Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
A student in one of my constitution classes that I teach in Southern California asked a common question I get about if the United States is a corporation. What does it mean to be a sovereign citizen, sovereign national, or state national? This time, however, the question was spurned by an article in the Epoch Times, an outlet I respect and trust; and after reading the article I am disappointed in the fact that the Epoch Times fell for the inaccurate and poorly presented theory that takes small bits of truth and forces it all into an overall conspiracy that is untrue, and a distraction to the people who should be taking the freedom movement in the United States seriously.
https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/the-usa-inc-reporter-exposes-how-america-was-hijacked-turned-into-a-corporation-during-civil-war_4846001.html
I will make a video later to address each point from the article later. What follows is a general response to the overall suggestion that the United States has become a corporation over the last two and a half centuries.
I have spent many debates arguing that the United States is not a corporation, and the fact that this conspiracy theory has taken off as it has drives me nuts. People are angry and they are looking for answers, but while they are spinning their wheels with the false narrative they have removed themselves from where the fight really is.
I will do a video, but here's a quick rundown:
The word "corporation" has many meanings, and does not always, and has not always, meant multi-national business entity that colludes with government or enjoys limited liabilities. The first "corporation" to truly become such an entity was U.S. Steel around 1905. Prior to that, such entities were called "trusts". While the word "corporation" was used also to describe a large business entity (The West India Trading Company was known as a "corporation" during the early years of English colonization of the New World) it was not commonly used, and the word corporation had a more general meaning, and was more often applied politically than it was to business entities.
The word "corporation" does indeed appear in the 1801 and 1871 Organic Acts, which were used to monkey with the District of Columbia. In the case of 1801 the district was divided into two counties in order to establish additional federal judicial offices. The Adams administration and the Federalist Party, which were Alexander Hamilton allies/minions, chose to, after losing the White House to Thomas Jefferson and both Houses of Congress to his Republican Party, pack the entire court system. Through the 1801 Organic Act they doubled the number of circuit courts, nearly tripled the number of district courts, and added a number of other federal offices including justice of the peace such as was offered to William Marbury who later sued James Madison for not delivering his judicial commission in the infamous Marbury v. Madison case of 1803 (from which the unconstitutional practice of judicial review was codified by the courts as a power for themselves). The word used for the two new counties in Washington D.C. was "corporation" because they became incorporated counties. A quick look at the 1828 Webster's Dictionary reveals the first definition of a corporation as being, "A body politic or corporate, formed and authorized by law to act as a single person; a society having the capacity of transacting business as an individual." Later in the information provided it states, "Such corporations are the mayor and aldermen of cities..."
In the 1871 Organic Act the law turned the area around the original seat of government district into the "City of Washington D.C.," which "incorporated" it as a city. Again, the word "corporation" was used, but in this case, it states that Washington D.C. was to become a "municipal corporation." Again, this does not mean that the city, nor the country, became a corporate entity in a manner similar to the way we may see "corporation" today. It is inaccurate to even consider calling the U.S. a corporation as a result.
As for being a "sovereign citizen", the sovereignty of human beings is God-given and a part of our Natural Rights, which is connected to Natural Law. No country or entity can take away our sovereignty as individuals, but, as with our rights, they may commit actions that may block our access to our sovereignty or natural rights. It is our responsibility to ensure government operates as we want it to. Maintaining natural law is a responsibility and duty that we possess, not something we should abandon by claiming we are sovereigns outside the system as sovereign nationals like to say. Or, as I like to put it, the way to stop an out-of-control vehicle is not to jump out and stand in front of it. We need to stay inside the system and work to reduce its speed and ultimately apply the brakes so that we may redirect its path.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
I will make a video later to address each point from the article later. What follows is a general response to the overall suggestion that the United States has become a corporation over the last two and a half centuries.
I have spent many debates arguing that the United States is not a corporation, and the fact that this conspiracy theory has taken off as it has drives me nuts. People are angry and they are looking for answers, but while they are spinning their wheels with the false narrative they have removed themselves from where the fight really is.
I will do a video, but here's a quick rundown:
The word "corporation" has many meanings, and does not always, and has not always, meant multi-national business entity that colludes with government or enjoys limited liabilities. The first "corporation" to truly become such an entity was U.S. Steel around 1905. Prior to that, such entities were called "trusts". While the word "corporation" was used also to describe a large business entity (The West India Trading Company was known as a "corporation" during the early years of English colonization of the New World) it was not commonly used, and the word corporation had a more general meaning, and was more often applied politically than it was to business entities.
The word "corporation" does indeed appear in the 1801 and 1871 Organic Acts, which were used to monkey with the District of Columbia. In the case of 1801 the district was divided into two counties in order to establish additional federal judicial offices. The Adams administration and the Federalist Party, which were Alexander Hamilton allies/minions, chose to, after losing the White House to Thomas Jefferson and both Houses of Congress to his Republican Party, pack the entire court system. Through the 1801 Organic Act they doubled the number of circuit courts, nearly tripled the number of district courts, and added a number of other federal offices including justice of the peace such as was offered to William Marbury who later sued James Madison for not delivering his judicial commission in the infamous Marbury v. Madison case of 1803 (from which the unconstitutional practice of judicial review was codified by the courts as a power for themselves). The word used for the two new counties in Washington D.C. was "corporation" because they became incorporated counties. A quick look at the 1828 Webster's Dictionary reveals the first definition of a corporation as being, "A body politic or corporate, formed and authorized by law to act as a single person; a society having the capacity of transacting business as an individual." Later in the information provided it states, "Such corporations are the mayor and aldermen of cities..."
In the 1871 Organic Act the law turned the area around the original seat of government district into the "City of Washington D.C.," which "incorporated" it as a city. Again, the word "corporation" was used, but in this case, it states that Washington D.C. was to become a "municipal corporation." Again, this does not mean that the city, nor the country, became a corporate entity in a manner similar to the way we may see "corporation" today. It is inaccurate to even consider calling the U.S. a corporation as a result.
As for being a "sovereign citizen", the sovereignty of human beings is God-given and a part of our Natural Rights, which is connected to Natural Law. No country or entity can take away our sovereignty as individuals, but, as with our rights, they may commit actions that may block our access to our sovereignty or natural rights. It is our responsibility to ensure government operates as we want it to. Maintaining natural law is a responsibility and duty that we possess, not something we should abandon by claiming we are sovereigns outside the system as sovereign nationals like to say. Or, as I like to put it, the way to stop an out-of-control vehicle is not to jump out and stand in front of it. We need to stay inside the system and work to reduce its speed and ultimately apply the brakes so that we may redirect its path.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment