This is my first time posting, so please forgive any formatting issues. TLDR to start because your time is valuable, and this is a long post.
TLDR: I have seen no evidence to support that the US is a corporation. I have seen two main forms of proof, which I dispute below. Straight forward enough?
I am posting to address a theory that circulates on here every so often. I refer to what I will call the US Corporation theory. I don’t know if supporters have a different name for it, so apologies if it has a better name.
I may be mistaken, but I have also taken the US Corporation theory to include the Sovereign Citizen movement. I do this because when they quote law, they use similar references. Also, there is a lot of overlap between the two. Please correct me in the comments if these are independent and should be treated differently.
I was inspired to post by a video link posted in the comments here today. I am not linking to the comment, or the post they commented on because I am not “calling out” the poster, or insinuating that they glow like Chernobyl. I am assuming they are good folk, and not a clown.
I also want to say the video has some good info, just definitely not what I write about below. The link was to the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHl4j5xF-Js&t=12s&ab_channel=RageAgainstNWO
The video made two claims in particular that stood out to me. First, that the United States became a corporation under the Organic Act of 1871. Link to the current Federal Code, 28 U.S.C. 3002, which incorporates the Act of 1781, below:
The theory points to 28 U.S.C. 3002 Section 15. I am skipping Sections (1) through (14) here. You can find them at the link above.:
- Definitions
As used in this chapter:
…
(15) "United States" means—
(A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States.
Here’s the problem with interpreting United States means a Federal Corporation. See that part right at the beginning that says: “As used in this chapter”? Those are the definitions for this chapter. Not always, and not everywhere in the US Code – only for this chapter.
Second, that the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 confirms that the US was and is a British colony:
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/treaty-of-paris
You can scroll down to see a transcript of the document. The following is the part that I think the video refers to, very first paragraph:
“It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the Hearts of the most Serene and most Potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, Arch- Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc.. and of the United States of America, to forget all past Misunderstandings and Differences that have unhappily interrupted the good Correspondence and Friendship which they mutually wish to restore;”
The above reads as if the King of England is referred to as King or Price Elector of the United States. Keep in mind that this also says he is King of France, a country he was actively at war with, and who aided us in the Revolutionary War.
Next, go to Article 1 of the document:
“His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof.
Since I can’t format on this site for shit, let me just put some emphasis of my own:
His Brittanic Majesty
acknowledges
the said Unites States
to be free and sovereign Independent States
and for himself his Heirs & Successors
relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety and Territorial Rights of the Same and every Part thereof.
I think that wraps up the French Treaty part of the theory.
Please feel free to send me something else to look up for this. Give me legal citations to check. If you genuinely believe the US is a corporation, I truly want to look at your sources.
I am not a lawyer, but I do work in legal. I am passionate about the law, and I do not appreciate when people claim the law says one thing when it really says something else. That’s what Demonrats do.
Firstly, it'd be nice if people used the ACTUAL names of the legislative acts, as opposed to this misleading nicknames.
"Organic act" as a term of categorization, simply describes any legislation passed by Congress (and signed into law by POTUS) that establishes new territories under the jurisdiction of the USA and sets up laws for the governance of said territories. Literally all US territories, including those that would eventually become states, were established via "oganic acts." The following Acts referenced by the OP are all indeed "organic acts" but such words are not part of their title:
"Act for establishing the temporary and permanent seat of the Government of the United States" (1790)
"An Act Concerning the District of Columbia" (1801)
"An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia." (1871)
Simply put, Congress had the Article 1 Section 8 authority to establish a permanent seat of government for the USA. It did that.
The real constitutional questions that desire closer attention are:
1.) Does the Constitution authorize Congress to create law that DELEGATES away its power (and responsibility) "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)..."? I would argue, no, no it does not. Basically, Congress created laws to set up the District as a quasi-state. Over time, amendments and additional laws vested more and more power in the local bodies, but the problem is that the early Congresses seemingly set the whole issue down this path... there should be no legislative body in the District, aside from Congress.
2.) Is retrocession, by Congress, constitutional? An antebellum SCOTUS ruled yes, but that case was clearly biased as the slaver justices wanted VA to get its land back before Congress could ban slavery in the District. The correct answer, is that this is at best an implied power. Land ceded away, cannot be undone. When NC ceded part of its territory to the US to create TN it's gone. Congress isn't explicitly authorized to just give part of TN back to NC. When SC ceded the territory that became Fort Sumter, they couldn't just reclaim it under their [bullshit] argument that the state was no longer part of the USA... Lost Cause propaganda, SC never ceased being part of the USA, but rather devolved into a state of rebellion, but I digress... VA never should have gotten their ceded land back. MD shouldn't either, at least not via federal statute. HOWEVER, an amendment to the Constitution could certainly do the trick...
That all said, in the modern world, the District no longer functions as originally intended. All should agree that something needs to change, a true draining of the swamp.
A prudent solution would be an amendment to the Constitution to return the ceded territory back to the MD and VA, to be governed within their state jurisdiction as these cities/counties originally were.
Let the federal government retain possession of the monuments and federal buildings in current DC (white house, capitol, supreme court, etc), and the land they sit on, and preserve them as museums for educational purposes.
Congress could then establish a new "Seat of the Government of the United States." I'd recommend somewhere more centrally located, and quite literally in the middle nowhere to discourage swamp creatures from making it their permanent domicile.