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I have read that this statute was either modified or repealed a few years later, but I don't have a cite for that.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 But if a statute was repealed, good luck finding the original anywhere.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.
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.