You'll of course see that what it is is this: "That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes."
It states plainly that its venue is limited to this specific small area.
You may read the entire thing and will find not a single thing other than setting up a local government for this quite limited 10 square mile area. It covers absolutely nothing about the rest of the United States. It is local government only.
Municipal corporations are not unusual setups for local governments.
Of course you may do your own analysis, but if you'd like opinions from people who go by actual evidence not just whether they love the narrative and damn the evidence:
And stop and think about it. How is it even plausible that all Congress has to do is pass an Act and the President sign it and the Constitution and Republic are overthrown just like that? And on top of that, all it takes is for another person to sign something and the Republic is restored? How much sense does that make? Use logic.
That is magical, evidence-free thinking. At best it is misinfo. Arguably it is disinfo to make us look like idiots to our normie friends and neighbors when we go claiming "The US Corporation was dissolved and Trump is now the 19th President, Biden is president of nothing but a dissolved corporation!" You'll sound like a whacko. And if they take the time to go read the Act, you'll definitely appear utterly whacked. And that is the very idea of disinfo fed to us by controlled opposition. They give us some truth so we trust them, then they feed us utterly whacked stuff so we'll discredit ourselves and thus get nowhere when sharing real truth. Why listen to me about 9/11 or the stolen election etc when I just told you this objectively crazy thing?
It can't be backed up. Every citation you ever see will be assertions that will completely not match up with law when you go read the law.
Or will be obvious misinterpretations, such as citing laws having language stating that for purpose of law, the United States government includes where it is US government agency, where a US government corporation, where a Department of the US government, and one or two others as well. The Tennessee Valley Authority would be an example of a US Government corporation: there are many. No, that most certainly does not prove the claimed point nor does any law.
Quite likely I will be downvoted for saying this. In fact I was thrown off of Voat for saying it, after being downvoted to oblivion. However, there's the PDF of the Act you may read for yourself, and see if it is I that am telling the truth, or those who peddle this narrative.
Your information is correct. There are people promoting the "US Corp" narrative, and it is very unlikely.
The statute you cited is the correct statute, but nobody seems to want to read the ACTUAL law. Instead, they want to believe what they want to believe.
This is no different than refusing to find out about the true facts of Covid, face masks, etc.
This movement should be about research and facts, not make believe.
There is another issue with this law, and that is that it created the office of "governor" for the District of Columbia." DC does not have a governor, to my knowledge. It only has a mayor. That right there should be a red flag that something is not right.
I have read that this statute was either modified or repealed a few years later, but I don't have a cite for that.
The Statutes at Large are a problem because it is nearly impossible to wade through all the laws on any particular subject.
That's why they created the United States Code -- it is an index by subject matter for the Statutes at Large. But if a statute was repealed, good luck finding the original anywhere. It is in there somewhere, but like finding a needle in a haystack.
Regardless, if anyone can show who the Governor of DC is, then they might have a point. Otherwise, THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Now, having said all that, there is no question that there are individuals who, over time, created laws that falsely hint that jurisdiction exists within the states when in fact the law only applies to federal territory (which today is DC and a few islands -- Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, etc.).
In 1871, there were a lot more territories that belonged to the feds. Today, not so much. They DID obfuscate the facts of federal jurisidiction, but that doesn't really matter because the Constitution has not changed.
Anything done in violation of the Constitution is VOID.
BUT ...
We the People must enforce it. The government employees (for the most part) will not. To enforce it, one must learn it. To learn it, one must start by READING it. How many Americans have?
I would add, one must start by reading it with the view that words mean what they mean according to ordinary meaning of words and provable intent of the authors, not whatever you want to twist them to to suit your purposes.
E.g., "shall not be infringed" does not mean "shall be infringed."
Or, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized," does not mean "There is a Constitutional right to abortion, or even to late-term and partial-birth abortions."
The left long seized on a principle of reading anything to mean anything they want, so merely getting them to read something does nothing.
Another example right now would be Trump's impeachment. Actual words of any law do not matter to the left. Only their goals matter.
Fundamentally, no one who seriously argues it's valid to read things differently than what they say has any business holding any legislative office or judicial position.
Infiltration of the educational system by leftists (one can reasonably say Communists) is the cause of this or at the least enabled and promoted it. McCarthy was completely correct in this. It is a highly fundamental problem that I think we do not pay enough attention to.
I was weary about this line of inquiry right off the bat. It is a school of logic imported wholly from the sovereign citizen movement, who were equal parts incredibly obnoxious, pompous and stupid.
I think perhaps they either decided to piggy back on the GA thing or someone injected that line of thinking as a parasite, like you suggested.
Either way, echoing facts from Q/GA is already starting to make folk look silly because no big earth shattering disclosures/events have occurred.
Looks like it’ll be a slow drip where only lots of low level no-names pay the price. Nothing that will vindicate our wacky proclamations anyway
The first thing to do is to read the Act that's generally cited to support this: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/41st-congress/session-3/c41s3ch62.pdf
You'll of course see that what it is is this: "That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes."
It states plainly that its venue is limited to this specific small area.
You may read the entire thing and will find not a single thing other than setting up a local government for this quite limited 10 square mile area. It covers absolutely nothing about the rest of the United States. It is local government only.
Municipal corporations are not unusual setups for local governments.
Of course you may do your own analysis, but if you'd like opinions from people who go by actual evidence not just whether they love the narrative and damn the evidence:
http://annavonreitz.com/actof1871.pdf
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/rule-of-law/1871-act-making-dc-a-corporation/
And stop and think about it. How is it even plausible that all Congress has to do is pass an Act and the President sign it and the Constitution and Republic are overthrown just like that? And on top of that, all it takes is for another person to sign something and the Republic is restored? How much sense does that make? Use logic.
That is magical, evidence-free thinking. At best it is misinfo. Arguably it is disinfo to make us look like idiots to our normie friends and neighbors when we go claiming "The US Corporation was dissolved and Trump is now the 19th President, Biden is president of nothing but a dissolved corporation!" You'll sound like a whacko. And if they take the time to go read the Act, you'll definitely appear utterly whacked. And that is the very idea of disinfo fed to us by controlled opposition. They give us some truth so we trust them, then they feed us utterly whacked stuff so we'll discredit ourselves and thus get nowhere when sharing real truth. Why listen to me about 9/11 or the stolen election etc when I just told you this objectively crazy thing?
It can't be backed up. Every citation you ever see will be assertions that will completely not match up with law when you go read the law.
Or will be obvious misinterpretations, such as citing laws having language stating that for purpose of law, the United States government includes where it is US government agency, where a US government corporation, where a Department of the US government, and one or two others as well. The Tennessee Valley Authority would be an example of a US Government corporation: there are many. No, that most certainly does not prove the claimed point nor does any law.
Quite likely I will be downvoted for saying this. In fact I was thrown off of Voat for saying it, after being downvoted to oblivion. However, there's the PDF of the Act you may read for yourself, and see if it is I that am telling the truth, or those who peddle this narrative.
Your information is correct. There are people promoting the "US Corp" narrative, and it is very unlikely.
The statute you cited is the correct statute, but nobody seems to want to read the ACTUAL law. Instead, they want to believe what they want to believe.
This is no different than refusing to find out about the true facts of Covid, face masks, etc.
This movement should be about research and facts, not make believe.
There is another issue with this law, and that is that it created the office of "governor" for the District of Columbia." DC does not have a governor, to my knowledge. It only has a mayor. That right there should be a red flag that something is not right.
I have read that this statute was either modified or repealed a few years later, but I don't have a cite for that.
The Statutes at Large are a problem because it is nearly impossible to wade through all the laws on any particular subject.
That's why they created the United States Code -- it is an index by subject matter for the Statutes at Large. But if a statute was repealed, good luck finding the original anywhere. It is in there somewhere, but like finding a needle in a haystack.
Regardless, if anyone can show who the Governor of DC is, then they might have a point. Otherwise, THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Now, having said all that, there is no question that there are individuals who, over time, created laws that falsely hint that jurisdiction exists within the states when in fact the law only applies to federal territory (which today is DC and a few islands -- Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, etc.).
In 1871, there were a lot more territories that belonged to the feds. Today, not so much. They DID obfuscate the facts of federal jurisidiction, but that doesn't really matter because the Constitution has not changed.
Anything done in violation of the Constitution is VOID.
BUT ...
We the People must enforce it. The government employees (for the most part) will not. To enforce it, one must learn it. To learn it, one must start by READING it. How many Americans have?
I would add, one must start by reading it with the view that words mean what they mean according to ordinary meaning of words and provable intent of the authors, not whatever you want to twist them to to suit your purposes.
E.g., "shall not be infringed" does not mean "shall be infringed."
Or, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized," does not mean "There is a Constitutional right to abortion, or even to late-term and partial-birth abortions."
The left long seized on a principle of reading anything to mean anything they want, so merely getting them to read something does nothing.
Another example right now would be Trump's impeachment. Actual words of any law do not matter to the left. Only their goals matter.
Fundamentally, no one who seriously argues it's valid to read things differently than what they say has any business holding any legislative office or judicial position.
Infiltration of the educational system by leftists (one can reasonably say Communists) is the cause of this or at the least enabled and promoted it. McCarthy was completely correct in this. It is a highly fundamental problem that I think we do not pay enough attention to.
I was weary about this line of inquiry right off the bat. It is a school of logic imported wholly from the sovereign citizen movement, who were equal parts incredibly obnoxious, pompous and stupid.
I think perhaps they either decided to piggy back on the GA thing or someone injected that line of thinking as a parasite, like you suggested.
Either way, echoing facts from Q/GA is already starting to make folk look silly because no big earth shattering disclosures/events have occurred.
Looks like it’ll be a slow drip where only lots of low level no-names pay the price. Nothing that will vindicate our wacky proclamations anyway