Ok so I hear talk of this regularly now.

Show us the 2 constitutions? Show us the differences other than the claim of a Constitution "of" rather than "for" the States.

Show us how the organic act of 1871 establishes all this, USA Corp and so on.

If you've ever looked at that piece of legislation, which I have, you realize that it is so legalistic that you need a decoder ring to determine what it really says.

It may say exactly what people claim, but you need to have expertise to demonstrate this and I've never seen the demonstration.

I am totally onboard with the possibility and plausibility of this and its long term concealment from the public.

I've heard of lots of in depth explanations of how it all works, 3 city states, admiralty law and on and on, but NO concrete proof whatsoever.

This stuff about the distinction between a Constitution "for" vs. "of" the States does not wash with the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention(s) and all the history of the establishment of the original republican Constitution.

The Constitution did not establish a league or confederacy of states, it established a NEW NATION, not based on the authority of the states but on the sovereignty of THE PEOPLE. It obviously required state institutions to pass it, but the Convention asserted that the authority of the Constitution was drawn from the sovereignty of the people, explicitly and self-consciously bypassing state sovereignty. This is all grade school stuff really.

The thing that established a confederacy of states in which the primary sovereign entities were states, was the Articles of Confederation which everyone knows were superseded by the Constitution. This meant national sovereignty trumped state sovereignty and it derived from the people, not the states.

THIS ISSUE WAS MUCH DEBATED AT THE CONVENTION AND WAS A MAJOR BONE OF CONTENTION. IT WAS ALL VERY PUBLIC.

Those critical of the original Constitution, The Anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry, made JUST this criticism. He said effectively "Who is this "We The People" who authorize this document when it is clear that it is "We the States?!"

So there may be truth to this USA Inc , but there is also some bad history surrounding it.

Ok so I hear talk of this regularly now.

Show us the 2 constitutions? Show us the differences other than the claim of a Constitution "of" rather than "for" the States.

Show us how the organic act of 1871 establishes all this, USA Corp and so on.

I've you've ever look at that piece of legislation which I have you realize that it is so legalistic that you need a decoder ring to determine what it really says.

It may say exactly what people claim, but you need to have expertise to demonstrate this and I've never seen the demonstration.

I am totally onboard with the possibility and plausibility of this and its long term concealment from the public.

I've heard of lots of in depth explanations of how it all works, 3 city states, admiralty law and on and on, but NO concrete proof whatsoever.

This stuff about the distinction between a Constitution "for" vs. "of" the States does not wash with the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention(s) and all the history of the establishment of the original republican Constitution.

The Constitution did not establish a league or confederacy of states, it established a NEW NATION, not based on the authority of the states but on the sovereignty of THE PEOPLE. It obviously required state institutions to pass it, but the Convention asserted that the authority of the Constitution was drawn from the sovereignty of the people, explicitly and self-consciously bypassing state sovereignty. This is all grade school stuff really.

The thing that established a confederacy of states in which the primary sovereign entities were states, was the Articles of Confederation which everyone knows were superseded by the Constitution. This meant national sovereignty trumped state sovereignty and it derived from the people, not the states.

THIS ISSUE WAS MUCH DEBATED AT THE CONVENTION AND WAS A MAJOR BONE OF CONTENTION. IT WAS ALL VERY PUBLIC.

Those critical of the original Constitution, The Anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry, made JUST this criticism. He said effectively "Who is this "We The People" who authorize this document when it is clear that it is "We the States?!"

So there may be truth to this USA Inc , but there is also some bad history surrounding it.