Prove him wrong about what? Do you think that the constitution was instituted in 1776, and not 1789, then? That's embarrassing. Washington DC is a municipal corporation under the sovereignty of the United States, which is blindingly obvious from the fact that it's under US jurisdiction - hence the enforcement of US laws within its confines, by US courts, and not the British or Vatican ones. The idea that the British or Vatican "own" Washington DC is also, frankly, embarrassing, since, y'know, municipal corporations don't have owners. Why on earth are you asking me for proof that he's wrong, as opposed to proof that any of these ridiculous claims he's making are true? Like, it's not controversial that the constitution was instituted in 1789. It's a basic fact of American history. Nor does anyone think that the British courts are hearing cases that take place in DC, or that people in DC obey British laws, etc. Do you believe otherwise? If so, why? These beliefs are embarrassing.

Prove him wrong about what? Do you think that the constitution was instituted in 1776, and not 1789, then? That's embarrassing. Washington DC is a municipal corporation under the sovereignty of the United States, which is blindingly obvious from the fact that it's under US jurisdiction - hence the enforcement of US laws within its confines, by US courts, and not the British or Vatican ones. The idea that the British or Vatican "own" Washington DC is also, frankly, embarrassing, since, y;know, municipal corporations don't have owners.

Why on earth are you asking me for proof that he's wrong, as opposed to proof that any of these ridiculous claims he's making are true? Like, it's not controversial that the constitution was instituted in 1789. It's a basic fact of American history. Nor does anyone think that the British courts are hearing cases that take place in DC, or that people in DC obey British laws, etc. Do you believe otherwise? If so, why?

These beliefs are embarrassing.