“The government has deemed itself a person and therefore believes it has the right to use the term as it is applied to persons becaue the term as it is applied to states & governments is too limited.”
Of late I’ve been using a similar notion: Sovereignty.
One of the principal causes for the American Revolution was the growing awareness that the Crown and its Ministers (or even Jurist) could essentially recast the English constitution at will to suit them.
They could do this because the King was a Sovereign and his Ministers and Jurist were able to exercise this Sovereignty on his behalf.
But the United States federal government is more akin to a chartered corporation than a Sovereign Person (which may help raise your point to its clearest light). Thus Chief Justice John Marshall wrote: “The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.”
... and as for the rule of the courts, Marshall wrote: “From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.”
So there is no hint, especially under Marbury when taken in proper context, that the federal is to be sovereign over itself — to be able to further establish and define its powers by ordinary means available at its disposal (legislation, executive orders, opinions and the like).
THAT power, Sovereignty over the Constitution, IS retained within the specific context of Article 5 and Article 5 alone.
That means that ultimately WE THE PEOPLE are Sovereign over our government (echoing the DoI no less) but only within a specific context (amendment ... not mere elections) are we able to work out that Sovereignty for ourselves and our Posterity.
Chief Justice John Jay stated in his deciding opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:
[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…
[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…] they have NO power to force us to purchase anything just because we are citizens or inhabitants. This is further upheld in the constitution by the 14th, the 15th & the 24th amendments. Our God given liberties & rights under the constitution can not be abridged by threats of fines, imprisonment or taxes levied against our property. Therefore mandates that come with threats of fines/taxes/imprisonment affixed against those who choose not to purchase the type of insurance the govt deems they should is WHOLLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. HARPER v. VIRGINIA BD. OF ELECTIONS, 383 U.S. 663 (1966)
This legislation is race based and is choked full of immunities for certain 'classes' of people and it WILL be defeated. Either in Congress or in the courts.