There is a pervasive belief among government skeptics that the United States has been formed into a corporation and is not subject to the will and laws of the people, but to external parties such as international banks and the Vatican. It is difficult to determine the origins of this belief, but I would place the genesis during the McCarthy Era when society bifurcated into the philosophically modern left and right factions that we know and hate today.
Who Could Blame Them?
As the federal government increased its powers over the states in the interest of national security during the burgeoning of the Cold War (sound familiar?), people began to be wary of the government’s intentions and actions – justifiably. The military was fighting pseudo-secret wars around the world, the CIA was performing unsanctioned drug trials on unsuspecting college students and trying – and failing – to subvert governments around the world they determined to be subversive (confused yet?). The CIA coined the term Conspiracy Theorist to discredit anyone who disagreed with the findings of the Warren Commission Report as a passive-aggressive way of establishing hegemony over information and public opinion (is a familiar theme emerging?)
Is it any wonder people started to question the legitimacy of the government as a whole? I first read about the United States is a Corporation allegation in a book as a child, the title of which I cannot remember, but it asserted that FDR had sold out the United States to foreign bankers and thus corporatized the nation (no proof was offered, nor necessary, apparently).
The Modern Telling
The modern incarnation of the United States is a Corporation allegation is that the transgression is a result of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 (“The Act of 1871”). This Act was the first of several intended to establish or refine the structure and government of what we know now as “DC”.
There are many variations of this allegation, but for the purpose of this deconstruction, Organic Act of 1871 Deception will be referenced. It contains the core elements repeated across the world wide web.
The essence of the argument is that the United States is operated by a shadow government established by a ‘second constitution’. This second constitution established the United States as a corporation under the control of foreign interests. This feat was accomplished through variations of capitalization and preposition replacement to subtly alter the legal effect of The Act of 1871.
Analysis
Selected claims in the article will be deconstructed. If these foundational points are found to be invalid, the remaining conclusions presented by the article may be disregarded.
“With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia.”
The authority to establish and govern a capitol district is present in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And
And in Clause 18 of the same: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District grants very broad powers to the Congress, via Clause 18, to govern the District as they see fit. The governmental structure of the District was changed several times over the years until it was finally granted home-rule authority in 1973.
Conclusion
Although refuting this claim does not prove or disprove the article’s primary assertion, it is emblematic of the logical fallacies that pervade the article.
“ … created a separate corporation known as THE UNITED STATES and corporate government for the District of Columbia.”
The Act establishes the District as a 'municipal corporation' that is a legal entity that can 'sue or be sued'. Municipal corporation is not an ambiguous term; every city in America is a municipal corporation (municipality), a legal construct that allows the city to operate as an entity and do business and create and enforce laws.
Conclusion
There is nothing in The Act of 1871 that suggests anything other than the common meaning for municipal corporation.
“Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring to a legal document”
Capitalization has long been used in legal documents to create visual emphasis for important language. It seems to have become more prevalent in the post-WWII era with the proliferation of electric typewriters and the associated growth in multi-national corporations and the need for ever larger and more complex contracts.
Attorneys are generally more concerned with the clarity of messaging, assignment of responsible parties, and avoidance of liability than whether language is presented in capital letters. While there are conventions that contribute to the enforceability of a contract (defining terms, for example), the utilization of capital letters is not one of them.
Conclusion
Capitalization does not change the material effect of contract language. Further, the article fails to explain precisely the proposed effect the change in capitalization may have: How is United States different from UNITED STATES?
Furthermore, in the approximately forty-one occurrences of United States in The Act, not one is capitalized.
That freedom ended in 1871 when the original “Constitution for the united states for America” was changed to the “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”.
The Act uses the phrase Constitution of the United States of America four times and uses Constitution alone twice. The original U.S. Constitution uses the phrase Constitution for the United States of America.
Swapping Prepositions
Of and for are prepositions, often used interchangeably (however incorrectly). Dictionaries from 1871 being scarce, Merriam-Websters online edition will be used.
For (legal definition): 2) on behalf of
Of: 5a) relating to, about 5b) in respect to
Replacing of and for with their verbose counterparts has no apparent effect on the phrase:
For (2): Constitution on behalf of the United States of America
Of (5a): Constitution relating to the United States of America
Of (5b): Constitution in respect to the United States of America
Changing the Name
Article V of the Constitution provides two procedures for amending the Constitution, both of which require ratification by three-fourths of the several states. A statute passed by Congress cannot alter the content of Constitution.
Conclusion
Interchanging for and of when referring to the Constitution and United States has no material effect on the relationship between Constitution and United States.
As mentioned previously, there are no occurrences of all-caps in The Act, of any phrase.
Furthermore, I am not aware of any civilization that collapsed for want of a preposition.
The Final Analysis
The referenced article makes dozens of claims that would seem to support the notion that the United States is under direct and legal control by foreign interests. However, it does not present any evidence for any of the claims. The three claims of ‘evidence’ have been clearly negated in the points above.
The danger of such baseless assertions proliferating on the internet is that it distracts from the real misdeeds of the federal government and casts aspersions on legitimate attempts to bring the government’s actual misbehavior into the light.