Definition of Income

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

RESIDENT, persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period. See 6 Hall's Law Journ. 68; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 373; 20 John. 211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377.

There is a big difference between being "resident", and having a "residence". The first one is domestic, the second transient and under international law.

JG: The resident is not domiciled. Note the clever wording - a person coming into a place with INTENTION to establish his domicile. Not that he HAD established a domicile. An inhabitant has a domicile.

Restating: The "person" (transient) moves to a residence (transient) with intention to establish domicile (legal home). He becomes an inhabitant once he has established his legal home, absolutely owned, and thus ceases to be a resident residing at a residence.

Regarding the international law cite, that is only correct when speaking of foreign officers, i.e. "Residents".

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

http://members.aol.com/StatutesPA/75PA102.html
"Resident."
A person dwelling permanently or continuously for a period exceeding 60 consecutive days within this Commonwealth, except that a person who regularly dwells in two or more states shall declare residence to be in any one of the states.

JG: It just "hit" me (D'OH).
RESIDENT ... WHO REGULARLY DWELLS IN TWO OR MORE STATES... SHALL DECLARE RESIDENCE...

Sigh.
A person dwelling permanently in the state is a resident - because he does not absolutely own private property nor established domicile. And if he has two or more "permanent homes", he must declare his residence in one of them.

The lawyers zinged us again....

An inhabitant has a domicile (permanent legal home), a resident does not.

A resident, without a permanent legal home, cannot exercise natural and personal liberty. Ergo, he must get permission (license) from the state so as not to trespass.

Now, if the lawyers were truthful...
Resident. A person dwelling permanently or continuously, at a residence, for a period exceeding 60 consecutive days within this Commonwealth, except that a person who regularly dwells in two or more states shall declare residence to be in any one of the states...

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics:

Was that a general definition or specific definition for a statute?

A specific definition from the statute- check the link: it's for the "definitions" sec. of PA title 75, Vehicle Code. It is imho a logical conclusion as well, and so has applicability to other situations re: residency.

RESIDENT, international law. A minister, according to diplomatic language, of a third order, less in dignity than an ambassador, or an envoy. This term formerly related only to the continuance of the minister's stay, but now it is confined to ministers of this class.

How about an "authorized sub-division" that issues permits and registration as per the "Int'l Conv. Geneva 1949 U.N."? I dont need to be "sovereign", just a "foreign resident"

Despite Black's law dictionary:

"RESIDENCE - Place where one actually lives ... Residence implies something more than physical presence and something less than domicile. The terms 'resident' and 'residence' have no precise legal meaning... [One can have many residences but only one domicile]
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.1308, 1309

one could have more than one domicile, I think.

Anyway my point in all this was that residence=flag, and one may be a foreigner with a local residence, under int'l law.

2. Residence is prima facie evidence of national character, but this may at all times be explained. When it is for a special purpose and transient in its nature, it does not destroy the national character.

I might be resident in "this state", but "this may at all times be explained". When it is transient in nature, I keep my original national character, a foreign status.

another angle: I might be flying the residence-flag of a foreign state for vehicle purposes but I am not actually resident there.

My aim here is to establish that, even if someone is determined resident in one state (say, by virtue of the length of time spent on that territory) one may still keep for "special" (administrative) purpose a foreign but locally recognized "residence", a transient property.

Transient= admiralty maritime etc
transient= interactive ('activities')
transient= movement, circulation, currency, traffic, commerce

I see this implied in the language of the 14th amendment: one may be 'born or naturalized' "in the United States"; but the second and crucial element is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

This is in regard of the citizenship of residents in the several states; so conversely there could be for some reason a person who is born in the U.S, resident in one of the 50 states, but NOT subject to the jurisdiction, for having kept their residence foreign and therefore international.

Which is a status question and impacts on which liabilities apply- local domestic issue "operator license", or IDP. Tax status as u.s person, or as foreigner. Etc.

Its almost as though the system incorporated the de jure states into their de facto system (actually it is exactly this), leaving those who wish to act outside the system as "foreigners" in their own land.

Perhaps there was a time when the state and the inhabitants were one and the same, jurisdiction being territorial in nature (based on land and ownership, property rights), but the shift has been from "law of the land", to "law of the sea", which by nature is transient, and subjective, based on the administration of lex persona and in rem process.

So now to get "back to the land" we have to be first commercially foreign to the state, outsiders excluded by operation of law and by status. Then the land is free since all private property is "in the state", having been attorned and pledged over for debt, and subject to a functional administration, to await redemption.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Despite Black's law dictionary,one could have more than one domicile, I think.

JG: Not correct. Only a single domicile can exist. One can have many residences, but only one domicile. Or one may have many residences but NO domicile, thanks to national so******m.

If my research is correct, sovereignty is EXACTLY what one needs to establish. Based on the "Theory of the Common Law", the common law is the prerogative of sovereigns. So if one wishes to operate under the rules of the common law, sovereignty is indispensable. In addition, sovereignty and property are inseparable. A king without a country / domain is merely a traveling prince.

Since the American governments are not sovereigns, they lack the capacity to institute common law courts.
I read in the Federalist Papers that Georgia had nothing but common law courts prior to the U.S. Constitution. Afterwards, all common law courts were abolished in Georgia. There are no such things as "constitutional" common law courts. I presume that was due to the State officers swearing the dual oath, in which they submit to the United States.

But people who did not submit to their state government, as State Citizens, did not lose their birthright of freedom, liberty and sovereignty.

An example of common law sovereignty is the ability to inflict capital punishment without due process. Property that is posted with a notice that it is Private property, and that trespassers will be shot, illustrates the gulf between the republican form and the democratic form.

Finally, natural and personal liberty are the prerogatives of a sovereign. Which might explain why residents need permission (license). They are trespassing upon the public ways (not necessarily engaged in commerce).

If one does not absolutely own private property, one cannot pursue happiness without first getting permission.

Recapping, an American national, of legal age, status, etc, who acquires private property, and establishes a domicile, is sovereign over that private property. And as we all know, only private property is explicitly protected by constitution.

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

My aim here is to establish that, even if someone is determined resident in one state (say, by virtue of the length of time spent on that territory) one may still keep for "special" (administrative) purpose a foreign but locally recognized "residence", a transient property.

JG: You complicate a simple matter. People either absolutely own their homes, and are inhabitants, or else they're residents. Thanks to national so******m, most Americans can only be residents, holding their property with qualified ownership.

To the best of my knowledge, after contacting many embassies, it would appear that only the United States of America recognizes that people are sovereign.
Everywhere else, the people are subjects of government, irrespective of ideology.

If you wish to enjoy the prerogatives of American nationality, you must establish a domicile.

FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT OF 1976
§ 1603. Definitions
For purposes of this chapter --
(a) A "foreign state", ...
(3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined in section 1332 (c) and (d) of this title, nor created under the laws of any third country.

If I am not mistaken, an American national IS neither a citizen of a State of the United States, nor of a citizenship created under the laws of any third country, therefore is a "foreign state" with respect to the States united and the United States in Congress assembled.

Such a "foreign sovereign" may qualify for diplomatic plates for his private automobile.

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

I see this implied in the language of the 14th amendment: one may be 'born or naturalized' "in the United States"; but the second and crucial element is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

JG: One who is not dwelling in his permanent legal home is a transient.
Since the 14th amendment citizenship is more akin to denizenation (an inferior citizenship) and was originally applicable to the former privately owned chattel slaves, the "United States" refers to Federal jurisdiction, not the geographic United States of America. Frankly, no one can have citizenship imposed at birth. It would be unconstitutional involuntary servitude.

Since the new 'subjects' of the Federal government were presumed to domiciled 'in' the Federal jurisdiction, they could only establish a residence in the 'foreign' States united.

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

This is in regard of the citizenship of residents in the several states; so conversely there could be for some reason a person who is born in the U.S, resident in one of the 50 states, but NOT subject to the jurisdiction, for having kept their residence foreign and therefore international.

JG: I believe you have it backwards. Nationality is a characteristic of parentage and birthplace. Citizenship is a political liberty granted by government. Technically, we're born as American nationals. However, most are swiftly enrolled into national so******m, based upon the parents registration of their children as subject citizen - residents.

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Which is a status question and impacts on which liabilities apply- local domestic issue "operator license", or IDP. Tax status as u.s person, or as foreigner. Etc.

JG: The "Driver's License", though often presumed to be issued for commercial purposes only, is more likely a civil liberty to trespass upon the public ways by such "persons" who lack the legal standing to exercise the right of locomotion (personal liberty).
Remember, only "residents" can apply for licenses. Non-residents need not apply.

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Its almost as though the system incorporated the de jure states into their de facto system (actually it is exactly this), leaving those who wish to act outside the system as "foreigners" in their own land.

JG: That is an incorrect conclusion. An American national, domiciled in a state (geographic) is promised protection by the State government organization by incorporation in their organic documents (constitutions, etc). You might be a non-resident (foreign sovereign) to their 'internal' jurisdiction, but you are not a foreign resident.

In the past, many students assumed that there were two jurisdictions - those "in" the government (officers, officials, and employees), and those "outside" of government - private persons.
There is a third jurisdiction - neither incorporated by reference nor inside their corporation.
This came about due to the bankruptcy and subsequent pledge of human resources to the usurers.
In essence, there are claimants (foreigners?) who have an interest in land, houses, chattels, etc, held with qualified ownership by American so******ts. These claimants are neither protected people nor inside government.
It may very well explain why so many activities and possessions require registration and licensing.
Only via statutory civil law can the conflicting claims be sorted out.

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Perhaps there was a time when the state and the inhabitants were one and the same, jurisdiction being territorial in nature (based on land and ownership, property rights), but the shift has been from "law of the land", to "law of the sea", which by nature is transient, and subjective, based on the administration of lex persona and in rem process.

JG: I believe you may be confusing geography with people. Inhabitants dwell within the state (geography), and some inhabitants volunteered into public service, dropping in status, to become officers and officials of the State (government). Once they registered their property as estate (thus enabling liens to be attached for redress of grievance), they ceased to have a domicile, and converted to a legal residence. Due to pauperization many states redefined 'resident' to be synonymous with vagabond.

The U.S. Constitution is an admiralty/maritime compact, since the United States, in Congress assembled, had no domain, thus no capacity to enter into a compact under the law of the land.

As you may well know, the governments and courts have always admitted that America was unlike other nations, and that American people were sovereign. Also, you will note that King George surrendered to the PEOPLE, not to the United States government.

I suspect that one of the reasons that occurred is that the Articles of Confederation, written in 1777, were not ratified and in force until much later, 1783, I believe. Thus the Continental Army was not the "U.S.Army" and King George didn't lose to the "United States" government. He lost to the PEOPLE.

That may explain why no other nation on this planet has a "republican form of government".

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

So now to get "back to the land" we have to be first commercially foreign to the state, outsiders excluded by operation of law and by status. Then the land is free since all private property is "in the state", having been attorned and pledged over for debt, and subject to a functional administration, to await redemption.

JG: That is incorrect. One who establishes a domicile, is "back to the law of the land". Private property is never pledged for the debt. By definition, private property is absolutely owned by an individual. When two or more have a claim, it changes to estate (real and personal property).

More on sovereignty:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/95

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

OK- but you know, I would settle for the below:

A king without a country / domain is merely a traveling prince.

At least I get to issue my own papers and use the 'non resident exemption', which saves a lot of problems, if you think about it- vehicles, education, family law, taxes, public service, etc. A lot of presumptions vanish when it comes to "uitlanders".

jetgraphics: Finally, natural and personal liberty are the prerogatives of a sovereign. Which might explain why residents need permission (license). They are trespassing upon the public ways (not necessarily engaged in commerce).

To the best of my knowledge, after contacting many embassies, it would appear that only the United States of America recognizes that people are sovereign.
Everywhere else, the people are subjects of government, irrespective of ideology.

Most constitutions, at least Europe, S America etc guarantee (not grant) the right to locomotion for everyone regardless of status, subject to treaty limitations. For example Spain has it that "all persons both foreign and national have the right to circulate'', meaning move around and even do business with others on the way.

What happens is that the Americans (and others of similar heritage British etc) are some of the few out there w/ the idea of staying out of the government domain. Most people are either too primitive to care or couldnt dream of it any other way. However, at the end of the day, form follows function. So if one signs up for "bennies", there's the hook, and almost EVERYONE in the 2nd world (and now most of the 1st world) does this unquestioningly.

Having been bred for this over many millenia these people cannot comprehend a larger view- the carnal mind cannot see the "higher powers and principalities", the bigger picture.

I speak from 1st hand experience.

The "Driver's License", though often presumed to be issued for commercial purposes only, is more likely a civil liberty to trespass upon the public ways by such "persons" who lack the legal standing to exercise the right of locomotion (personal liberty).

Remember, only "residents" can apply for licenses. Non-residents need not apply.

But non residents must use the exemption of "having a valid permit from the home state or country", if we are talking about "vehicles".

The "trespass" is defined by the statutes themselves- transportation of persons or property. No matter how sovereign you get, another's sovereignty stays equally intact. Like the states jurisdiction over the use of public roads.

And so I could even be an abject serf and as long as I stay out of "transportation", my theory is that there is no other law restricting me in enjoying a means of transit. Because there really is no other law, to my knowledge- all the statutes ever speak of is "transportation"

An example of common law sovereignty is the ability to inflict capital punishment without due process. Property that is posted with a notice that it is Private property, and that trespassers will be shot, illustrates the gulf between the republican form and the democratic form.

please don't try this at home.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

OK- but you know, I would settle for:A king without a country / domain is merely a traveling prince.

At least I get to issue my own papers and use the 'non resident exemption', which saves a lot of problems, if you think about it- vehicles, education, family law, taxes, public service, etc. A lot of presumptions vanish when it comes to "uitlanders".

JG: According to most statutes, "non-residents" do seem to be excepted. Which may also explain why undocumented aliens who are non-resident to the forum are merely kicked back over the border (when stopped for misdemeanors).

On the other hand, being an inhabitant, one is automatically assumed to have the rights of the freeborn and sovereign. I suspect that the recognition of "right of way" is tied to property owners who grant rights of way via the public roads that cross their property. Since property owners grant a right of way to all, they automatically receive a reciprocal right of way. But those who have no property, via pauperization, and did not grant a right of way, are exercising a privilege, thus need license.
The commerce angle could also be derived from the "Creditor's License".
Think of a sharecropper in the 1870s. The owner grants the sharecropper an "interest" (less than title) to land, in exchange for a share of a commercial crop. If the sharecropper won't engage in commerce, the owner will toss his arse off the land.
Perhaps the obligated contributors are likewise assumed to be in commerce, with the true owner taking his cut.

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Most constitutions, at least Europe, S America etc guarantee (not grant) the right to locomotion for everyone regardless of status, subject to treaty limitations. For example Spain has it that "all persons both foreign and national have the right to circulate'', meaning move around and even do business with others on the way.

What happens is that the Americans (and others of similar heritage British etc) are some of the few out there w/ the idea of staying out of the government domain. Most people are either too primitive to care or couldnt dream of it any other way. However, at the end of the day, form follows function. So if one signs up for "bennies", there's the hook, and almost EVERYONE in the 2nd world (and now most of the 1st world) does this unquestioningly.

Having been bred for this over many millenia these people cannot comprehend a larger view- the carnal mind cannot see the "higher powers and principalities", the bigger picture.

I speak from 1st hand experience.

JG: "Dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?"

FWIW - those in the British Commonwealth are subjects of the monarchy. I know many Canadians who think they're independent of Britain, but apparently that's not true. If you see the movie "Fly Away Home", there's an instructive scene, where the Canadian game warden speaks at a school about the "Queen's Geese".

They're subjects, one and all.
Bummer.

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

But non residents must use the exemption of "having a valid permit from the home state or country", if we are talking about "vehicles".

The "trespass" is defined by the statutes themselves- transportation of persons or property. No matter how sovereign you get, another's sovereignty stays equally intact. Like the states jurisdiction over the use of public roads.

And so I could even be an abject serf and as long as I stay out of "transportation", my theory is that there is no other law restricting me in enjoying a means of transit. Because there really is no other law, to my knowledge- all the statutes ever speak of is "transportation"

JG: It's true that using public roads for one's private business is a trespass subject to regulation and oversight. The reasonable delegation of authority over the administration of the "public roads and waterways" is merely to insure that all rights of way are not impaired. Those who have the RIGHT to be there are fine. It's those poor blighters, who are trespassing that need permission.
I suspect it goes back to the status of paupers, propertyless vagrants, and status criminals. The government is authorized to "sour the milk" and discourage such parasites in every way possible.

(As far as I can determine, the "universal" requirement for registration and licensing comes into play after 1930s. Earlier statutes are explicitly limited to taxi drivers, chauffeurs, jitney bus, and omnibus operators.)

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Quote:
An example of common law sovereignty is the ability to inflict capital punishment without due process. Property that is posted with a notice that it is Private property, and that trespassers will be shot, illustrates the gulf between the republican form and the democratic form. Unquote.

please don't try this at home.

JG: Why not? If your private property is private property, it's your sovereign prerogative to shoo or shoot trespassers.

Regarding those pesky "concealed weapon" prohibitions, I wonder what would happen if sovereign Americans wore a "due notice" : PRIVATE PROPERTY - NO TRESPASSING - TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT!

:-)

(Unresolved issues - does anyone have information on what constitutes a minimum domicile?)

-----------
In America, citizenship cannot be imposed, because the compulsory civic duties would amount to involuntary servitude. Ergo, the 14th amendment must only apply to U.S. territories and possessions, and only to those who are their "subjects" (former chattel slaves?). Furthermore, if all are subject, WHO ARE THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE?

Hey Congress, which is which?
Are we all voluntary servants or involuntary servants?
------------

[indago]

indago wrote:

"An employer is liable for payment of the employee's share of FICA whether or not he withholds the required amount of the employee's contribution." — US v Lee 455 US 252, 254 (1982)

The FICA tax is an excise tax upon the employer. Business was "authorized" to collect half from the employee. Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.

jetgraphics wrote:

Methinks you misread it. The tax is imposed upon the employee, but if the employer fails to "enforce" compliance (withhold), he's liable for the employee's share.

Then you believe that all the congress has to do is pass a law to amend the Constitution. You must work for the government. They believe that too...

[indago]

jetgraphics wrote:

As far as I can determine, the "universal" requirement for registration and licensing comes into play after 1930s. Earlier statutes are explicitly limited to taxi drivers, chauffeurs, jitney bus, and omnibus operators.

It is explained, in the Yale Law Journal of 1931: "The law has drawn a distinction between the ordinary use of the highway for travel, and its use for purposes of private gain. A vehicle on the road for the former purpose is there as of 'right'; one using it in the latter manner has only a 'privilege' of use."

The Constitutional Law section of American Jurisprudence explains the right: "While the freedom to travel within the United States has been held to be a basic right under the Federal Constitution which is independent of a specific provision therein, the right of locomotion has also been held to be a part of the 'liberty' guaranteed by the due process clauses."

Justice Epes, delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, explained the right quite clearly and frankly: "The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will." Justice Griffith, delivering an opinion of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, declared, upon reviewing the opinion of Justice Epes of Virginia concerning this most valuable of rights: "There seems to be no dissent among the authorities on this proposition."

You may well be asking: "Why do I believe that my driving my automobile is a privilege granted by the State, and not a right?"

In Europe, in the days of the feudal society, the King granted the privileges as the sovereign, and the subject accepted these privileges at his whim. When this country withdrew from Britain, the feudal society notion was rejected, and it was written into the Constitution of the United States that no titles of Nobility shall be granted. We had graduated from a feudal society to a contractual society. The recognition that the laboring individual had as much property in his labor as the propertied individual had in his money or land was hard fought, but was eventually won in the courts of this country. Taints of the feudal society are still noted in legal jargon where the distinction between an employer and the employee are noted as master and servant.

Also recognized by law, and the courts, is the distinction between the natural, and the artificial person; the natural person being an inhabitant of the States, in this country, and the artificial person being a corporation, or other entity, created by government, or the State. It has been declared by the Supreme Court of the United States, and other courts, that the State itself, and the federal government, are artificial persons, created to perform certain functions.

The State has blurred the distinction between the natural and artificial person to the point of the individual being duped into believing that he has no right to drive his automobile. The question has been posed to individuals: "If the State sent to you a notice declaring that your "privilege" to drive your automobile has been revoked, what would you do?" The answer was a resounding: "I would drive it anyway." Driving an automobile to work, or play, is as natural a function to most Americans now that to deprive an American of this right would be tantamount to taking his plate of food from him at the table.

It also may well be asked: "How did we lose this right?" Early in the American automobile history, most Americans did not often see an automobile in town. Only the wealthy could afford one, and when it was driven into the town the noise scared the horses, and sometimes the driver of such a contraption, being of the "upper classes", and looking down upon the "lower classes", would become careless in the operation of his motor car to the point of rudeness, putting at risk the life and limb of the walking population. The town populace would retaliate with laws regulating the use of the motor car in the town, such as the laws which declared that the motor car would have to be rendered inoperable at the village limits, and a horse team, and driver, would have to be hired to tow the vehicle into, or through, the village. As the motor car became more widely used, it became recognized as a common mode of transportation by the individual. Because of the rudeness of some of the drivers, regulations were propounded that a plate be affixed to the vehicle so that it could be identified, and its owner brought to account in case of a personal injury accident. Other individuals would hire a motor car, and driver, to take them places, and businesses were established to this end. Trucks were built to move materials over the roadways, and the vehicles and drivers were "licensed" for this purpose.

A "license", in law, is a permission granted by a "higher authority" to perform some specific function. Licensing to drive an automobile is permission granted by the State to drive. The State does not have a program for those who wish to drive an automobile as a basic right. All are lumped into the category of "artificial person".

Such a program could include a course on the Rules of the Road; driving a car; and upon completion, a Certificate of Competency that the individual recognizes that there are others on the road who are just as concerned about a safe trip. There are few who would deny that some rights could be regulated so that all may benefit from the exercise of them; such as the old argument that "Your right to thrust your fist forward ends where my face begins."

With the distinction blurred between the natural person and the artificial person, the State can withdraw the "privilege" at will, or many "conditions" can be placed upon the use of the 'privilege", such as have been proposed by some legislators that your rights be waived and the individual must submit to alcohol tests, and searches and seizures; and that child support payments must be up to date or the drivers "license" will be revoked. If the individual is "licensed" by the State, his "privilege" may well be revoked at the whim of the State. This is where the inhabitants of the States should rise up against this feudal system, and demand that the right to drive an automobile be recognized.

By now you can see how the right to drive an automobile has been relegated to the status of "privilege"; mostly through neglect, and apathy of the individual. Now most individuals actually believe that driving an automobile is a "privilege" granted by the State.

[jetgraphics]

Content deleted due to posting snafu

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by indago

indago wrote:
Then you believe that all the congress has to do is pass a law to amend the Constitution. You must work for the government. They believe that too...

JG: It's their compact, not yours. Why shouldn't they amend their compact with the States?

Why would you conclude that one must "work for the government" regarding amendments?
If you have the SS number, YOU DO WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT!
(More accurately, you work for the benefit of the creditor of the government)