Prove him wrong about what? 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.
Why on earth are you asking me for proof that he's wrong, as opposed to proof that any of these ridiculous claims he's making are true? 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.
Incorporation is always subject to the law of the incorporating jurisdiction. There's nothing strange about DC in that regard; it's a perfectly standard US municipal corporation that happens to be set up as a federal district.
This would be nice until you read the full history of Lincoln and you then understand how and why he was assassinated. I'd look up Charles Chiniquy and his relationship with the Vatican and Lincoln and how their entire story entwines and sadly involves the assassination of the most prolific and Godly president we've ever had at that point.
Prove him wrong about what? 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. Why on earth are you asking me for proof that he's wrong, as opposed to proof that any of these ridiculous claims he's making are true? 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.
Why couldn't the corporation charter itself to obey sovereign US law with the right to revoke such election?
Incorporation is always subject to the law of the incorporating jurisdiction. There's nothing strange about DC in that regard; it's a perfectly standard US municipal corporation that happens to be set up as a federal district.
This would be nice until you read the full history of Lincoln and you then understand how and why he was assassinated. I'd look up Charles Chiniquy and his relationship with the Vatican and Lincoln and how their entire story entwines and sadly involves the assassination of the most prolific and Godly president we've ever had at that point.