Benefits Come with Obligations
Justice Brandeis articulated this in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (297 U.S. 288, 1936):
“The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.”
The reasoning is simple: when you accept a benefit, such as Social Security payments, tax deductions, or STATE-issued licenses, you implicitly agree to operate within the legal framework (ie: CA CODE) that governs those privileges or benefits. In doing so, you transform your relationship with the law from one of inherent rights to one of contractual obligations.
The Benefit-Rights Tradeoff
This distinction boils down to a powerful legal reality:
- A Right (Traveling or Bearing an Arm): Is inherent and unconditional—it exists without requiring government permission or participation.
- A Benefit (Driving or Concealed Carry Permit): Is a privilege granted by a government or institution, often conditioned upon compliance with statutory or contractual terms.
When you take a benefit, the law treats it as entering into a social contract or quasi-contract. You are now bound by the obligations and restrictions that come with the privilege.
The Role of Constitutional Estoppel
Constitutional estoppel prevents someone from both enjoying the advantages of a legal system and simultaneously rejecting its authority. In legal and equitable terms, this principle aligns with the clean hands doctrine:
“He who seeks equity must come with clean hands.”
If you claim to be “sovereign” and independent of government authority, yet accept government benefits (such as tax refunds, social security, public healthcare, or even using fiat/FRNS/private money), the court will see this as an inherent contradiction. You are estopped (legally barred) from challenging the law because you’ve already consented to operate within its structure by accepting its advantages.
The Social Contract and Legal Hypocrisy
By accepting a benefit, you expresslly and tacitly agree to abide by the rules of the system that provides it. This creates a social construct or contract that binds you to laws you otherwise might have the right to challenge. Courts will not allow you to “have your cake and eat it too.” They view this as legal hypocrisy.
Example:
A person who claims to be sovereign and refuses to pay taxes but files for tax refunds cannot credibly argue against the tax code’s constitutionality. By requesting the refund, they have acknowledged the system’s authority and rules.
Choose Rights or Benefits, Not Both
If you seek to maintain sovereign status or challenge a law’s constitutionality, you must relinquish the benefits that come from that legal framework. Accepting a benefit creates an implied contractual relationship and binds you to the law, whereas standing on your rights requires forgoing privileges.
This is the sovereign dilemma: You cannot simultaneously enjoy government benefits and assert independence from its laws. To challenge the system, you must step outside it completely and rely solely on your inherent rights, not privileges.
