Why "domicile" and becoming a "taxpayer" require your consent

Web Capture of this article -Right click and select "save As" to download an Adobe Acrobat copy of  this important article

Memorandum of Law of this article -(OFFSITE LINK) Right click and select "save As" to download an Adobe Acrobat copy of this important article

Table of Contents:

  1. Definitions
  2. "Domicile"="allegiance" and "protection"
  3. Domicile is a First Amendment choice of political affiliation
  4. "Domicile" and "residence" compared
  5. Choice of Domicile is a voluntary choice
  6. Divorcing the “state”: Persons with no domicile, who create their own “state”, or a domicile in the Kingdom of Heaven
  7. You can only have one Domicile and that place and government becomes your main source of protection
  8. Effect of domicile on citizenship and synonyms for domicile
  9. It is idolatry for a Christian to have a domicile within a man-made government or anything other than God's Kingdom
  10. Legal presumptions about domicile
  11. How the government interferes with your ability to voluntarily choose a domicile and receive all the benefits of that choice
  12. Domicile on government forms
  13. The Drivers License Trap:  How the State Manufactures privileged "residents"
  14. Summary and Conclusions
  15. Resources for Further Research and Rebuttal

Related articles:

Remedies:
SOURCE:  Federal and State Withholding Options for Private Employers, section 12, ver. 1.81

1.  Definitions

The purpose of establishing government is solely to provide “protection”.  Those who wish to be protected by a specific government must expressly consent to be protected by choosing a domicile within the civil jurisdiction of that specific government. 

  1. Those who have made such a choice and thereby become “customers” of the protection afforded by government are called by any of the following names under the civil laws of the jurisdiction they have nominated to protect them:

    1.1  “citizens”, if they were born somewhere within the country which the jurisdiction is a part.

    1.2  “residents” (aliens) if they were born within the country in which the jurisdiction is a part

    1.3 "inhabitants", which encompasses both "citizens", and "residents" but excludes foreigners

    1.4  "persons".

    1.5  "individuals".

  2. Those who have not become “customers” or “protected persons” of a specific government are called by any of the following names within the civil laws of the jurisdiction they have refused to nominate as their protector and may NOT be called by any of the names in item 1 above:

    2.1  “nonresidents”

    2.2   “transient foreigners”

    2.3  "stateless persons"

    2.4  "in transitu"

    2.5  "transient"

    2.6  "sojourner"

In law, the process of choosing a domicile within the jurisdiction of a specific government is called “animus manendi”.  That choice makes you a consenting party to the “civil contract”, “social compact”, and “private law” that attaches to and therefore protects all “inhabitants” and things physically situated on or within that specific territory, venue, and jurisdiction.  In a sense then, your consent to a specific jurisdiction by your choice of domicile within that jurisdiction is what creates the "person", "individual", "citizen", "resident", or "inhabitant" which is the only proper subject of the civil laws passed by that government.  In other words, choosing a domicile within a specific jurisdiction causes an implied waiver of sovereign immunity, because the courts admit that the term "person" does not refer to the "sovereign":

“Since in common usage, the term person does not include the sovereign, statutes not employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”
[United States v. Cooper Corporation, 312 U.S. 600 (1941)]

“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law for it is the author and source of law;” 
[Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)]

 “There is no such thing as a power of inherent Sovereignty in the government of the United States.  In this country sovereignty resides in the People, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld.” 
[Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)]

Those who have become customers of government protection by choosing a domicile within a specific government then owe a duty to pay for the support of the protection they demand.  The method of paying for said protection is called “taxes”.  In earlier times this kind of sponsorship was called “tribute”.

Both state and federal income taxation is based almost entirely upon what is called “domicile”.  Domicile is a choice we make that requires our consent and participation, and because it requires our consent, then becoming a “taxpayer” who owes a tax requires our consent.  We will explain this shortly.  An examination of the Internal Revenue Code and implementing regulations confirms that there are only two proper legal “persons” who are the subject of the I.R.C., and that these two “persons” have a “domicile” in the District of Columbia.    By “District of Columbia” as used in this document, we mean the government of the “United States” and not the District of Columbia in the geographical sense as used in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10):

Table 3: Taxable persons under I.R.C.

#

Proper
legal
person?[1]

Tax status

Place of  inhabitance

Declared domicile

Conditions under which subject to I.R.C. (if they volunteer)?

Notes

1

Yes

“citizen”

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

Earnings connected with a “trade or business” within the District of Columbia while abroad.

File using IRS Form 2555.  See 26 CFR §1.1-1(c )for imposition of tax.  “citizens” living abroad and outside of federal jurisdiction are referred to as “nationals” but not “citizens” under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(B).

2

Yes

“resident”

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

All income earned within the District of Columbia connected with a “trade or business”

See 26 CFR §1.1-1(c ) for imposition of tax.  See 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A)  for definition of “resident”

3

No

“nonresident alien”

Outside of District of Columbia

Foreign country, including states of the Union

Income from within the District of Columbia under 26 U.S.C. §871.

File using form 1040NR.  See 26 U.S.C. §871  for taxable sources.  26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B)  for definition of “nonresident alien”

4

No

“alien”

District of Columbia

Foreign country, including states of the Union

Only subject to income taxes on “income” from foreign country connected with a “trade or business” and coming under an income tax treaty with the foreign country.

Do not file.  Not subject to the I.R.C. because not domiciled in the District of Columbia

[1] See 26 CFR §1.6012-1(a): Who is required to file.

Options 1 and 2 above have “domicile” within the District of Columbia as a prerequisite.  People born in and domiciled within states of the Union fall under status 3.  If “nationals” (who are not “citizens” under 8 U.S.C. §1401) living in states have no earnings from the District of Columbia, then even if they choose to volunteer, they cannot be “liable” to pay any of their earnings to the IRS.  Note also that the “aliens” mentioned in option 4 above, even if they live in the District of Columbia, are not even mentioned in the I.R.C.  They only become subject to the code by either becoming involved in a "trade or business", which is a public office, which is a voluntary activity involving federal contracts and employment, or by declaring the District of Columbia to be their legal “domicile”.  Making the District of Columbia into their “domicile” or engaging in a "trade or business" (which is defined as a public office) are the only two activities that can transform “aliens” into “residents” subject to the Internal Revenue Code.    “Aliens” or “nonresident aliens” may voluntarily elect (choose) to treat the District of Columbia as their domicile and thereby become “residents” in accordance with the following authorities:

1.        26 U.S.C. §6013(g) or (h).

2.        26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(4)(B).

3.        26 CFR §1.871-1(a).

4.        The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(2), which says that those who conduct “commerce” within the legislative jurisdiction of the United States (in the federal zone) surrender their sovereign immunity.

TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 97 > § 1605

§ 1605. General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state

(a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case—

(2) in which the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or upon an act performed in the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere; or upon an act outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the United States;

We also caution that a “nonresident alien” can also unwittingly become a “U.S. person” with an effective domicile in the District of Columbia by incorrectly declaring his or her citizenship status on a government form as that of either a statutory “U.S. citizen” under 8 U.S.C. §1401  or a statutory “resident alien” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A) , instead of a “national” but not a citizen under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) and 8 U.S.C. §1452.  This results in a surrender of sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. §1603(b)(3), which says that “U.S. citizens” and “residents” may not be treated as “foreign states”.  This is by far the most frequent mechanism that your unscrupulous government uses to maliciously destroy the sovereignty of persons in states of the Union and undermine the Separation of Powers Doctrine: Using ambiguous terms on government forms and creating and exploiting legal ignorance of the people.  This process by public servants of systematically and illegally destroying the separation of powers is thoroughly documented below:

Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.025

http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

Domicile is legally defined as follows.  We also include the definition of “situs” to help clarify its meaning:

"domicile.  A person's legal home.  That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning.  Smith v. Smith, 206 Pa.Super. 310m 213 A.2d 94.  Generally, physical presence within a state and the intention to make it one's home are the requisites of establishing a "domicile" therein.  The permanent residence of a person or the place to which he intends to return even though he may actually reside elsewhere.  A person may have more than one residence but only one domicile.  The legal domicile of a person is important since it, rather than the actual residence, often controls the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities and determines where a person may exercise the privilege of voting and other legal rights and privileges."
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 485]

__________________________________________________________________________________________

"Situs. Lat. Situation; location; e.g. location or place of crime or business.  Site; position; the place where a thing is considered, for example, with reference to jurisdiction over it, or the right or power to tax it.  It imports fixedness of location. Situs of property, for tax purposes, is determined by whether the taxing state has sufficient contact with the personal property sought to be taxed to justify in fairness the particular tax.  Town of Cady v. Alexander Const. Co., 12 Wis.2d 236, 107 N.W.2d 267, 270."

Generally, personal property has its taxable "situs" in that state where owner of it is domiciled.  Smith v. Lummus, 149 Fla. 660, 6 So.2d 625, 627, 628.  Situs of a trust means place of performance of active duties of trustee.  Campbell v. Albers, 313 Ill.App. 152, 39 N.E.2d 672, 676."
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1387]

Notice in the definition of "domicile" above the absence of the word "consent" and replacing it with the word "intent" to disguise the true nature of what they are saying.  Lawyers and politicians don't want you to know that they need your consent to make you into a "taxpayer" with a "domicile" within their jurisdiction, even though this is in fact the case.  More on this later.

An exhaustive academic treatise on the subject of domicile also candidly admits that there is no all encompassing definition for "domicile".

§57.  Difficulty of Defining Domicil.--The difficulty, if not impossibility, of arriving at an entirely satisfactory definition of domicile has been frequently commented upon.  Lord Alvanley, in Somerville v. Somerville, praised the wisdom of Bynkershoek in not hazarding a definition; and Dr. Lushington, in Maltass v. Maltass, speaking of the various attempts of jurists in this direction, considered himself justified in the remarkable language of Hertius: "Verum in iis definiendis mirum est quam sudant doctores."  Lord Chelmsford, speaking, as late as 1863, in the case of Moorhouse v. Lord, says: "The difficulty of getting a satisfactory definition of domicil, which will meet every case, has often been admitted, and every attempt to frame one has hitherto failed."
[Treatise on the Law of Domicil, §57, pp. 93-98;M.W. Jacobs, 1887; Little Brown and Company
SOURCE:  http://books.google.com/books?id=MFQvAAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage]

The above admission is not surprising, given the fact that the main purpose for inventing the concept of domicile is to infer or imply consent of the subject to the civil law that has never expressly been given in writing and cannot be proven to exist.  No government or judge is going to give a definition, because then people would use that definition to prove that they DON'T have a domicile and that would destroy the source of all the government's civil and taxing authority over the people who employ the definition to break the chains that bind them to their pagan tyrant rulers.

The concept of domicile we inherit primarily from the feudal Roman law system in which the king or emperor or lord claimed ownership over all territory entrusted to him or her by divine right.  Everyone occupying said territory therefore became a "subject" of the king and owed him "allegiance" as compensation for the "privilege" or franchise associated with use of his property.  That allegiance expressed itself as "tribute" paid to the king, which we know of today as "taxes".  What were once "subjects" of the king in Great Britain and the Roman Empire are now called "citizens", and we fired the King when the Declaration of Independence declared all men equal.  At that point, everyone became equal and the sovereign transitioned from the former King of England to "We the People" as individuals.  Consequently, we no longer have a landlord and the government that serves us cannot therefore lawfully charge us "rent" for the use of the land or territory that we occupy if we own it.

"The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to those restrictions which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the U.S."
[Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York)]

"In the United States the people are sovereign, and the government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship."
[Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 US 253 (1967)]

"Strictly speaking, in our republican form of government, the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation; and the residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of its public functionaries, is in the people of the state.  2 Dall. 471"
[Bouv. Law Dict (1870)]

"The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the federal and state government." 
[Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F. 939 @ 943]

"In Europe, the Executive is almost synonymous with the Sovereign power of a State; and, generally, includes legislative and judicial authority.  When, therefore, writers speak of the sovereign, it is not necessarily in exclusion of the judiciary; and it will often be found, that when the Executive affords a remedy for any wrong, it is nothing more than by an exercise of its judicial authority.  Such is the condition of power in that quarter of the world, where it is too commonly acquired by force, or fraud, or both, and seldom by compact.  In America, however, the case is widely different.  Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.  It was entrusted by them, as far as was necessary for the purpose of forming a good government, to the Federal Convention; and the Convention executed their trust, by effectually separating the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive powers; which, in the contemplation of our Constitution, are each a branch of the sovereignty.  The well-being of the whole depends upon keeping each department within its limits." 
[Glass v. Sloop Betsey, 3 U.S. 6, 3 Dall. 6, 1 L.Ed. 485 (1794)]

2.  “Domicile”=“allegiance” and “protection”

The U.S. Supreme Court describes the relationship of domicile to taxation as follows:

"Thus, the Court has frequently held that domicile or residence, more substantial than mere presence in transit or sojourn, is an adequate basis for taxation, including income, property, and death taxes. Since the Fourteenth Amendment makes one a citizen of the state wherein he resides, the fact of residence creates universally reciprocal duties of protection by the state and of allegiance and support by the citizen. The latter obviously includes a duty to pay taxes, and their nature and measure is largely a political matter. Of course, the situs of property may tax it regardless of the citizenship, domicile, or residence of the owner, the most obvious illustration being a tax on realty laid by the state in which the realty is located." 

[Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 (1954)]

“This right to protect persons having a domicile, though not native-born or naturalized citizens, rests on the firm foundation of justice, and the claim to be protected is earned by considerations which the protecting power is not at liberty to disregard.  Such domiciled citizen pays the same price for his protection as native-born or naturalized citizens pay for theirs.  He is under the bonds of allegiance to the country of his residence, and, if he breaks them, incurs the same penalties.  He owes the same obedience to the civil laws.  His property is, in the same way and to the same extent as theirs, liable to contribute to the support of the Government.  In nearly all respects, his and their condition as to the duties and burdens of Government are undistinguishable.”

[Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)]

The first thing to notice about the above ruling is that the essence of being a “citizen” is one’s domicile, not just their place of birth or naturalization.  The U.S. Supreme Court admitted that an alien with a domicile in a place is treated as a native or naturalized “citizen” in nearly every respect.  Note also the key role of the word “intention” within the meaning of domicile.  A person can have many “abodes”, which are the place they temporarily “inhabit”, but only one legal “domicile”.  You cannot have a legal “domicile” in a place without also having an intention (also called “consent”) to live there “permanently”, which implies allegiance to the people and the laws of that place.

“Allegiance and protection [by the government from harm] are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.” 

[Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 166-168 (1874)]

What the supreme Court essentially is describing above is a contract to procure the civil protection of a specific government, and it is giving that contract a name called “domicile”.  What makes the contract binding is the fact that each party to the contract both gives and receives specific and measurable “consideration”.  You give “allegiance” and the support (e.g. “taxes”) that go with that allegiance, and in return, the government has an implied legal duty to protect and serve you.  All contracts require both mutual consent and mutual consideration.  Without both demonstrated elements, the contract is unenforceable.  The contract is therefore only enforceable if both parties incur reciprocal duties that are enforceable in court as “rights”.

Now let's look at the domicile “protection contract” or “protection franchise”.  Does it meet all the requisite legal elements of a legally enforceable contract?  In fact, after you declare your exclusive allegiance to the “state” by declaring a “domicile” within that state so that you can procure “protection”, ironically, the courts continue to forcefully insist that your public SERVANTS STILL have NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to protect you!  This is what Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the traitor, calls “The New Deal”, and what we call “The RAW Deal”.  Below is the AMAZING truth right from the horse’s mouth, the courts, proving that police officers cannot be sued if they fail to come to your aid after you call them when you have a legitimate need for their protection:

Do You Have a Right to Police Protection?

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Crime/Articles/PoliceProtection.htm

Consequently, the “protection contract” is unenforceable as a duty upon you because it imposes no reciprocal duty upon the government.  On the one hand, the government throws people in jail for failing to pay for protection in the form of “taxes”, while on the other hand, it refuses to prosecute police officers for failing to provide the protection that was paid for, even though their willful or negligent refusal to protect us could have far more injurious and immediate effects than simply failing to pay for protection.  This is a violation of the equal protection of the laws.  If it is a crime to not pay for protection, then it ought to equally be a crime to not provide it!  Who would want to live in a country or be part of a “state” that would condone such hypocrisy?  That is why we advocate “divorcing the state”.  It is precisely this type of hypocrisy that explains why prominent authorities will tell you that taxes are not “contractual”:  because the courts treat it like a contract and a criminal matter to not pay taxes for “taxpayers”, but refuse to hold public servants equally liable for their half of the bargain, which is protection:

"A tax is not regarded as a debt in the ordinary sense of that term, for the reason that a tax does not depend upon the consent of the taxpayer and there is no express or implied contract to pay taxes. Taxes are not contracts between party and party, either express or implied; but they are the positive acts of the government, through its various agents, binding upon the inhabitants, and to the making and enforcing of which their personal consent individually is not required."

[Cooley, Law of Taxation, 4th Ed., pgs 88-89]

The above is a deception at best and a LIE at worst.  A “taxpayer” is legally defined as a person liable, and it is true that for such a person, taxes are not consensual or in any way "voluntary".  HOWEVER, the choice about whether one wishes to BECOME a “taxpayer” as legally defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(14) is based on domicile and the excise taxable activities one voluntarily engages in, both of which in fact ARE voluntary actions and choices.  By their careful choice of words, they have misrepresented the truth so they could get into your pocket.  What else would you expect of greedy LIARS, I mean “lawyers”?  We would also like to take this opportunity to clarify for whom taxes are "voluntary" in order to further clarify the title of this document:

  1. Income taxes under I.R.C. Subtitle A are not voluntary for "taxpayers".
  2. Income taxes under I.R.C. Subtitle A are not voluntary for everyone, because some subset of everyone are "taxpayers".
  3. Income taxes under I.R.C. Subtitle A are voluntary for those who are "nontaxpayers", who we define here as those persons who are NOT the "taxpayer" defined in 26 U.S.C. §§7701(a)(14) and 1313.

“Revenue Laws relate to taxpayers [officers, employees, instrumentalities, and elected officials of the Federal Government] and not to non-taxpayers [American Citizens/American Nationals not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government].  The latter are without their scope.  No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their Rights or Remedies in due course of law.  With them [non-taxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of federal revenue laws.” 
[Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d. 585 (1972)]

Some other points to consider about this “Raw Deal” scam:

1.        You can’t be a “citizen” or a “resident” without having a legally enforceable right to protection.

2.        Since the government won’t enforce the rendering of the ONLY consideration required to make you a “citizen” or a “resident”, then the protection contract is unenforceable and technically, you can’t lawfully therefore call yourself a “citizen”.

3.        Since you can’t be a member of a “state” without being a “citizen”, then technically, there is no de jure “state”, no de jure government that serves this “state”, and no “United States”.  It’s just “US”, friends, cause there ain’t no “U.S.”! 

4.        The implication is that your government has legally abandoned you and you are an orphan, because they didn’t complete their half of the protection contract bargain.  Without a government, God is back in charge.  The Bible says He owns the earth anyway, which leaves us as “nonresidents” and “transient foreigners” in respect to any jurisdiction that claims to be a “government” because we know they’re lying.

5.        The Bible says of this “Raw Deal” the following:  You've been HAD, folks!

For thus says the LORD: “ You have sold yourselves for nothing, And you shall be redeemed without money.”

[Isaiah 52:3, Bible, NKJV]

The U.S. Supreme Court has also held that “allegiance” is completely incompatible with any system of “citizenship” in a republican form of government, and that it is “repulsive”.  Ironically, allegiance is exactly what we currently base our system of citizenship on in this country.  Apparently, this is yet one more symptom that our government has become corrupted.

“Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state, allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons. Not so, with respect to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is a substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things. Allegiance and citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic. Citizenship is the effect of compact [CONTRACT!]; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity. Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure. Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a badge of inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal. Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude. Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive. Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual. With such essential differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate. And yet, even among the nations, in which the law of allegiance is the most firmly established, the law most pertinaciously enforced, there are striking deviations that demonstrate the invincible power of truth, and the homage, which, under every modification of government, must be paid to the inherent rights of man…..The doctrine is, that allegiance cannot be due to two sovereigns; and taking an oath of allegiance to a new, is the strongest evidence of withdrawing allegiance from a previous, sovereign….” 

[Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133 (1795)]

Consequently, we must conclude that allegiance to anything but God is therefore to be avoided at all costs.  Notice also that they say that citizenship is the effect of “compact”, which is a type of contract.  If “domicile” is the basis of citizenship, and citizenship is the effect of “compact”, then “domicile” amounts to the equivalent of a “contract”.  This leads us right back to the conclusion that the voluntary choice of one’s “domicile” is a “contract” to procure man-made protection and fire God as our protector:

“Compact, n. An agreement or contract between persons, nations, or states. Commonly applied to working agreements between and among states concerning matters of mutual concern. A contract between parties, which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforced and contemplated as such between the parties, in their distinct and independent characters.  A mutual consent of parties concerned respecting some property or right that is the object of the stipulation, or something that is to be done or forborne.  See also Compact clause; Confederacy; Interstate compact; Treaty.” 

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 281]

The Bible is consistent with the Supreme Court above in its disdain for “allegiance”.  It has a name for those expressing "allegiance": It is called an "oath".  When a person becomes a naturalized citizen of the United States, he must by law (see 8 U.S.C. 1448) take an “oath” of "allegiance" and be "sworn in".  When a person signs an income tax return, he must swear a perjury oath.  Jesus, on the other hand, commanded believers not to take "oaths" to anything but God, and especially not to earthly Kings, and said that doing otherwise was essentially Satanic:

"Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your "Yes' be "Yes,' and your "No,' "No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one [Satan]."  

[Matt. 5:33-37, Bible, NKJV]

God also commanded us to take oaths ONLY in His name and no others:

"You shall fear the LORD your God and serve [only] Him, and shall take oaths in His name."

[Deut. 6:13, Bible, NKJV]

"If a man makes a vow to the LORD, or swears an oath to bind himself by some agreement, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth."

[Numbers 30:2, Bible, NKJV]

Israel's first King, Saul, in fact, distressed the people because one of his first official acts was to try to put the people under oath to him instead of God.

"And the men of Israel were distressed that day, for Saul had placed the people under oath"

[1 Sam. 14:24, Bible, NKJV]

God's response to the Israelites electing a King/protector to whom they would owe "allegiance", in fact, was to say that they sinned:

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, "Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways.  Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations [and be OVER them]".

But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." So Samuel prayed to the Lord.  And the Lord said to Samuel, "Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have rejected Me [God], that I should not reign over them.  According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods [Kings, in this case]—so they are doing to you also [government becoming idolatry].  Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them."

So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who asked him for a king. And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take [STEAL] your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take [STEAL] your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take [STEAL] the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take [STEAL] a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take [STEAL] your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work [as SLAVES]. He will take [STEAL] a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day.”

Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, “No, but we will have a king over us, 20 that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.”

[1 Sam. 8:4-20, Bible, NKJV]

Notice above the words "He [the new King] will take...".  God is really warning them here that the King they elect will STEAL from them, which is exactly what our present day government does!  Some things never change, do they?

3.  Domicile is a First Amendment choice of political affiliation

Another very important observation is in order at this point, which is that our choice of "domicile" is a strictly political and not legal matter.  It is a matter of our political choice and affiliation.   The Supreme Court has ruled that no government may dictate our choice of political affiliations, as revealed in the American Jurisprudence Legal Encyclopedia:

“The right to associate or not to associate with others solely on the basis of individual choice, not being absolute,  [1]   may conflict with a societal interest in requiring one to associate with others, or to prohibit one from associating with others, in order to accomplish what the state deems to be the common good. The Supreme Court, though rarely called upon to examine this aspect of the right to freedom of association, has nevertheless established certain basic rules which will cover many situations involving forced or prohibited associations. Thus, where a sufficiently compelling state interest, outside the political spectrum, can be accomplished only by requiring individuals to associate together for the common good, then such forced association is constitutional.  [2] But the Supreme Court has made it clear that compelling an individual to become a member of an organization with political aspects, or compelling an individual to become a member of an organization which financially supports, in more than an insignificant way, political personages or goals which the individual does not wish to support, is an infringement of the individual's constitutional right to freedom of association.  [3] The First Amendment prevents the government, except in the most compelling circumstances, from wielding its power to interfere with its employees' freedom to believe and associate, or to not believe and not associate; it is not merely a tenure provision that protects public employees from actual or constructive discharge.  [4] Thus, First Amendment principles prohibit a state from compelling any individual to associate with a political party, as a condition of retaining public employment.  [5] The First Amendment protects nonpolicymaking public employees from discrimination based on their political beliefs or affiliation.  [6] But the First Amendment protects the right of political party members to advocate that a specific person be elected or appointed to a particular office and that a specific person be hired to perform a governmental function. [7] In the First Amendment context, the political patronage exception to the First Amendment protection for public employees is to be construed broadly, so as presumptively to encompass positions placed by legislature outside of "merit" civil service. Positions specifically named in relevant federal, state, county, or municipal laws to which discretionary authority with respect to enforcement of that law or carrying out of some other policy of political concern is granted, such as a secretary of state given statutory authority over various state corporation law practices, fall within the political patronage exception to First Amendment protection of public employees.  [8]   However, a supposed interest in ensuring effective government and efficient government employees, political affiliation or loyalty, or high salaries paid to the employees in question should not be counted as indicative of positions that require a particular party affiliation.  [9]”
[American Jurisprudence 2d, Constitutional law, §546: Forced and Prohibited Associations ]

One’s choice of  "domicile" certainly has far-reaching legal consequences and ramifications, but our choice of domicile is not a legal matter to be decided by any court.  No court whether it be a federal or state court, has jurisdiction over strictly political matters.  Below is what the U.S. Supreme Court has to say on this very subject:

"But, fortunately for our freedom from political excitements in judicial duties, this court [the U.S. Supreme Court] can never with propriety be called on officially to be the umpire in questions merely political. The adjustment of these questions belongs to the people and their political representatives, either in the State or general government. These questions relate to matters not to be settled on strict legal principles. They are adjusted rather by inclination, or prejudice or compromise, often.

[. . .]

Another evil, alarming and little foreseen, involved in regarding these as questions for the final arbitrament of judges would be that, in such an event, all political privileges and rights would, in a dispute among the people, depend on our decision finally. We would possess the power to decide against, as well as for, them, and, under a prejudiced or arbitrary judiciary, the public liberties and popular privileges might thus be much perverted, if not entirely prostrated. But, allowing the people to make constitutions and unmake them, allowing their representatives to make laws and unmake them, and without our interference as to their principles or policy in doing it, yet, when constitutions and laws are made and put in force by others, then the courts, as empowered by the State or the Union, commence their functions and may decide on the rights which conflicting parties can legally set up under them, rather than about their formation itself. Our power begins after theirs [the Sovereign People] ends. Constitutions and laws precede the judiciary, and we act only under and after them, and as to disputed rights beneath them, rather than disputed points in making them. We speak what is the law, jus dicere, we speak or construe what is the constitution, after both are made, but we make, or revise, or control neither. The disputed rights beneath constitutions already made are to be governed by precedents, by sound legal principles, by positive legislation [e.g. "positive law"], clear contracts, moral duties, and fixed rules; they are per se questions of law, and are well suited to the education and habits of the bench. But the other disputed points in making constitutions, depending often, as before shown, on policy, inclination, popular resolves and popular will and arising not in respect to private rights, not what is meum and tuum, but in relation to politics, they belong to politics, and they are settled by political tribunals, and are too dear to a people bred in the school of Sydney and Russel for them ever to intrust their final decision, when disputed, to a class of men who are so far removed from them as the judiciary, a class also who might decide them erroneously, as well as right, and if in the former way, the consequences might not be able to be averted except by a revolution, while a wrong decision by a political forum can often be peacefully corrected by new elections or instructions in a single month; and if the people, in the distribution of powers under the constitution, should ever think of making judges supreme arbiters in political controversies when not selected by nor, frequently, amenable to them nor at liberty to follow such various considerations in their judgments as [48 U.S. 53] belong to mere political questions, they will dethrone themselves and lose one of their own invaluable birthrights; building up in this way -- slowly, but surely -- a new sovereign power in the republic, in most respects irresponsible and unchangeable for life, and one more dangerous, in theory at least, than the worst elective oligarchy in the worst of times. Again, instead of controlling the people in political affairs, the judiciary in our system was designed rather to control individuals, on the one hand, when encroaching, or to defend them, on the other, under the Constitution and the laws, when they are encroached upon. And if the judiciary at times seems to fill the important station of a check in the government, it is rather a check on the legislature, who may attempt to pass laws contrary to the Constitution, or on the executive, who may violate both the laws and Constitution, than on the people themselves in their primary capacity as makers and amenders of constitutions."
[Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849)]

Consequently, no court of law can interfere with your choice of legal domicile, which is a strictly political matter.  To do otherwise would constitute compelled association in violation of the First Amendment as well as direct interference in the affairs of a political party, which is YOU.  You are your own independent political party and a sovereignty separate and distinct from the federal or state sovereignties.  A court of law is certainly not the proper forum, for instance, in which to question or politically ridicule one's choice of domicile, whether it be in front of a jury or a judge. 

"Petitioners contend that immunity from suit in federal court suffices to preserve the dignity of the States. Private suits against nonconsenting States, however, present "the indignity of subjecting a State to the coercive process of judicial tribunals at the instance of private parties," In re Ayers, supra, at 505; accord, Seminole Tribe, 517 U. S., at 58 , regardless of the forum. Not only must a State defend or default but also it must face the prospect of being thrust, by federal fiat and against its will, into the disfavored status of a debtor, subject to the power of private citizens to levy on its treasury or perhaps even government buildings or property which the State administers on the public's behalf.

[. . .]

"Underlying constitutional form are considerations of great substance. Private suits against nonconsenting States--especially suits for money damages--may threaten the financial integrity of the States. It is indisputable that, at the time of the founding, many of the States could have been forced into insolvency but for their immunity from private suits for money damages. Even today, an unlimited congressional power to authorize suits in state court to levy upon the treasuries of the States for compensatory damages, attorney's fees, and even punitive damages could create staggering burdens, giving Congress a power and a leverage over the States that is not contemplated by our constitutional design. The potential national power would pose a severe and notorious danger to the States and their resources. "
[Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999)]

The Supreme Court said that the sovereignty of We The People is every bit as sacred as that of the states, so why should they not merit the same level of sovereign immunity from suit and dignity, especially in their choice of domicile, as that of the States?  To wit:

“The rights of individuals and the justice due to them, are as dear and precious as those of states. Indeed the latter are founded upon the former; and the great end and object of them must be to secure and support the rights of individuals, or else vain is government.”
[Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 1 L.Ed 440 (1793)]

“We The People” certainly cannot be “Sovereign” in any sense of the word if legal process can be maliciously and habitually abused by the government at great financial injury and inconvenience to them in the process of questioning or ridiculing their choice of domicile.  In spite of this fact, this very evil happens daily in state and federal courts in the context of tax trials.  We cannot restore the sovereignty of the people unless and until this chronic malicious abuse of legal and judicial process is ended immediately.

4.  “Domicile” and “residence” compared

Below is the ONLY definition of “residence” found anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code.  The definition does not begin with qualifying language such as “for the purposes of this section” or “for the purposes of this chapter”.  Therefore, it is a universal definition that applies throughout the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulations.  Note also that the definition is provided ONLY in the context of an “alien”.  Therefore, “citizens” or "nationals" cannot have a “residence”.  This is VERY important and is completely consistent with the fact that the only kind of “resident” defined anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code (see 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A))  is an “alien”:

Title 26: Internal Revenue
PART 1—INCOME TAXES
nonresident alien individuals
§ 1.871-2 Determining residence of alien individuals.

 (b) Residence defined. An alien actually present in the United States who is not a mere transient or sojourner is a resident of the United States for purposes of the income tax. Whether he is a transient is determined by his intentions with regard to the length and nature of his stay. A mere floating intention, indefinite as to time, to return to another country is not sufficient to constitute him a transient. If he lives in the United States and has no definite intention as to his stay, he is a resident. One who comes to the United States for a definite purpose which in its nature may be promptly accomplished is a transient; but, if his purpose is of such a nature that an extended stay may be necessary for its accomplishment, and to that end the alien makes his home temporarily in the United States, he becomes a resident, though it may be his intention at all times to return to his domicile abroad when the purpose for which he came has been consummated or abandoned. An alien whose stay in the United States is limited to a definite period by the immigration laws is not a resident of the United States within the meaning of this section, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

The phrase "definite purpose" is important in the definition of "residence" above.  Those who have a definite purpose because of their eternal covenant with God and their contractual relationship to Him described in the Bible and who know they are only here temporarily can only be classified as "transients" above.  This explains why our rulers in government want to get God out of the schools and out of public life: so that the sheep will have no purpose in life other than to serve them and waste themselves away in vain and sinful material pursuits.

"Then I hated all my labor in which I had toiled under the sun, because I must leave it to the man who will come after me. And who knows whether he will be wise or a fool? Yet he will rule over all my labor in which I toiled and in which I have shown myself wise under the sun. This also is vanity. Therefore I turned my heart and despaired of all the labor in which I had toiled under the sun. For there is a man whose labor is with wisdom, knowledge, and skill; yet he must leave his heritage to a man who has not labored for it. This also is vanity and a great evil. For what has man for all his labor, and for the striving of his heart with which he has toiled under the sun? For all his days are sorrowful, and his work burdensome; even in the night his heart takes no rest. This also is vanity."

[Eccl. 2:18-23, Bible, NKJV]

Only you, the Sovereign, can determine your “intention” in the context of "residence".  Notice the words “definite purpose”, “transient” and “temporary” in the definition of "residence" above are nowhere defined in the law, which means that you, and not your public servants, define them.  If you do not intend to remain in the “United States”, which is defined as ONLY the District of Columbia in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and not expanded elsewhere in Subtitle A to include any other place, then you can’t be counted as a “resident”, even if you are in fact an “alien”.  The government cannot determine your intention for you.  An intention that is not voluntary is not an intention, but simply a reaction to unjust external authority.  This is the basis for why the Supreme Court said:

“The citizen cannot complain [about the laws or the tax system], because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.”

[United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) [emphasis added]]

The California Election Code, Section 349  further clarifies the distinctions between “domicile” and “residence” as follows:

California Election Code, section 349:

349.  (a) "Residence" for voting purposes means a person's domicile.

   (b) The domicile of a person is that place in which his or her habitation is fixed, wherein the person has the intention of remaining, and to which, whenever he or she is absent, the person has the intention of returning.  At a given time, a person may have only one domicile.

   (c) The residence of a person is that place in which the person's habitation is fixed for some period of time, but wherein he or she does not have the intention of remaining.  At a given time, a person may have more than one residence.

The above definition is consistent with the analysis earlier in this section, but don't make the false assumption that the above definitions apply within income tax codes, because they DON'T.  Only statutory "citizens" who have a domicile within the forum can be the subject of the above statute relating to voting and elections, while the Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A applies exclusively to privileged aliens who have a domicile or tax home on federal territory: two COMPLETELY different audiences of people, for which the terms are NOT interchangeable.  A "residence" in the I.R.C. is the temporary abode of a privileged alien, while a "residence" in the election code is the temporary abode of a non-privileged Sovereign American National.  The worst mistake that you can make as a person born in your country is to believe or think that laws written only for "aliens" or "resident aliens" apply to you.  The only types of persons the federal government can write laws for in a state of the Union, in fact, are aliens.

In accord with ancient principles of the international law of nation-states, the Court in The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581, 609 (1889), and in Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893), held broadly, as the Government describes it, Brief for Appellants 20, that the power to exclude aliens is "inherent in sovereignty, necessary for maintaining normal international relations and defending the country against foreign encroachments and dangers - a power to be exercised exclusively by the political branches of government . . . ." Since that time, the Court's general reaffirmations of this principle have [408 U.S. 753, 766]   been legion. The Court without exception has sustained Congress' "plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens and to exclude those who possess those characteristics which Congress has forbidden." Boutilier v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 387 U.S. 118, 123 (1967). "[O]ver no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over" the admission of aliens. Oceanic Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U.S. 320, 339 (1909).

[Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972)]

If you are born in a state of the Union and have a domicile there and not on federal territory, federal laws CANNOT and DO NOT apply to you.  The only exception is if you contract away your rights and sovereignty by pursuing a federal government benefit, such as Social Security, Medicare, federal employment, etc.  Otherwise, We the People are Sovereign over their public servants:

"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone."

[James Madison, The Federalist, No. 46.]

"... The governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain might take away what they have delegated and intrust to whom they please. ...The sovereignty in every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure." 

[Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 12 LEd 581 (1849)]

"While sovereign powers are delegated to ... the government, sovereignty itself remains with the people.."

[Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)]

"There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States .... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress  can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld."

[Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)]

“In the United States***, sovereignty resides in the people who act through the organs established by the Constitution.  [cites omitted]  The Congress   as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains.  The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared.”

[Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)]

5.  Choice of Domicile is a voluntary choice

“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people.*946 The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”

[City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944 (1922)]

The law and government that a person voluntarily consents or “intends” to be subject to determines where their “legal home” is under this concept.  This choice must be completely voluntary and not subject to coercion or intimidation because all just powers of any free government derive from the "consent of the governed", as the Declaration of Independence indicates.  This form of consent is called "allegiance" in the legal field.  A voluntary choice of allegiance to a place amounts to a choice to join or associate with a group of people called a "state" and to respect, be subject to, and obey all positive laws passed by the citizens who dwell there.   The First Amendment guarantees us a right of free association, and therefore, only we can choose the group of people we wish to associate with and be protected by as a result of choosing a "domicile".  The First Amendment also guarantees us a right of freedom from "compelled association", which is the act of forcing a person to join or be part of any group, including a "state". 

Just as there is freedom to speak, to associate, and to believe, so also there is freedom not to speak, associate, or believe.  "The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking [on a government tax return, and in violation of the Fifth Amendment when coerced, for instance] are complementary components of the broader concept of 'individual freedom of mind.''  Wooley v. Maynard [430 U.S. 703] (1977).  Freedom of conscience dictates that no individual may be forced to espouse ideological causes with which he disagrees:

"[A]t the heart of the First Amendment is the notion that the individual should be free to believe as he will, and that in a free society one's beliefs should be shaped by his mind and by his conscience rather than coerced by the State [through illegal enforcement of the revenue laws]."   Abood v. Detroit Board of Education [431 U.S. 209] (1977)

Freedom from compelled association is a vital component of freedom of expression.  Indeed, freedom from compelled association illustrates the significance of the liberty or personal autonomy model of the First Amendment.  As a general constitutional principle, it is for the individual and not for the state to choose one's associations and to define the persona which he holds out to the world.
[First Amendment Law, Barron-Dienes, West Publishing, ISBN 0-314-22677-X, pp. 266-267]

Therefore, no government has lawful authority to compel us to choose a "domicile" that is within its legislative jurisdiction or to have allegiance towards it, because that would be compelled association.  The right to choose what political group or country we wish to join and have allegiance to and protection from also implies that we can reject all the earthly options and simply elect to join God's followers and be subject ONLY to His laws.  This type of government would be called a "theocracy".  This, in fact, is the goal of this entire publication: Establishing an ecclesiastical state separate from the corrupted governments that plague our land.  It is a stark reality that what you define as protection might amount to its opposite for someone else.  Therefore, each person is free to:

  1. Define what "protection" means to them.

  2. Choose to join a political group or country that agrees most with their definition of "protection".  This makes them into "nationals" of that country who profess "allegiance" to the "state" and thereby merit its protection.

  3. Choose a "domicile" within that country or group, and thereby become subject to its laws and a benefactor of its protection.

The notion of freedom to choose one's allegiances is a natural consequence of the fact that a "state" can consist of any number of people, from one person to millions or even billions of people.  The political landscape constantly changes precisely because people are constantly exercising their right to change their political associations.  A single person is free to create his own "state" and pass his own laws, and to choose a domicile within that created state.  The boundaries of that created "state" might include only himself, only his immediate family, or encompass an entire city, county, or district.  He might do this because he regards the society in which he lives to be so corrupt that it's laws, morality, and norms are injurious rather than protective.  Such a motive, in fact, is behind an effort called the "Free State Project", in which people are trying to get together to create a new and different type of state within the borders of our country.  The U.S. Supreme Court, in fact, has ruled that when the laws of a society become more injurious than protective to us personally, then we cease to have any obligation to obey them and may lawfully choose other allegiances and domiciles  that afford better protection.  To wit:

"By the surrender, the inhabitants passed under a temporary allegiance to the British government and were bound by such laws and such only as it chose to recognize and impose.  From the nature of the case, no other laws could be obligatory upon them, for where there is no protection or allegiance or sovereignty, there can be no claim to obedience.”

[Hanauer v. Woodruff, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 439 (1872)]

If a person decides that the laws and the people of the area in which he lives are injurious of his life, liberty, and property, then he is perfectly entitled to withhold his allegiance and shift his domicile to a place where better protection is afforded.  When a person has allegiance and domicile to a place or society other than where he lives, then he is considered "foreign" in that society and all people comprising that society become "foreigners" relative to him in such a case. He becomes a "transient foreigner" and the only laws that are obligatory upon him are the criminal laws and no other. Below is what the U.S. Supreme Court said about the right of people to choose to disassociate with such "foreigners" who can do them harm.  Note that they say the United States government has the right to exclude foreigners who are injurious.  This authority, it says, comes from the Constitution, which in turn was delegated by the Sovereign People.  The People cannot delegate an authority they do not have, therefore they must individually ALSO have this authority within their own private lives of excluding injurious peoples from their legal and political life by changing their domicile and citizenship.  This act of excluding such foreigners becomes what we call a “political divorce” and the result accomplishes the equivalent of “disconnecting from the government matrix”:

"The government, possessing the powers which are to be exercised for protection and security, is clothed with authority to determine the occasion on which the powers shall be called forth; and its determinations, so far as the subjects affected are concerned, are necessarily conclusive upon all its departments and officers. If, therefore, the government of the United States, through its legislative department, considers the presence of foreigners of a different race in this country, who will not assimilate with us, to be dangerous to its peace and security, their exclusion is not to be stayed because at the time there are no actual hostilities with the nation of which the foreigners are subjects. The existence of war would render the necessity of the proceeding only more obvious and pressing. The same necessity, in a less pressing degree, may arise when war does not exist, and the same authority which adjudges the necessity in one case must also determine it in the other. In both cases its determination is conclusive upon the judiciary. If the government of the country of which the foreigners excluded are subjects is dissatisfied with this action, it can make complaint to the executive head of our government, or resort to any other measure which, in its judgment, its interests or dignity may demand; and there lies its only remedy.

The power of the government to exclude foreigners from the country whenever, in its judgment, the public interests require such exclusion, has been asserted in repeated instances, [130 U.S. 581, 607]   and never denied by the executive or legislative departments.

[. . .]

The power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution, the right to its exercise at any time when, in the judgment of the government, the interests of the country require it, cannot be granted away or restrained on behalf of any one. The powers of government are delegated in trust to the United States, and are incapable of transfer to any other parties. They cannot be abandoned or surrendered. Nor can their exercise be hampered, when needed for the public good, by any considerations of private interest. The exercise of these public trusts is not the subject of barter or contract."
[Chae Chan Ping v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581 (1889)]

Notice above the phrase:

"