Which claim? That the constitution was instituted in 1789 and not 1776, or that the founding fathers were generally dead by 1871, almost a century after American independence?
If you're asking me to prove that Washington DC isn't owned by the Vatican or London - the obvious response is that it's not even clear what this claim would mean, legally. It was established as a US municipal corporation in 1871. Nothing about Vatican or London sovereignty or "ownership" (which itself is a bizarre claim; municipal corporations don't have "owners" in the first place).
Hey Dingle berry, balls whatever your name is ........you are a fucking bore dude!!!I Take it somewhere else!! The information is there, don't be fucking lazy!!
It's Old Latin for 'tongue' or 'language', but naturally you wouldn't know that.
you are a fucking bore dude!!!I
Because I'm actually acquainted with US law and legal history?
Take it somewhere else!! The information is there, don't be fucking lazy!!
I'm not lazy; I'm pointing out that the "information" is not only wrong, but laughably so. Do you think that the constitution was instituted in 1776, and not 1789, then? That's embarrassing.
Washington DC is a municipal corporation under the sovereignty of the United States, which is blindingly obvious from the fact that it's under US jurisdiction - hence the enforcement of US laws within its confines, by US courts, and not the British or Vatican ones. The idea that the British or Vatican "own" Washington DC is also, frankly, embarrassing, since, y'know, municipal corporations don't have owners.
Like, it's not controversial that the constitution was instituted in 1789. It's a basic fact of American history. Nor does anyone think that the British courts are hearing cases that take place in DC, or that people in DC obey British laws, etc. Do you believe otherwise? If so, why?
No, the United States did not default on its sovereign debt obligations in 1913, nor did the English establish sovereignty in the federal district of Washington DC at that time - that's an idea which is patently ridiculous, given that Washington DC has been governed by US federal law and courts, not British ones.
No government or court in the United States or the United Kingdom considers DC to be sovereign territory of any nation other than the United States.
Here's a novel idea that is practiced here.You don't get to show up demanding proof.You have to prove your statements.Autocrat,"I'm educated" language ain't gonna fly whistle britches.
I could set up a website claiming my cat is Grand Emperor of the Solar System and that her rule supersedes that of :Russel-Jay: Gould, and that you must surrender your banking info to her forthwith. This info is being suppressed by MSM and academia, which you and I know fully well are fake, so it must be true.
You do believe that, don't you?
Which claim? That the constitution was instituted in 1789 and not 1776, or that the founding fathers were generally dead by 1871, almost a century after American independence?
If you're asking me to prove that Washington DC isn't owned by the Vatican or London - the obvious response is that it's not even clear what this claim would mean, legally. It was established as a US municipal corporation in 1871. Nothing about Vatican or London sovereignty or "ownership" (which itself is a bizarre claim; municipal corporations don't have "owners" in the first place).
Also thanks for the proof!
You're welcome.
Hey Dingle berry, balls whatever your name is ........you are a fucking bore dude!!!I Take it somewhere else!! The information is there, don't be fucking lazy!!
It's Old Latin for 'tongue' or 'language', but naturally you wouldn't know that.
Because I'm actually acquainted with US law and legal history?
I'm not lazy; I'm pointing out that the "information" is not only wrong, but laughably so. Do you think that the constitution was instituted in 1776, and not 1789, then? That's embarrassing.
Washington DC is a municipal corporation under the sovereignty of the United States, which is blindingly obvious from the fact that it's under US jurisdiction - hence the enforcement of US laws within its confines, by US courts, and not the British or Vatican ones. The idea that the British or Vatican "own" Washington DC is also, frankly, embarrassing, since, y'know, municipal corporations don't have owners.
Like, it's not controversial that the constitution was instituted in 1789. It's a basic fact of American history. Nor does anyone think that the British courts are hearing cases that take place in DC, or that people in DC obey British laws, etc. Do you believe otherwise? If so, why?
These beliefs are embarrassing.
LMAO you asked the guy to prove the kid wrong, he proceeded to do so, and now you call him a 'bore' because you have absolutely no rebuttal.
Wrong Get your facts straight
Huh? Which of those claims are you disputing?
No, the United States did not default on its sovereign debt obligations in 1913, nor did the English establish sovereignty in the federal district of Washington DC at that time - that's an idea which is patently ridiculous, given that Washington DC has been governed by US federal law and courts, not British ones.
No government or court in the United States or the United Kingdom considers DC to be sovereign territory of any nation other than the United States.
Here's a novel idea that is practiced here.You don't get to show up demanding proof.You have to prove your statements.Autocrat,"I'm educated" language ain't gonna fly whistle britches.
?
Well, at least you understand very well why nobody takes you seriously.
The postmaster-general-of-the-world? Are you twelve? That is a random crackpot, and you take it seriously?
Why?
I could set up a website claiming my cat is Grand Emperor of the Solar System and that her rule supersedes that of :Russel-Jay: Gould, and that you must surrender your banking info to her forthwith. This info is being suppressed by MSM and academia, which you and I know fully well are fake, so it must be true.
You do believe that, don't you?