referred to is the constitutional state in which the federal area is located.

4. Consent and Federal Corporations

Consent:
- For federal enclaves, the state must consent to the federal government’s acquisition of exclusive jurisdiction.
- For federal areas generally, the federal government can own property within a state without exclusive jurisdiction.
Federal Corporations:
- You mention California Revenue and Taxation Code sections 6017 and 17018, which define “state” or “this state” for tax purposes.
- These are state law definitions and do not control the meaning of “State” in federal law.
- Consent of the state is relevant for enclaves, but not for all federal areas or for the general application of federal law within states.

5. Separation of Powers and Statutory Interpretation

Separation of Powers:
- Courts interpret statutes based on their text and context, not by legislating.
- The definition in § 110(d) is inclusive, but the context of §§ 105–109 is taxation within federal areas located within states.
- Courts do not add to the statute; they interpret it based on its context and purpose.
Consent:
- Consent is required for exclusive federal jurisdiction (enclaves), but not for federal ownership or regulation of property within states.
- The statutes at issue do not require the state to act as a federal corporation or to manifest consent in the way you suggest.

6. Conclusion

“State” in 4 U.S.C. § 110(d) includes territories and possessions, but the context of §§ 105–109 is taxation within federal areas located within constitutional states.
Federal areas are not the same as federal enclaves, and exclusive federal jurisdiction is not required for the statutes to apply.
The “State” referred to in §§ 105–109 is the constitutional state in which the federal area is located, not a federal corporation or a state acting by consent as a federal corporation.
Consent is only required for exclusive federal jurisdiction (enclaves), not for the general application of federal law within states.
The separation of powers is not violated by this interpretation, as courts are interpreting the statute based on its text and context, not legislating.

In summary:
Your argument about consent and federal corporations is relevant for enclaves and state law, but not for the general application of 4 U.S.C. §§ 105–109. The “State” in these sections, as defined in § 110(d), includes territories and possessions for some purposes, but the context is taxation within federal areas located within constitutional states. The separation of powers is not violated by this interpretation.

QUESTION 7:

Would the same interpretation of the word “State” apply in the case of the Social Security Act at 42 U.S.C. 1301(a)(1)?

ANSWER 7:

Sources

ssa.gov

Social Security Act §1101

LII / Legal Information Institute

42 U.S. Code § 1301 – Definitions – Law.Cornell.Edu

law.cornell

Definition: State from 42 USC § 1301(a)(1) – Law.Cornell.Edu

govinfo

42 U.S.C. 1301 – Definitions – Content Details – GovInfo

Yes, the same interpretive principle regarding the word “State” applies in the Social Security Act at 42 U.S.C. § 1301(a)(1), but the specific statutory definition and context are crucial.

Text of 42 U.S.C. § 1301(a)(1):

“The term ‘State’, except where otherwise provided, includes the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and when used in subchapters IV, V, VII, XI, XIX, and XXI of this chapter includes the Virgin Islands and Guam. Such term when used in subchapters III, IX, and XII of this chapter also includes the Virgin Islands. Such term when used in subchapter V and in part B of this subchapter of this chapter also includes American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Such term when used in subchapters XIX and XXI of this chapter also includes the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa.”1 2 3

Key Points:

“Includes” is used: As with 4 U.S.C. § 110(d), “includes” is a term of enlargement, not limitation.
Contextual Clarity: The statute explicitly lists which additional territories are included for which subchapters.
Not Exhaustive: The statute does not say “means,” so it does not exclude other things that might otherwise be within the meaning of the term defined.
Statutory Proviso: 42 U.S.C. § 1301(b) states: “The terms ‘includes’ and ‘including’ when used in a definition contained in this chapter shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.”1 5 7

Application:

In the Social Security Act, “State” always includes the 50 states unless the context specifically provides otherwise.
The use of “includes” adds the listed territories and possessions to the meaning of “State” for specified purposes, but does not exclude the original meaning (the 50 states) unless the statute says so.
The statutory language and context make clear that “State” in 42 U.S.C. § 1301(a)(1) includes the 50 states plus the listed territories and possessions as specified.

Summary Table

Statute	“State” Definition	“Includes” or “Means”?	Effect on 50 States
4 U.S.C. § 110(d)	Includes territories/possessions	Includes	50 states included unless excluded by context
42 U.S.C. § 1301(a)(1)	Includes DC, PR, and others as specified	Includes	50 states included unless excluded by context

Conclusion:
The same interpretation applies: “includes” is a term of enlargement, not limitation, and “State” in 42 U.S.C. § 1301(a)(1) includes the 50 states as well as the territories and possessions listed for the specified purposes, unless the context provides otherwise. The statute itself clarifies that “includes” does not exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined1 5 7.

QUESTION 8:

Is it then accurate to say that the “United States” defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. 110(d) in respects to states mentioned in the United States Constitution refers only to the federal areas mentioned in 4 U.S.C. 110(d) and excludes land within states of the Union that is NOT part of these “federal areas”?

ANSWER 8:

Sources

law.cornell.edu

United States person from 26 USC § 7701(a)(30) – Law.Cornell.Edu

law.cornell

26 U.S. Code § 7701 – Definitions – Law.Cornell.Edu

irs

[PDF] I.R.C. 7701-General Discussion – IRS

govinfo

26 U.S.C. 7701 – Definitions – Content Details – GovInfo

No, that is not accurate as a general statement of law or statutory interpretation.

Here is the correct analysis:

1. Definitions in 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10)

26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(9):
- “The term ‘United States’ when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.”
- “States” here refers to the 50 states of the Union, not only to federal areas or enclaves.
26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(10):
- “The term ‘State’ shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.”
- Again, “State” means the 50 states plus the District of Columbia as needed, not just federal areas.

These definitions do not limit the meaning of “States” or “United States” to federal areas or enclaves. They refer to the entire territory of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, unless the context of a specific provision requires a different interpretation5 2 3.

2. Definition in 4 U.S.C. § 110(d)

4 U.S.C. § 110(d):
- “The term ‘State’ includes any Territory or possession of the United States.”
- This is a definitional section for 4 U.S.C. §§ 105–109, which address taxation affecting federal areas within states.
- “Federal area” is defined in 4 U.S.C. § 110(e) as lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States.
- The context of §§ 105–109 is taxation within federal areas located within states, but the term “State” is not limited to federal areas; it refers to the state in which the federal area is located.

3. Constitutional and Practical Scope

“States” in the Constitution and in federal law generally refers to the 50 states of the Union, not just federal areas or enclaves.
Federal law applies throughout the United States, not only on federal property or in federal enclaves.
The definitions in 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. § 110(d) do not exclude land within states that is not part of federal areas.
- They may expand the meaning of “State” or “United States” for specific purposes (e.g., to include territories or possessions), but they do not restrict the general meaning to only federal areas.

4. Summary Table

Statute/Definition	What It Means	Does It Exclude Non-Federal Land?
26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(9)	“United States” = States and D.C. (geographically)	No
26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(10)	“State” includes D.C. as needed	No
4 U.S.C. § 110(d)	“State” includes territories/possessions (for §§ 105–109)	No (context is federal areas within states, but “State” is not limited to federal areas)

5. Conclusion

It is not accurate to say that the “United States” or “State” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(9), (a)(10), or 4 U.S.C. § 110(d) refers only to federal areas and excludes land within states of the Union that is not part of these federal areas.
The definitions refer to the entire territory of the 50 states (and sometimes territories or possessions), not just federal property or enclaves. Federal law applies throughout the United States, not only on federal land5 2 3.

QUESTION 9:

But doesn’t the License Tax Cases establish that Congress cannot establish a “trade or business” in state in order to tax it like 4 U.S.C. 110 does? And isn’t Title 26 Subtitle A an excise tax on EXACTLY this “trade or business” as defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(26). See 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(31) which says those who are nonresidents NOT engaged in this excise tax don’t earn income.

“Thus, Congress having power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes, may, without doubt, provide for granting coasting licenses, licenses to pilots, licenses to trade with the Indians, and any other licenses necessary or proper for the exercise of that great and extensive power; and the same observation is applicable to every other power of Congress, to the exercise of which the granting of licenses may be incident. All such licenses confer authority, and give rights to the licensee. But very different considerations apply to the internal commerce or domestic trade of the States. Over this commerce and trade Congress has no power of regulation nor any direct control. This power belongs exclusively to the States. No interference by Congress with the business of citizens transacted within a State is warranted by the Constitution, except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly granted to the legislature. The power to authorize a business within a State is plainly repugnant to the exclusive power of the State over the same subject. It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. But, it reaches only existing subjects. Congress cannot authorize a trade or business within a State in order to tax it.”

[License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 18 L.Ed. 497, 5 Wall. 462, 2 A.F.T.R. 2224 (1866)]

ANSWER 9:

Sources

smartpay.gsa

State Tax Legal History – GSA SmartPay

Justia Law

License Tax Cases | 72 U.S. 462 (1866) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court …

caselaw.findlaw

LICENSE TAX CASES, 72 U.S. 462 (1866) – FindLaw Caselaw

loc

License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 462 (1867). – Library of Congress

The License Tax Cases (72 U.S. 462 (1866)) do not establish that Congress cannot tax trades or businesses conducted within a state, nor do they hold that Congress cannot impose an excise tax on such activities. Instead, the case clarifies important constitutional boundaries regarding Congress’s power to tax and regulate commerce versus the states’ exclusive authority over purely internal trade.

Here is a detailed breakdown of your question and the relevant law:

1. What the License Tax Cases Actually Held

Congress’s Power to Tax:
- The Supreme Court recognized that Congress has a very broad power to tax, subject only to specific constitutional limitations (no tax on exports, direct taxes must be apportioned, indirect taxes must be uniform)6 2 7.
- Congress can impose taxes—including excise taxes—on trades or businesses conducted within a state, even if those activities are regulated or prohibited by state law2 3 6.
Congress’s Power to Regulate:
- Congress cannot regulate or authorize purely internal (intrastate) trade or business; that power belongs exclusively to the states2 3 5.
- A federal license or tax does not authorize or legalize a business that is prohibited by state law; it is simply a means of imposing a tax2 3.
Tax vs. Regulation:
- Taxing a trade or business is constitutional, even if the business is illegal under state law, because the power to tax is broad and distinct from the power to regulate2 3 6.
- Regulating or authorizing a purely intrastate business is not within Congress’s power unless it is incidental to an enumerated power (like regulating interstate commerce)2 3 5.

2. Application to 4 U.S.C. § 110 and Title 26

4 U.S.C. § 110:
- This statute addresses taxation of federal areas within states, not the regulation or authorization of businesses.
- It does not authorize or regulate trades or businesses within a state; it merely provides a framework for taxation of federal property and activities within federal areas.
Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code):
- Subtitle A imposes income taxes, not excise taxes. Excise taxes are imposed under other subtitles (e.g., Subtitle D).
- 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(26): Defines “trade or business” for tax purposes, but this is a definition for applying tax laws, not for regulating or authorizing businesses.
- 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(31): Defines “withholding agent,” not income. The statute does not say that nonresidents not engaged in a trade or business do not “earn income”; rather, it specifies who is responsible for withholding tax on certain payments to nonresidents.
- Excise Taxes: Congress can impose excise taxes on specific trades or businesses, but this is a tax, not a regulation or authorization of the business6 2 7.

3. Summary Table

Issue	License Tax Cases Holding	Application to 4 U.S.C. § 110	Application to Title 26
Can Congress tax trades/businesses in a state?	Yes, as a tax, not as regulation	Yes, as a tax on federal areas	Yes, as an income or excise tax
Can Congress regulate/authorize intrastate business?	No, except as incidental to enumerated powers	No	No
Does a federal tax authorize a business?	No	No	No

4. Conclusion

Congress can tax trades or businesses conducted within a state, even if the business is regulated or prohibited by state law, as long as the tax is imposed for a legitimate federal purpose and meets constitutional requirements2 3 6.
Congress cannot regulate or authorize purely intrastate trade or business, except as incidental to an enumerated power2 3 5.
4 U.S.C. § 110 and Title 26 do not authorize or regulate businesses within a state; they provide for taxation of federal property and income or excise taxes on certain activities.
The License Tax Cases do not prohibit Congress from taxing trades or businesses within a state; they prohibit Congress from regulating or authorizing such businesses unless it is exercising an enumerated power.

In summary:
The License Tax Cases confirm that Congress has broad taxing power but cannot regulate or authorize purely intrastate trade or business. Congress can, however, tax such activities, and this is what 4 U.S.C. § 110 and Title 26 do—they impose taxes, not regulations or authorizations.

QUESTION 10:

In PRINCIPLE that sounds accurate, but in PRACTICE the Social Security Number functions in practical effect as a LICENSE to engage in ANY kind of commercial activity, either INSIDE or OUTSIDE the exclusively or internal jurisdiction of a constitutional state. Most businesses refuse to business with people who WON’T provide it. Thus, it serves EXACTLY the purpose identified in the License Tax Cases: That of a de facto license or authorization to perform a business or transaction and to comply with the regulations applicable to that business in Title 26 of the U.S. Code. More at: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/AboutSSNsAndTINs.pdf Thus, in PRACTICE congress is LICENSING and AUTHORIZING business confined exclusively within a constitutional state in violation of the License Tax Cases. Is it NOT?

ANSWER 10:

Sources

irs

How to Apply for an EIN | Internal Revenue Service

irs

Get an employer identification number | Internal Revenue Service

dlcp.dc.gov

Business Licensing FAQs | dlcp – DC.gov

higheredimmigrationportal

[PDF] State Requirements for Business and Tax Registration for Immigrants

Your observation about the practical effect of the Social Security Number (SSN) and similar tax identification numbers (TINs) is understandable, but it does not equate to Congress “licensing” or “authorizing” business activity within a state in the legal or constitutional sense described in the License Tax Cases.

Here is a detailed analysis:

1. What the SSN and EIN Are For

SSN:
- Originally created to track workers’ earnings for Social Security benefits.
- Now widely used as a unique identifier for tax and financial purposes.
EIN:
- Issued by the IRS to identify business entities for tax and reporting purposes2 5 7.
Neither is a business license or permit:
- They are identification numbers, not licenses to conduct business.
- They are required for tax compliance, hiring employees, and opening bank accounts, but not for legal authorization to operate a business6 7.

2. Business Licensing and Authorization

State and Local Authority:
- The authority to license, regulate, or authorize businesses within a state’s borders rests with state and local governments, not Congress6.
- Most businesses need state or local licenses or permits to operate legally, not just a federal tax ID6 7.
Federal Role:
- The federal government requires tax identification for tax reporting and compliance, but does not license or authorize the business itself.
- Federal agencies only issue licenses or permits for specific, federally regulated activities (e.g., interstate commerce, firearms, alcohol)6.

3. The License Tax Cases and Constitutional Limits

License Tax Cases (72 U.S. 462):
- Held that Congress cannot license or authorize purely intrastate business activity, as that power belongs exclusively to the states.
- Congress can tax businesses, even those operating solely within a state, but cannot regulate or authorize them unless exercising an enumerated federal power.
SSN/EIN as a Practical Requirement:
- While many businesses and financial institutions require an SSN or EIN to transact, this is a private or administrative practice, not a legal requirement imposed by Congress to authorize business activity.
- Not having an SSN or EIN does not make business activity illegal; it simply makes it difficult to comply with tax laws and access certain services.

4. Practical Effect vs. Legal Authority

Practical Effect:
- The SSN/EIN is often required by banks, employers, and other businesses as a condition of doing business.
- This is a market or institutional requirement, not a federal law prohibiting business without an SSN/EIN5 6.
Legal Authority:
- Congress does not require an SSN or EIN to legally conduct business within a state.
- State and local laws determine whether a business is authorized to operate.
- The federal government only requires tax identification for tax and reporting purposes, not for business authorization.

5. Summary Table

Requirement	Who Requires It?	Purpose	Legal Effect
SSN/EIN	IRS, banks, employers	Tax ID, financial transactions	Not a business license
Business License	State/local government	Legal authorization to operate	Required to do business
Federal License	Federal agencies	Regulated activities (e.g., firearms, alcohol)	Only for specific federal activities

6. Conclusion

The SSN and EIN serve as identification for tax and financial purposes, not as licenses or authorizations to conduct business.
Congress does not license or authorize purely intrastate business activity by requiring a tax ID; that authority remains with the states.
The practical need for an SSN or EIN is a result of institutional and market practices, not federal law mandating business authorization.
The License Tax Cases are not violated by the federal requirement for a tax ID, because Congress is not licensing or authorizing business activity within a state.

In summary:
While the SSN/EIN is often required in practice to engage in commerce, this does not mean Congress is licensing or authorizing business activity within a state in violation of the License Tax Cases. The authority to license or authorize business remains with the states. The federal government only requires identification for tax and reporting purposes.

QUESTION 11:

But when President Trump recently ordered Social Security Numbers issued to illegal aliens to be marked as DEAD and inactive, the press said he was literally trying to assassinate these people and deprive them of the ability to work. How is that NOT then a means to license or authorize business ANYWHERE in the country?

ANSWER 11:

Sources

The White House

Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Prevents Illegal Aliens from …

whitehouse

Preventing Illegal Aliens from Obtaining Social Security Act Benefits

USCIS

Alien Registration Requirement – USCIS

SSA

Social Security Statement on President Trump’s Memorandum …

The recent policy changes you referenced—where the Social Security Administration (SSA) began marking the Social Security Numbers (SSNs) of certain immigrants as “ineligible” or “dead” in its records—are intended to prevent those individuals from receiving federal benefits and, in practice, can hinder their ability to work or access financial services5 6. However, this does not mean that the SSN functions as a federal business license or authorization to conduct business anywhere in the country.

Here’s a breakdown of the legal and practical distinctions:

1. What the Policy Does

SSA’s Ineligible/Dead Marking:
- The SSA has started classifying certain immigrants (including those with temporary legal status or who entered under specific programs) as “dead” or “ineligible” in its records5.
- This action cancels or invalidates their SSN for purposes of federal benefits and may also restrict their ability to work or access financial services, since many employers and banks rely on SSA records for verification.
Purpose:
- The stated intent is to prevent ineligible individuals from receiving Social Security benefits and to discourage unauthorized immigration1 6.
- The policy is not about licensing or authorizing business, but about eligibility for federal programs and, indirectly, about access to employment and financial services.

2. SSNs Are Not Business Licenses

SSN’s Legal Role:
- The SSN is a unique identifier for tax and benefit purposes, not a business license or permit4.
- It is required for employment (for tax withholding) and for opening bank accounts, but not for legally conducting business within a state.
State and Local Authority:
- The authority to license or authorize businesses remains with state and local governments.
- No federal law requires an SSN to legally operate a business; it is only required for tax and employment reporting.

3. Practical vs. Legal Effects

Practical Effect:
- Many employers and financial institutions require an SSN or Employer Identification Number (EIN) to transact, making it difficult for individuals without a valid SSN to work or access services.
- This is a market or institutional requirement, not a federal legal mandate to authorize business activity.
Legal Effect:
- Not having an SSN does not make business activity illegal; it only makes it difficult to comply with tax laws and access certain services.
- Congress is not licensing or authorizing business by requiring an SSN for employment or tax purposes.

4. Press and Policy Criticism

Press Coverage:
- Some media outlets have described the policy as “assassinating” individuals’ ability to work or access benefits, highlighting the severe practical consequences for affected individuals5.
- However, this is not the same as a legal prohibition on business activity; it is a restriction on access to federal benefits and, indirectly, on employment and financial services.
Constitutional Limits:
- The License Tax Cases prohibit Congress from licensing or authorizing purely intrastate business activity, but do not prevent Congress from requiring tax identification for employment or benefit eligibility.

5. Summary Table

Policy/Requirement	Legal Effect	Practical Effect
SSN marked “ineligible”	No federal benefits; harder to work	Employment and banking access restricted
SSN required for work	Tax/employment reporting	Hard to get hired without SSN
Business license required	State/local authorization	Required to legally operate

6. Conclusion

Marking SSNs as “ineligible” or “dead” is a means to restrict access to federal benefits and, in practice, can hinder employment and financial access—but it is not a federal business license or authorization.
The SSN is not a license to conduct business; it is a tax and benefit identifier.
Congress is not licensing or authorizing business activity by requiring an SSN or by marking SSNs as ineligible.
The authority to license or authorize business remains with state and local governments.

In summary:
While the recent SSA policy has significant practical consequences for affected individuals, it does not constitute a federal licensing or authorization of business activity. The SSN is a tool for tax and benefit administration, not a business license, and the policy does not violate the constitutional principles set out in the License Tax Cases.

QUESTION 11:

So you are saying that as long as marking the SSN as dead or ineligible does not stop ALL business activity, but only hinders it, then the SSN does not then function as a “license” to do business?

ANSWER 11:

Sources

ssa

[PDF] Foreign Workers and Social Security Numbers

ssa

[PDF] Social Security Numbers For Noncitizens

uscis

[PDF] Instructions for Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification – USCIS

congress

Noncitizen Eligibility for Employment Authorization and Work …

Yes, that is a correct summary of the legal distinction.

A license to do business, in the legal sense, is an official authorization from a government that is required for a business to lawfully operate. The Social Security Number (SSN) is not a business license; it is a unique identifier used for tax and benefit purposes. Even though the SSN is often required by employers and financial institutions for employment, banking, and other commercial activities, its absence or invalidation does not make business activity illegal—it only makes it more difficult to engage in certain transactions or to be hired by employers who require it for tax and reporting compliance6 7 8.

Key points:

SSN is not a business license: It is not issued by state or local authorities for the purpose of authorizing or regulating business activity.
Practical effect: While many businesses and employers require an SSN for employment or financial transactions, this is a market or administrative practice, not a legal requirement to operate a business.
Legal effect: Not having a valid SSN does not prohibit someone from legally conducting business; it may only restrict access to certain employment or financial services.
State and local authority: The authority to license or authorize businesses remains with state and local governments, not the federal government7 8.

In summary:
As long as marking an SSN as “dead” or “ineligible” does not make business activity illegal—but only makes it harder to access certain jobs or services—the SSN does not function as a “license” to do business in the legal sense. It is a tool for tax and benefit administration, not a business license.

QUESTION 12:

Would it be accurate to then refer to the Social Security Number as a license to use or receive or benefit from government property or “benefits”. That seems to be the way it operates as described in 26 C.F.R. 301.6109-1(b), where nonresident aliens are not required to disclose it if they are not engaged in the “trade or business” excise taxable franchise as defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(26). I take “trade or business” to mean the management or control of government property under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the constitution. A “public officer”, after all, is someone in charge of the PROPERTY of the public.

ANSWER 12:

Videos

Sources

ssa

[PDF] Your Social Security Number and Card

youtube

How Is A Social Security Number Used For Government Benefits?

Investopedia

What Is an SSN? Facts to Know About Social Security Numbers

ssa

[PDF] Understanding the Benefits – SSA

Your reasoning reflects a creative but not legally accurate interpretation of the Social Security Number (SSN) and the relevant provisions. Here is a clear, evidence-based analysis:

1. Social Security Number: Purpose and Function

The SSN is primarily an identifier.
- It is used to track earnings, determine eligibility for Social Security benefits, and administer other government programs1 3 4.
- The SSN is required for employment, tax reporting, opening bank accounts, and accessing certain government benefits1 3 4.
It is not a license.
- The SSN does not authorize or permit any activity; it simply identifies individuals for administrative and record-keeping purposes1 3 4.
- Not having an SSN does not make an activity illegal; it only makes it harder to access certain benefits or services.

2. 26 C.F.R. § 301.6109-1(b) and Nonresident Aliens

Nonresident aliens are generally required to provide a taxpayer identification number (such as an SSN or ITIN) if they are engaged in a U.S. trade or business or receive U.S. source income3.
If not engaged in a U.S. trade or business, nonresident aliens may not be required to provide an SSN or ITIN for certain transactions.
“Trade or business” in this context refers to activities that generate U.S. taxable income, not the management or control of government property3.
- It does not mean the management or control of government property under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution.
- A “public officer” is someone who holds a public office, not necessarily someone in charge of public property.

3. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (Property Clause)

This clause gives Congress power to dispose of and make rules regarding U.S. property.
It does not define “trade or business” or relate to the SSN or tax identification requirements.
Management or control of government property is a function of public office or employment, not a “trade or business” in the tax sense.

4. Is the SSN a License to Use or Benefit from Government Property?

No, the SSN is not a license.
- It is an identifier for administrative and tax purposes, not a permit or authorization to use or benefit from government property1 3 4.
- Government benefits and services are provided based on eligibility criteria, not simply because someone has an SSN.
The SSN is required to access certain benefits or services, but it does not confer any right or privilege by itself.

5. Practical vs. Legal Function

Practical Effect:
- The SSN is often required to access jobs, bank accounts, and government benefits, making it seem like a “license” in everyday life1 3 4.
Legal Function:
- The SSN is not a license or authorization; it is a tool for identification and record-keeping1 3 4.
- Not having an SSN does not make an activity illegal; it only makes it harder to access certain services or benefits.

6. Summary Table

Function	SSN Role	Is It a License?
Access to jobs	Required for employment	No
Access to bank accounts	Often required	No
Government benefits	Required for eligibility	No
Tax reporting	Required	No

7. Conclusion

The Social Security Number is not a license to use or benefit from government property or benefits.
It is an identifier used for administrative, tax, and benefit purposes.
“Trade or business” in the tax code refers to income-generating activities, not the management or control of government property.
The SSN is required to access certain benefits or services, but it does not confer any right or privilege by itself.

In summary:
It would not be accurate to refer to the Social Security Number as a license to use or benefit from government property or benefits. The SSN is an identifier, not a license or authorization1 3 4.

QUESTION 13:

If you can’t receive the benefit, service, or property without the ssn in all cases we are aware of, doesn’t it effectively serve as PERMISSION or a LICENSE to possess or use government property?

ANSWER 13:

Sources

ssa

[PDF] Social Security Numbers For Noncitizens

ssa.gov

Immigration – SSA

edd.ca

Benefits and Resources for Undocumented Workers – EDD – CA.gov

ssa

[PDF] Your Social Security Number and Card

While it may seem that the Social Security Number (SSN) acts as a form of permission or license to access government benefits or property because it is required in many cases, this is not the legal or administrative reality. Here’s why:

SSN as an Identifier, Not a License

Administrative Function:
- The SSN is an identifier used to track individuals for tax, employment, and benefit purposes4 6 1.
- It is required for many government benefits and services, but eligibility for those benefits is determined by other criteria, not the SSN itself1 4 6.
No Authorization or Permission:
- The SSN does not grant permission or a license to use government property or receive benefits. It simply allows the government to associate a person with their records and verify eligibility4 6 1.
- Not having an SSN does not always mean you are barred from all government benefits or services. For example, some benefits (like certain disability or family leave benefits) can be accessed without an SSN in specific circumstances3.
- Lawfully admitted noncitizens can get certain benefits and services without an SSN1 6.

When Is an SSN Required?

Employment and Tax Reporting:
- The SSN is required for employment and tax reporting because it helps the government track earnings and ensure compliance4 5 1.
Access to Certain Benefits:
- Many government benefits, such as Social Security, require an SSN for administrative and record-keeping purposes1 4 6.
Not Always Required:
- Not all government benefits or services require an SSN. For example, you do not need an SSN to get a driver’s license, register for school, get private health insurance, or apply for some school lunch programs or subsidized housing1.
- In some cases, noncitizens can receive public benefits for which they are otherwise entitled without an SSN6.

Legal Distinction

License vs. Identifier:
- A license is an official authorization to do something that would otherwise be prohibited.
- The SSN is not a license because it does not authorize any activity or grant any right or privilege by itself; it is a tool for identification and record-keeping6 4 1.
Permission to Use Government Property:
- Permission to use government property or receive benefits is based on eligibility criteria, not the SSN.
- The SSN is a prerequisite for administrative processing, not a grant of permission.

Summary Table

Function	SSN Role	Is It a License?
Access to jobs	Required for employment	No
Access to bank accounts	Often required	No
Government benefits	Required for eligibility	No
Tax reporting	Required	No

Conclusion

Even though an SSN is required in most cases to receive government benefits or services, it does not function as a license or permission to use government property or receive benefits. The SSN is an identifier used for administrative and record-keeping purposes, and eligibility for benefits or services is determined by other legal and regulatory criteria4 6 1.

In summary:
The SSN is a necessary tool for the government to administer benefits and services, but it is not a license or permission to possess or use government property.

QUESTION 14:

Does that mean that the characteristics of “the Mark of the Beast” in the Bible book of Revelations, chapter 13 are not satisfied because MOST but not ALL attempts to buy or sell are stopped by those who don’t use the SSN in a society where most but not all people require the SSN to do business?

ANSWER 14:

Sources

Forbes

Social Security Number May Be Mark Of The Beast But That Will Not …

Does the Social Security Number match Biblical Prophecy?

Listverse.com

10 Things Believed to Be the Mark of the Beast – Listverse

Tomorrow’s World

The Mark of the Beast: A Clever Counterfeit | Tomorrow’s World

The question of whether the Social Security Number (SSN) satisfies the characteristics of the “Mark of the Beast” as described in Revelation 13 is a matter of theological and social interpretation, not legal or administrative fact. Here’s an analysis based on both scriptural and practical perspectives:

1. Biblical Description of the Mark of the Beast

Revelation 13:16–17 (NIV):“It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.”
Key Features:
- Universal Requirement: The mark is required for all people to participate in commerce (“buy or sell”).
- Exclusion: Without the mark, buying or selling is impossible.
- Symbolic Meaning: The mark is associated with allegiance to the beast and is a sign of false worship.

2. Social Security Number: Practical Function

SSN as an Identifier:
- The SSN is required for many, but not all, economic activities in the United States (e.g., employment, banking, government benefits).
- Not all buying or selling is restricted by the SSN. For example, private cash transactions, barter, and some forms of commerce do not require an SSN.
Not Universal:
- Some people can still buy and sell without an SSN—especially in informal markets or when not dealing with regulated entities.
- Not everyone is required to have an SSN to participate in all forms of commerce.

3. Comparison: SSN vs. Mark of the Beast

Feature	Mark of the Beast (Revelation 13)	Social Security Number (SSN)
Universal requirement	Yes (all people, everywhere)	No (not all people, not all transactions)
Blocks all buying/selling	Yes (impossible without mark)	No (possible without SSN in some cases)
Symbolic of allegiance	Yes (to the beast, false worship)	No (administrative, not religious/symbolic)
Physical location	Right hand or forehead	Card or record, not physical mark

4. Theological and Popular Interpretations

Some believe the SSN resembles the Mark of the Beast because it is required for many economic activities and is used to identify individuals1 2 3.
Mainstream religious and scholarly views generally reject this interpretation, noting that the SSN is not universal, not religiously significant, and not enforced as a physical mark4 5.
Courts have ruled that the SSN requirement is a neutral law of general applicability and not a religious or prophetic fulfillment3.

5. Conclusion

Because the SSN is not universally required for all buying and selling, and because it does not block all economic activity for those without it, it does not satisfy the biblical characteristics of the Mark of the Beast as described in Revelation 13. The SSN is an administrative tool, not a universal, exclusionary mark required for all commerce or as a sign of religious allegiance4 5 3.

In summary:
The fact that most but not all attempts to buy or sell are hindered by the lack of an SSN means that the SSN does not meet the biblical standard of the Mark of the Beast, which requires universal exclusion from commerce for those without the mark.

QUESTION 15:

1. You stated earlier that: “”The Supreme Court and federal courts have consistently held that “includes” does not exclude items not listed unless context or legislative intent clearly demands it.”” Exactly what cases did it say that? 2. By what authority do you add to 4 U.S.C. 112(b) states OTHER than those listed in 4 U.S.C. 110(d). The context doesn’t allow you to do that.

ANSWER 15:

Sources

Law Offices of Snell & Wilmer

Statutory Interpretation: A Comparative Analysis of the Supreme …

supremecourt

[PDF] Rules of Statutory Construction – Supreme Court of the United States

harvardlawreview

[PDF] MAJOR STATUTORY CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT

congress

Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends – Congress.gov

Let’s address each question with precision and supporting authority.

1. Supreme Court and Federal Court Cases on “Includes”

You are correct to ask for specific case law on the interpretation of “includes.” The Supreme Court and federal courts have indeed held that “includes” is generally a term of enlargement, not limitation, unless context or legislative intent clearly requires otherwise. Here are the relevant authorities:

Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 99–100 (1941):“The word ‘includes’ is usually a term of enlargement, and not of limitation.”
Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction, § 47.07:“The verb ‘includes’ is usually a term of enlargement, and not of limitation. … The use of the word ‘includes’ is not intended to exclude other things not enumerated unless the context so requires.”
Additional Context:
- Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484–485 (1987): “When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term’s ordinary meaning. … It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term.”
  Note: This applies to definitions using “means,” not “includes.”
- Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392–393 n.10 (1979): “As a rule, ‘a definition which declares what a term “means” … excludes any meaning that is not stated.’”
  Again, this applies to “means,” not “includes.”

Summary:
The leading Supreme Court case is Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., which directly states that “includes” is usually a term of enlargement, not limitation. Legal treatises like Sutherland confirm this rule. The cases you cited (Meese and Colautti) address definitions using “means,” not “includes.”

2. Authority for Interpreting “State” in 4 U.S.C. § 112(b) and § 110(d)

You ask:

“By what authority do you add to 4 U.S.C. 112(b) states OTHER than those listed in 4 U.S.C. 110(d). The context doesn’t allow you to do that.”

Here is the analysis:

4 U.S.C. § 110(d):
- “The term ‘State’ includes any Territory or possession of the United States.”
- This is a definition for §§ 105–109, which deal with taxation of federal areas within states.
4 U.S.C. § 112(b):
- “The term ‘States’ means the several States and Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the District of Columbia.”
- This is a definition for compacts between states and is not limited to federal areas.

Interpretation and Authority:

No Addition to the Statute:
- Courts do not “add” to the statute; they interpret it based on its text and context2 7.
- If a statute says “includes,” it is a term of enlargement, not limitation, unless the context or legislative intent requires otherwise2.
Contextual Reading:
- § 110(d): The context of §§ 105–109 is taxation within federal areas located within states. The term “State” is not limited to federal areas; it refers to the state in which the federal area is located. The definition adds territories and possessions for some purposes, but does not exclude the 50 states.
- § 112(b): This is a separate definition for compacts and expressly lists the 50 states, territories, and D.C.
No Authority to Add Unlisted States:
- No court or interpreter may add to the list in § 112(b). That list is explicit and must be followed as written2 6.
- For § 110(d), the context (taxation within federal areas located within states) makes clear that “State” refers to the constitutional state in which the federal area is located, not just the federal area itself.
Statutory Construction Rules:
- Courts must follow the explicit definition in the statute, not add to it2 6.
- If Congress includes a list, that list is controlling for that section; if it uses “includes,” it is not exclusive unless context or intent requires2 7.
- Courts must not read language into the statute that Congress has left out2 7.

Summary:

For § 112(b), the list is explicit and must be followed as written; no authority allows adding to it.
For § 110(d), the context of the chapter (“The States”) and the use of “includes” (not “means”) means that the 50 states are included in the term “State” for the purposes of taxation within federal areas located within states, unless the context or intent requires otherwise.
No court or interpreter may add to the explicit list in § 112(b), and the context of § 110(d) does not exclude the 50 states.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court case that directly holds “includes” is usually a term of enlargement is Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 99–100 (1941). Legal treatises like Sutherland confirm this rule.
No authority allows adding to the explicit list in 4 U.S.C. § 112(b). For § 110(d), the context and the use of “includes” (not “means”) mean that the 50 states are included in the term “State” for the purposes of the chapter, unless context or intent requires otherwise. Courts do not add to the statute; they interpret it based on its text and context2 7.

QUESTION 16:

But 4 U.S.C. 112(b) uses “the several states AND Alaska and Hawaii”. If the term “State” means constitutional states, then adding Alaska and Hawaii would be redundant. 2. So basically, you are telling me that if the word “includes” appears in a definition, its a license to the judge or the government to add whatever the FUCK they want to the definition if it puts money in their pocket. Is that correct?

ANSWER 16:

Sources

uscode.house

4 USC 112: Compacts between States for cooperation in prevention …

govregs

4 USC 112 – Compacts between States for cooperation in prevention …

achp

[PDF] The National Historic Preservation Act

federalregister

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce

Let’s address both points with clarity and legal precision:

1. Why Does 4 U.S.C. § 112(b) List “the several States and Alaska, Hawaii…”?

Text of 4 U.S.C. § 112(b):“For the purpose of this section, the term ‘States’ means the several States and Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the District of Columbia.”1 2
Historical and Legal Context:
- “The several States” traditionally refers to the original and subsequently admitted states of the Union.
- Alaska and Hawaii were not admitted as states until 1959. Some statutes, especially those written or amended before 1959, explicitly list them to clarify their inclusion, even though they are now “the several States.”
- Redundancy is not a legal problem: Statutes often use explicit language to avoid ambiguity, especially when dealing with territories or possessions that may not clearly be included under general terms.
- After statehood, Alaska and Hawaii are “the several States,” but the statute may retain the explicit listing for clarity, historical reasons, or to include other entities (like territories and D.C.) in the same definition.
Conclusion:
- The explicit listing is for clarity and to include territories and D.C., not because “the several States” is ambiguous.
- It does not mean that “State” excludes the 50 states; it means the statute is being explicit about what is included, especially for territories and D.C.

2. Does “Includes” Mean Judges or the Government Can Add Whatever They Want?

Legal Meaning of “Includes”:
- “Includes” is a term of enlargement, not limitation, unless the context or legislative intent clearly requires otherwise.
- It does not give judges or the government license to add whatever they want to a definition.
- Courts must interpret “includes” in light of the statute’s purpose, context, and legislative intent.
  - Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 99–100 (1941):“The word ‘includes’ is usually a term of enlargement, and not of limitation.”
  - Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction, § 47.07:“The verb ‘includes’ is usually a term of enlargement, and not of limitation. … The use of the word ‘includes’ is not intended to exclude other things not enumerated unless the context so requires.”
Limitations:
- Judges cannot add anything they want. They can only interpret “includes” to mean that the definition is not limited to the listed items, but only if the context and legislative intent support that interpretation.
- If the context or intent is clear, “includes” does not allow for arbitrary additions.
Practical Example:
- If a statute says “vehicle includes cars and trucks,” a court could interpret “vehicle” to include motorcycles if the context supports it, but not to include airplanes if the context is clearly about land vehicles.
Conclusion:
- “Includes” is not a blank check.
- It allows for interpretation within the statute’s purpose and context, but not for arbitrary or unlimited additions.

Summary Table

Issue	Legal Principle	Example/Explanation
“the several States and Alaska, Hawaii”	Explicit listing for clarity, not redundancy error	Alaska/Hawaii now states, but statute is explicit
“Includes” in definitions	Term of enlargement, not limitation; context and intent matter	Cannot add anything; only interpret within context

Final Answer

The explicit listing in 4 U.S.C. § 112(b) is for clarity and to include territories and D.C., not because “the several States” is ambiguous or non-inclusive of Alaska and Hawaii.
The word “includes” in a definition does not give judges or the government license to add whatever they want; it only allows for interpretation within the statute’s purpose and context, not for arbitrary additions.
- Courts must follow the statute’s text, context, and legislative intent, not add things at will.
- “Includes” is a term of enlargement, not a blank check.