I am not sure what "meaning" you are talking about. If you mean the document provided, I look at everything through the lens of BLD. Not that I've memorized the entire BLD, but I have read so much of it, and so much of US law in general, I understand fairly well what things mean "within the law" just on cursory examination. Not to suggest that I will necessarily catch everything, but it is always the lens through which I read.
I agree that using BLD is (generally) the best way to interpret the law (because that is how it is done in our courts), but the surrounding context of society at the time is also crucial. In this case however, the document linked to is not complicated (at least not in any obvious way) and in no way provides any link to the D.C. municipal corporation (never mentioned or alluded to) nor does it discuss US bankruptcy. On the contrary, it seems very focused on getting reparations from Britain, through Treaty, for it's complicity in damages during the Civil War.
That doesn't mean there is no connection given some larger context, but that larger context is not contained within the document itself as far as I could find.
The larger context is the United States Corporation and the British Crown renegotiated everything, including fishing rights, because the United States Corporation was a new entity.
No special twists of meaning when the entire subject matter of the treaty concerns debts, territory boundaries, and the appointment of commissioners to determine details. (I went through all 43 articles.)
Did you read the treaty? Prove me wrong. Distressingly typical response of a know-nothing: avoid the actual issue and cast an imprecation against the speaker.
What's there to prove? That you wasted your time reading 43 articles and missed the forest for the trees?
You already admitted that.
Why would the United States and England need to renegotiate everything, including fishing rights, after the US declared itself to be a corporation? All you read is proof that the renegotiation happened.
And let's not forget there was a third party involved in those negotiations, and that was a representative of the Vatican, which was exercising its temporal power through Spain at that time.
the third Commissioner shall be named by the Representative at Washington of His Majesty the King of Spain.
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
Are you going by common definitions of words, or using Black's Law Dictionary to break down the meaning?
Makes a big difference.
I am not sure what "meaning" you are talking about. If you mean the document provided, I look at everything through the lens of BLD. Not that I've memorized the entire BLD, but I have read so much of it, and so much of US law in general, I understand fairly well what things mean "within the law" just on cursory examination. Not to suggest that I will necessarily catch everything, but it is always the lens through which I read.
I agree that using BLD is (generally) the best way to interpret the law (because that is how it is done in our courts), but the surrounding context of society at the time is also crucial. In this case however, the document linked to is not complicated (at least not in any obvious way) and in no way provides any link to the D.C. municipal corporation (never mentioned or alluded to) nor does it discuss US bankruptcy. On the contrary, it seems very focused on getting reparations from Britain, through Treaty, for it's complicity in damages during the Civil War.
That doesn't mean there is no connection given some larger context, but that larger context is not contained within the document itself as far as I could find.
The larger context is the United States Corporation and the British Crown renegotiated everything, including fishing rights, because the United States Corporation was a new entity.
Ground rules had to be established.
No special twists of meaning when the entire subject matter of the treaty concerns debts, territory boundaries, and the appointment of commissioners to determine details. (I went through all 43 articles.)
You don't even believe Q's real.
Nobody cares.
Did you read the treaty? Prove me wrong. Distressingly typical response of a know-nothing: avoid the actual issue and cast an imprecation against the speaker.
What's there to prove? That you wasted your time reading 43 articles and missed the forest for the trees?
You already admitted that.
Why would the United States and England need to renegotiate everything, including fishing rights, after the US declared itself to be a corporation? All you read is proof that the renegotiation happened.
And let's not forget there was a third party involved in those negotiations, and that was a representative of the Vatican, which was exercising its temporal power through Spain at that time.
(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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002