The U.S. Constitution provided for a federal district under the exclusive jurisdiction of U.S. Congress; the district is therefore not a part of any U.S. state. The signing of the Residence Act on July 16, 1790, approved the creation of a capital district located along the Potomac River near the country's East Coast.
Embassies and missions, all sovereign and not subject to US federal law. Additionally, DC Mayor told feds to stand down, so how can she do that if the feds are in control of DC?
He said DC was placed as collateral for a loan and therefore is under the control / owned by a foreign nation - I know it feels good to have an expert first rebuttal but pay attention to what was said before doing so
Kind of why they'd be checking IDs of people leaving (was reported before) as they are entering the real USA when they depart the DC Zone.
Coincides with this here, Act of 1871
We had this discussion about 3 nights back
Its owned by the corp of london ding dongs he's right OP
And this here too
The U.S. Constitution provided for a federal district under the exclusive jurisdiction of U.S. Congress; the district is therefore not a part of any U.S. state. The signing of the Residence Act on July 16, 1790, approved the creation of a capital district located along the Potomac River near the country's East Coast.
Is it sovereign?
What about the other 185 nations that are part of DC, as sovereigns?
Embassies and missions, all sovereign and not subject to US federal law. Additionally, DC Mayor told feds to stand down, so how can she do that if the feds are in control of DC?
He said DC was placed as collateral for a loan and therefore is under the control / owned by a foreign nation - I know it feels good to have an expert first rebuttal but pay attention to what was said before doing so