This article just restates the same things we've already seen.
Like the capitalization thing...we never see any actual hardcore black and white legal documentation that definitively states that merely writing something in all caps changes the meaning of it in drastic ways.
It could, and that would be awesome and cement the theory. We just haven't seen the actual proof.
The phrasing of "These United States" to "The United States" makes it a singular entity, i.e. a corporation. WORDS HAVE POWER so sayeth a former radioman.. that is all it took to change it. How many times have lawyers used language to cheat in cases involving money???
It simply doesn't say what everyone here thinks it says. In fact, it's particular to specific location and authorities of the old County of Washington and the cities therein now called District of Columbia. It is a sort of constitution for the District of Columbia with many specifications.
Nowhere does it apply outside the District of Columbia. I don't see how it can be construed to have authority outside the District of Columbia.
Read it -- it's refreshingly plainly written with no legal mumbo jumbo at all.
OK but as I always ask, where is the proof?
This article just restates the same things we've already seen.
Like the capitalization thing...we never see any actual hardcore black and white legal documentation that definitively states that merely writing something in all caps changes the meaning of it in drastic ways.
It could, and that would be awesome and cement the theory. We just haven't seen the actual proof.
It was obscured by the damned politicians of the time to hide in plain sight-"The United States" versus "These United States" is the key..
READ THE LAW ITSELF. IT DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU THINK IT SAYS.
Sorry for the caps: it's the radioman in me.
The phrasing of "These United States" to "The United States" makes it a singular entity, i.e. a corporation. WORDS HAVE POWER so sayeth a former radioman.. that is all it took to change it. How many times have lawyers used language to cheat in cases involving money???
Okay . . . I guess . . . but look at the Public Law itself. I provided a link and repeat it here: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/41st-congress/session-3/c41s3ch62.pdf
It simply doesn't say what everyone here thinks it says. In fact, it's particular to specific location and authorities of the old County of Washington and the cities therein now called District of Columbia. It is a sort of constitution for the District of Columbia with many specifications.
Nowhere does it apply outside the District of Columbia. I don't see how it can be construed to have authority outside the District of Columbia.
Read it -- it's refreshingly plainly written with no legal mumbo jumbo at all.