Perversly, it had nothing to do with the Constitution.
Most folks don’t realize it’s NOT the US Code, but the Code of Federal Regulations where the answers can be found.
The main question, I believe, was whether or not the gentleman involved was an ‘employer’ as defined by the code.
The fact is, you are only an employer or an employee if you are within the ‘United States.’
BUT
Both the United States and State are defined as 'include the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States, and (when used with respect to services performed after 1960) Guam and American Samoa.
The single place it differs is in the Railroad Retirement Act (Chapter 221 Sec.31.3306)
(s)The term United States when used in a geographical sense means the States.
So most people are not 'employees' or 'employers' as defined by the code.
YET ANOTHER tax protester tactic: take an obscure reference out of context and contend that it determines something it doesn't.
So I can redefine my relationship to my employer because of the Railroad Retirement Act?
This is really getting entertaining.