Comment: Code

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: http://www.law.cornell.edu/us (see in situ)

Code

Go to a law library. Find Title 26. Read. There you will see why someone (Cornell?) felt the need to insert a phrase in parenthesis, specifically the one you repeated. Statutory construction does not allow for open-ended, nebulous, abstract phrases that lend themselves well to vagueness and conjecture. Think. "but not limited to" means no limitations! Does anyone, except a maniac, believe that the income tax has NO LIMITATIONS WHATSOEVER? And, that the law was written this way?? Now ask yourself- Why do you think that particular phrase was placed in parenthesis?? Could it be to warn the reader that the words within the parenthesis are NOT words that appear in black letter law?? Now. Try reading any ONE of these definitions: "Wages" "Employer" "Employee". Try not to insert your own feel good phrases, like "not limited to". or "among others" or any phrase that keeps you in your comfort zone, not challenging your pre-conceived notions about the non-law you've been cooperating with for all these years. You were duped...and I can see how it happened. Don't take offense - you are not alone. Find the truth, then deal with it as you will.

“...taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes”
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man