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
Nothing to prove, especially by you, since you must not have read it.
What are you talking about? There is no reference to the United States being or declaring itself a "corporation." There is no reference to "renegotiate everything." This had to do with tidying up a number of things that had been left hanging in abeyance (there was no original negotiation). This was a pretty common necessity ever since the U.S. won its independence. (One of the outcomes of the subsequent negotiations was the adoption of the 49th parallel as the border between the U.S. and Canada, westward of a certain known point, and the determination of the ownership of the San Juan islands. This resulted in the unforeseen anomaly of Point Roberts, accessible only through Canada.)
This treaty only set up the framework for negotiations to occur in the future. No settlement negotiation occurred in this treaty, and it is NOT "proof that the renegotiation happened." You are so far off base, it is clear you don't understand it at all.
Any third party involved in the negotiations was part of a forthcoming event. This treaty only specified that there would be one, a supposedly neutral party acceptable to both the U.S. and Great Britain. Do you have any evidence that it was a representative of the Vatican? And what difference did it make to the matters to be discussed?
A "corporation" is any collective body having identity as a legal entity. The U.S., by virtue of its constitution is a "corporation" in that general sense. When municipalities are formed, they are "incorporated" as the City of Federal Way, or the City of Auburn. It has nothing in common with commercial corporations, which are creatures of government permission.
I didn't miss a damn thing, and I notice you have nothing to say about what I supposedly missed.
We can replace your bullshit with a fact check, since you will deny the Organic Act of 1871 has any meaning whatsoever other than what this fact check says.
You're 100% wrong, unless you're claiming the year 1871 came before 1818.
Oh wait, they subsequently renegotiated the 49th parallel because the United States was now a corporation and they forgot to add that part in the 43 articles.
The Organic Act of 1871 establishes the municipality of Washington DC as "part of the territory of the United States." It has no other meaning, and you haven't shown any.
So they reaffirmed the border. So what? They did award the San Juan islands to the U.S., which didn't happen in 1818, Since I happen to live here, it has meaning for me.
The 43 articles of the Washington Treaty of 1871 had nothing to do with the U.S. as a corporation (in the business sense of the word) and did not itself deal with resolution of border questions.
I can feel your huffing and puffing from here. Drink some cold water or something. You don't have a speck of evidence to support your brain fever. I almost expect you to claim the negotiators were reptillians.
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
Nothing to prove, especially by you, since you must not have read it.
What are you talking about? There is no reference to the United States being or declaring itself a "corporation." There is no reference to "renegotiate everything." This had to do with tidying up a number of things that had been left hanging in abeyance (there was no original negotiation). This was a pretty common necessity ever since the U.S. won its independence. (One of the outcomes of the subsequent negotiations was the adoption of the 49th parallel as the border between the U.S. and Canada, westward of a certain known point, and the determination of the ownership of the San Juan islands. This resulted in the unforeseen anomaly of Point Roberts, accessible only through Canada.)
This treaty only set up the framework for negotiations to occur in the future. No settlement negotiation occurred in this treaty, and it is NOT "proof that the renegotiation happened." You are so far off base, it is clear you don't understand it at all.
Any third party involved in the negotiations was part of a forthcoming event. This treaty only specified that there would be one, a supposedly neutral party acceptable to both the U.S. and Great Britain. Do you have any evidence that it was a representative of the Vatican? And what difference did it make to the matters to be discussed?
A "corporation" is any collective body having identity as a legal entity. The U.S., by virtue of its constitution is a "corporation" in that general sense. When municipalities are formed, they are "incorporated" as the City of Federal Way, or the City of Auburn. It has nothing in common with commercial corporations, which are creatures of government permission.
I didn't miss a damn thing, and I notice you have nothing to say about what I supposedly missed.
We can replace your bullshit with a fact check, since you will deny the Organic Act of 1871 has any meaning whatsoever other than what this fact check says.
https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/01/fact-check-act-of-1871-did-not-establish-the-united-states-as-a-corporation.html
u/#wrong
You're 100% wrong, unless you're claiming the year 1871 came before 1818.
Oh wait, they subsequently renegotiated the 49th parallel because the United States was now a corporation and they forgot to add that part in the 43 articles.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/convention-of-1818
The Organic Act of 1871 establishes the municipality of Washington DC as "part of the territory of the United States." It has no other meaning, and you haven't shown any.
So they reaffirmed the border. So what? They did award the San Juan islands to the U.S., which didn't happen in 1818, Since I happen to live here, it has meaning for me.
The 43 articles of the Washington Treaty of 1871 had nothing to do with the U.S. as a corporation (in the business sense of the word) and did not itself deal with resolution of border questions.
I can feel your huffing and puffing from here. Drink some cold water or something. You don't have a speck of evidence to support your brain fever. I almost expect you to claim the negotiators were reptillians.