:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

We hold Free Conference Calls every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time); excluding emergencies and national holidays.

Join us on, and invite your friends to, our next Conference Call!

Call: (857) 232-0158; use the Conference Access Code: 110045.

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:

After reading this announcement, you may remove it by clicking the “X” in the upper right corner of the announcement's green background.

Happened upon this Supreme Court decision...

This forum is for topics not listed below.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Twodog
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 32
Joined: Thursday March 15th, 2007 9:08 pm MDT

Happened upon this Supreme Court decision...

Postby Twodog » Thursday March 22nd, 2007 7:10 am MDT

I was reading through some Supreme Court decisions and happened upon this. It's the only government document I've come across (so far) that specifically addresses the Organic Act of 1871 and the creation of Corp US.

Just out of curiosity, why would it read "Congress had power to delegate" instead of "Congress had THE power to delegate"?
U.S. Supreme Court wrote:DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. THOMPSON CO., 346 U.S. 100 (1953)
346 U.S. 100

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. JOHN R. THOMPSON CO., INC.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No. 617.
Argued April 30, May 1, 1953.
Decided June 8, 1953.

1. Under Art. I, 8, cl. 17 of the Federal Constitution, Congress had power to delegate its lawmaking authority to the Legislative Assembly of the municipal corporation created by the Organic Act of 1871 for the government of the District of Columbia. Pp. 104-110.

a) The power of Congress under Art. I, 8, cl. 17 of the Constitution to grant self-government to the District of Columbia is as great as its authority to do so in the case of territories. Pp. 106-107.

(b) The power of Congress over the District of Columbia relates not only to "national power" but to all the powers of legislation which may be exercised by a state in dealing with its affairs. P. 108.

(c) The Constitution does not preclude delegation by Congress to the District of Columbia of full legislative power, subject to constitutional limitations to which all lawmaking is subservient and to the power of Congress at any time to revise, alter, or revoke the authority granted. Pp. 108-109.

(d) In the provision of Art. I, 8, cl. 17 of the Constitution, empowering Congress "To exercise exclusive Legislation" over the District of Columbia, the word "exclusive" was employed to eliminate any possibility that the legislative power of Congress over the District would be deemed concurrent with that of the ceding states; and it does not make the power nondelegable. Pp. 109-110.

The history of congressional legislation dealing with the District of Columbia begins with the Act of July 16, 1790, 1 Stat. 130, by which the District was established as the permanent seat of the Government of the United States. We need not review for the purposes of this case the variety of congressional enactments pertaining to the management of the affairs of the District between that date and 1871. It is with the Organic Act of February 21, 1871, 16 Stat. 419, that we are particularly concerned.

That Act created a government by the name of the District of Columbia, constituted it "a body corporate for municipal purposes" with all of the powers of a municipal corporation "not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act," and gave it jurisdiction over all the territory within the limits of the District.
Just thought this may be of some interest.

Lou, a.k.a. Twodog

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1577
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Happened upon this Supreme Court decision...

Postby Admin » Thursday March 22nd, 2007 10:16 am MDT

:h: Twodog:
The choice of language used by the Supreme Court was simply their choice. The absence of the extra “THE” you suggested has no bearing either on the outcome of the sentence nor would it enhance what they ruled in any way. There certainly would be no point in the all capitalization emphasis you showed, which we expect you used for emphasis to point out the difference between what they stated and what you suggested. We take no meaning from what they did not rule and only look at the ruling considering what they did rule. Their reference to the congressional authority was a reference to the authority Congress had in the past. The fact that that authority would remain with that Congress has no bearing on the matter and nothing should be taken from what they stated. The authority they referenced was in fact granted to Congress as they stated so their language pattern is correct.

It is also important to remember, the District of Columbia was municipally incorporated as the seat of the nation’s government in the District of Columbia Organization Act of 1801, et seq. Thereafter, the United States Supreme Court consistently recognized that Act as the incorporation act for the District of Columbia. Accordingly, considering that the District was already incorporated in 1801, and nothing was changed from that original (organic) Act, what was done in 1871 cannot have been the incorporation of a new municipality when that very thing was already done in 1801.

The bottom line: when the municipal corporation already exists, as constituted, you cannot create it, because it already exists. Accordingly, the term “municipal corporation” as used in the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 must have a different meaning. And, the only meaning that remains is a private corporation owned by the District of Columbia municipality that already existed.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Rosco1733
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Saturday February 3rd, 2007 3:46 am MST

Postby Rosco1733 » Saturday March 24th, 2007 6:36 pm MDT

Wow so let me see if I understand. In the Organic Act of 1871, the District of Columbia created a corporation called District of Columbia, with a legislative body and government, the members of which were also the members of the government of the United States of America?

If I'm correct, does that also mean that all laws created by this corporation since 1871 are merely the laws of the corporation known as District of Columbia and not the laws of the United States of America, and as long as we are not in contract with this corporation, we are not subject to its laws? But how do we know which laws passed are laws of the United States of America or the laws of the said corporation?

If I'm wrong, then swiftly rebuke me and send me back to reread everything.

Gabo
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 41
Joined: Friday September 16th, 2005 7:27 pm MDT

Postby Gabo » Sunday March 25th, 2007 12:36 am MDT

As to your statement, it seems fairly accurate to me.
One note, though. Congress created the corporation in the Act using its power of "exclusive legislation" over the District of Columbia.
It would follow that any legislation drafted by the district government would only affect the district and those in contract with it.
"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure."
- Helen Keller

Brinton2000
Restricted Access
Posts: 47
Joined: Monday February 19th, 2007 7:22 am MST

Happened upon this Supreme Court decision...

Postby Brinton2000 » Monday March 26th, 2007 6:30 am MDT

Hmm...I thought that in 1871 the corp was established to do the business of the original jurisdiction US government and that the congress was seated in both the corporation and the original jurisdiction government. When the corporation was quitclaimed to the IMF is when the corporation became foreign and had to sever all ties with the original jurisdiction government. So I think the laws the congress made after 1871 were valid (as laws for the OJ and Corp. US) until the quitclaim to the IMF.

Admin, Please correct this if I am wrong.
"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace."

Gabo
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 41
Joined: Friday September 16th, 2005 7:27 pm MDT

Postby Gabo » Monday March 26th, 2007 9:12 am MDT

Anytime Congress passes a law that's outside its enumerated powers, the law could have only been passed under their exclusive jurisdiction of the District of Columbia.

For example, say Congress passed a law requiring men to wear hats on Tuesdays.
Since it doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that Congress has such a power, the law could have only been passed under Congress' right to exercise exclusive legislation over the District of Columbia (and therefore would only be applicable there).
"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure."

- Helen Keller

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1577
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Postby Admin » Wednesday March 28th, 2007 2:30 am MDT

:h: Rosco1733, Gabo & Brinton2000:
First of all let’s get back to recognizing that the things you are relating to with the term “laws” are merely statutes or statutory law. As such they are regulatory in their nature and are related only to the jurisdiction wherein they might lawfully apply. To understand what the jurisdiction is you must follow the Standard for Review. That having been said, we notice Rosco1733 was correct in acknowledging Corp. U.S. only has authority over its affairs and over those that come within their jurisdiction or contract with them. However, to jump from that to an all-inclusive statement alleging that, “as long as we are not in contract with this corporation, we are not subject to its laws”, is a bit limited. A person can come within their venue in many way, which makes that Standard for Review all that mush more important. Knowing which laws are which is a simple matter resolved by knowing who passed the Acts, Corp. U.S. or the original jurisdiction government.

Regarding Brinton2000’s comment:
Though there was a Congress seated in the original jurisdiction government when Corp. U.S. was created, those original jurisdiction seats were vacated by 1920. When Corp. U.S. was created the members of the original jurisdiction Congress put on another hat as the corporate board of Corp. U.S. (which was effectively a separate “Congress”). Thus, when the original jurisdiction congressional seats were vacated, the only official capacity remaining in was the Corp. U.S. board.

Further, though Corp. U.S. was effectively quitclaimed under the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944, that neither eliminated the purpose of Corp. U.S.’ creation or its obligations to fulfill its agreements; thus, there was no requirement to ‘sever any ties with the original jurisdiction government’. The foreign ownership merely created a conflict in interest between Corp. U.S.’ purpose and its owner, thus tainting its operations and making them suspect.

Thus, the statutes passed by Corp. U.S. are just as legitimate as ever and they apply only where they apply and that is totally determined by the terms and conditions of whatever relationship may be involved in any given situation.

Delving into the specifics of such relationships would require Team Law beneficiary support.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.


Return to “Miscellaneous Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest