stija,

No offense taken!! Heck, I didn't even know about software like that! Point well taken! I appreciate the feedback. You can't hurt my feelings . . . I've got thick skin!!!

Let's continue this thing:

When I come in from an international flight, and make my way through customs, there is a sign to direct the people into a specific line. The line reads: “U.S. Citizens, Permanent Residents, and Diplomats;” as if to herd the Americans in one line, and the foreign nationals into another line.

Now is it the contention of anyone on this forum that a Passport is NOT required to come and go from this country if one is a sovereign American from one of the 50 Union states? If so, this is just wishful thinking, and we might as well hang it up, because that ain't gonna fly!!! So there has got to be some definition somewhere, with regard to all American citizens requiring a passport, and the definition of United States being something we can reconcile clearly.

The passport does say “Citizen/National of the United States.” I fit NEITHER of those descriptions. National? Yes! National of the United States? No! Furthermore, 8 CFR 215.1 gives the following definition:

Based on this . . . I COULD be an “alien.” BUT, this meaning hinges 100% on what they mean by “United States!” If United States means the federal zone, then I can be an alien vis a vis the federal zone. If it means what the layman believes it to be, then I am a citizen and national, and would NOT be an “alien” as defined above.

I understand the legislative notes with regard to the inclusion of Alaska and Hawaii. The fact that they have not “updated” the code is bothersome, and in fact would be very tough to overcome in an argument with anyone, not to mention someone who is fighting against you. The only argument I believe that holds water is the “when used in a geographic sense” argument. What other sense could they mean? (Rhetorical ?) This is just too sticky!! I can't reconcile a good argument in my head that I believe I could confidently and consistently present.

Since the government has been issued the powers of things “external,” does it not have plenary jurisdiction over all Americans coming and going from our shores? And if in fact they do, could the definition of United States be intentionally deceptive in the other direction in an effort to camouflage their sacred definitions elsewhere? I'm really having trouble with this!

Now, on somewhat of another topic. In the main body of the Constitution, I find the term “United States” used 51 times. It does in fact seem to have different meanings within the Constitution. For example:

I:2:2

I take this to mean a citizen of the collective Union states.

IV:3:2

Now, in this sense, they seem to be referring to the government . . . the one that was later incorporated in 1871.

It seems that there are different meanings of the term “United States” within the Constitution. In view of the privatization of the government in 1871, to claim you are a Constitutional citizen in view of the transformation that took place above in IV:3:2 above could be problematic. There is an argument for different meanings of “United States” within the Constitution, so to also claim to be a “United States Citizen” as per Amdt XIV, and lump that meaning in as consistent across the Constitution could backfire, as the meaning as used in IV:3:2 above has changed due to the new meaning as understood since the government's incorporation in 1871.

Now regarding “residence” and “alienage,” II:1:6 states in part:

Now if the Constitution can have different meanings for United States compared to those in the code, can this not also apply to the term resident as used above? Resident above referring to the collective Union states, whereas in the code, resident ONLY relates to aliens. Same word, two meanings; one Constitutional, one statutory.

Obviously Vattel's Law of Nations is addressed directly in I:8:10, but what makes the “Treatise on the Law of Public Offices and Officers,” authoritative?

I didn't find anything that prohibited “aliens” from being “public officers” in the Constitution with the exception of the Representatives, Senators, and those eligible to the office of President. So, just because some guy wrote a book, how can I hang my hat on that if there is no provision for its authority within the Law of the Land?

Interestingly enough, I recently questioned a TSA agent at the airport. If you look on their name tags, it states their last name, and then underneath it, it says “officer.” I asked this particular TSA “public officer” how long his search and seizure training was. I then asked him if they took a Constitutional oath of office at the conclusion of the training. He stated that he did. I would imagine that this oath, and his office, watered-down as it may be, is akin to the oath and office entered into by those entering military service as officers . . . ie, an executive appointment. It would appear to me, that because ALL public offices are domiciled in DC, then these “public officers” of the TSA must submit a 1040 tax return for the earnings of their office, NOT for themselves, but for the earnings of their OFFICE. They may in fact be domiciled in Florida, New Jersey, or wherever, but their office is domiciled in DC, and thus an army of legitimate “taxpayers” was created with the new TSA. I will start looking to see if indeed some of them are “aliens” from another country. It's my belief that if they personally are domiciled in a Union state, then they are statutory “aliens” occupying the “public office” which is domiciled in DC – – because they are not citizens of DC, but statutory residents through the office they are affiliated with. I know we differ in this area.

It just seems more feasible to state you are NOT the “citizen” or “resident” in 26 USC, because this definition is so much clearer. To bring other Titles and their equally, if not more confusing definitions into the fray, could be asking for it. After all, the Code routinely has language that states, “for the purpose of this title – – or for the purpose of this section,” which I believe gives a very clear line in which one can argue a definition and its particular application.

So, where is the language dictating that ALL AMERICANS entering or leaving the country are required to have a passport?

Admin,

Here's my rebuttal:

I can handle the definition of “State” in this title all day long. But how do I get around the following:

Alaska and Hawaii ARE Union states! How can one make a case against this that will hold any water in a court of “law?”

Imagine arguing or presenting your case to a judge, a deposition, or heck, even a jury for that matter. Talk about looking like a nut job in front of a jury! How does one get around the inclusion of Alaska and Hawaii in the above definition? This seems to be a show-stopper, and would really appear to the casual observer as wishful-thinking in its truest sense.

I agree! They are mutually exclusive. And the status comparison is like mixing apples and oranges. In one instance, we are talking about federal civil statutory law (national), and in the other instance, we are talking about Constitutional meanings (federal). It's my understanding that when encumbered within the franchise, the Constitutional Rights are out the window, and our frame of reference shifts to the civil and private law aspect of the “agreement” and its related definitions. So my perspective is that, although a Constitutional citizen, once I volunteer to participate in property or contracts as per 4:3:2, then my Constitutional “citizenship” is not the issue, but my “alien” status, as a foreigner from a Union state in their foreign venue (DC) as per the federal civil statutory agreement/private contract law becomes the new issue. I see it as a matter of where I am at the time I wish to engage the government. If at home in my sovereign status in a Union state, then I am a Constitutional citizen. When I engage in the franchise, I enter their venue as a foreigner and am subject to their franchise/private law by virtue of volunteering and becoming an “alien” in their venue. I agree they are mutually exclusive. But so is my status as a sovereign, and as a subject of the government which employs me for example. I just think it's more word games. “Which 'alien' status are you referring to sir? An 'alien' vis-a-vis the Constitution, or a statutory 'alien' who is 'residing' in your venue?”

This seems to be similar to my point above. Again, I'm not saying I'm not a Constitutional citizen . . . I am. But I'm certainly NOT a citizen of DC. I always retain my Constitutional status except when I interface with the private, statutory law. But with regard to their civil statutory agreement, I am an alien, yet eligible for the office through the Constitution. That is why the SSA says that aliens lawfully admitted to the “United States” are eligible for a SSN. I seem to recall that foreigners (in the common sense of the word) can join the military, and then be granted “United States Citizenship” at the conclusion of their faithful service. I'm certain they are “aliens” while here, both Constitutionally, and statutorily. Whereas one could be a Constitutional citizen (of Florida), and an “alien” statutorily once he enters into “service” with the “United States” or receives the benefits therefrom. I don't know of any case where a foreigner from another nation was allowed to be commissioned, but I seem to recall they are allowed to enlist as aliens. So, again, if confronted with the question above, I would simply reply by asking: “Do you mean in a Constitutional sense, or in a private-law/statutory sense?”

This is virtually the same as above. However, I don't believe all “taxpayers” are public officers. For example, 864(c )(3) defines “United States” sourced income as being “effectively connected with a trade or business.” My understanding is that this IS taxable. If Joe Smith (not a public officer) from Florida receives interest from US Treasury Securities, or even interest from the Department of the Treasury/IRS following an overdue refund, I believe these come with tax liabilities and must be paid. Although Joe is not a public officer, and not engaged in a “trade or business,” he does have income that is “effectively connected with a trade or business” by virtue of 864(c )(3), because it's US sourced. Of course the receipt of these monies is ONLY possible if he has availed himself at some point to a government franchise.

But mainly I want to know . . . how does one reconcile the presence of Alaska and Hawaii in the definition above? How does one effectively make a case against the definition not including Union states when Alaska and Hawaii are Union states and clearly included? Furthermore, I don't believe statutory citizens are EVER synonymous with Constitutional citizens! But I do think that they can be similar from a geographic standpoint depending on the definition being used in the code. The “United States” of Title 8 seems very similar to “United States”* the nation. This would make sense in the grand scheme of things since the government was granted authority for things external to the country.

This perspective seems most plausible to me. I really don't believe it's an all or nothing. And to establish a NRA status with the government after retirement seems like a legitimate and honest application of the law. I don't mind paying tax on my lawful obligations. I want to follow the law and do what is right! There is just no way in my mind to be in service with the government, receive a pension, and not pay tax on it! That doesn't seem right to me.

OK . . . . I have my football helmet on!!! Fire!!!