footballhenry Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Odd question, I know. I never really thought about it until I've come across some information that sparked my interest. I have read that the capitalization of terms in the legal world has major significance. (for example:the strawman theory- JOHN DOE v.s. John Doe) According to an article I just read; On February 21, 1871 the Forty-First Congress passed what is now referred to as the 'Act of 1871'. Among some of the interesting things gleaned over in this act, one that sticks out is the provision that states the following: US CODE: Title 28,3002. Definitions (15) "United States" means — (A) a Federal corporation; ( an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or © an instrumentality of the United States. Basically have any of you heard of something like this? That when it comes to the way business/law works that the United States has been a corporate entity since 1871? If true, would this explain the rise of corporatism as a whole? The article that peeked my interest in this can be found here: http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm Oh, and one last thing...please actually look over the info before you post; I know sometimes people will give knee-jerk reactions based on their previously held beliefs. All I am asking is if anyone has researched this personally, and to what extent, etc. Any and all insight and impressions is always appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 That's messed up...yet VERY interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifty Gut Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 I don't see this "United States", I only see America. The US is definitely a corporation. It's why they let other corporations write America's public policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 No... but the Federal Reserve Bank is... a private one with mythical backers who loan us our own money and then charge us interest. The absolute number one reason for most of the economic problems in our country... from 1913 until the present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footballhenry Posted November 16, 2008 Author Share Posted November 16, 2008 No... but the Federal Reserve Bank is... a private one with mythical backers who loan us our own money and then charge us interest. The absolute number one reason for most of the economic problems in our country... from 1913 until the present. Okay, I agree with your perspective of the Fed but how do you explain the piece in the bill that says the 'United States' is (a) a federal corporation. I don't know but I just don't think these things happen my 'coincidence' or 'accident'. I really don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 No, that law doesn't say that the US is a corporation. It means that, for the rest of USC 15, that whenever a law says that "The United States may . . ." It means that "any federally chartered corporation, or any US Government agency, or (what's an instrumentality? A US savings bond?) may . . . It means that, if a law says that "You can't rob a United States office", that yes, it covers the Post Office, and Amtrack, and Fannie Mae, and . . . At least, that's the way I read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footballhenry Posted November 16, 2008 Author Share Posted November 16, 2008 No, that law doesn't say that the US is a corporation. It means that, for the rest of USC 15, that whenever a law says that "The United States may . . ." It means that "any federally chartered corporation, or any US Government agency, or (what's an instrumentality? A US savings bond?) may . . . It means that, if a law says that "You can't rob a United States office", that yes, it covers the Post Office, and Amtrack, and Fannie Mae, and . . . At least, that's the way I read it. Hmm, you might be right about that actually. I could just be reading into the term too much. Anywho, thanks for the insight because it does make more sense. I'm not sure what the effects would be even if it did make the 'United States' a corporation in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tut77 Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 No, that law doesn't say that the US is a corporation. It means that, for the rest of USC 15, that whenever a law says that "The United States may . . ." It means that "any federally chartered corporation, or any US Government agency, or (what's an instrumentality? A US savings bond?) may . . . It means that, if a law says that "You can't rob a United States office", that yes, it covers the Post Office, and Amtrack, and Fannie Mae, and . . . At least, that's the way I read it. This is the correct answer. As with most federal statutes, 15 USC begins with a section of definitions, which define the terms that will be used repeatedly throughout the statute. As Larry said, that section just tells you, for purposes of the statute, what qualifies when the statute says, "United States." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 No... but the Federal Reserve Bank is... a private one with mythical backers who loan us our own money and then charge us interest. The absolute number one reason for most of the economic problems in our country... from 1913 until the present. The federal reserve is not a private bank. It's a government agency designed to insulate the elected officials from necessary but controversial monitary policies like raising interest rates and contracting the money supply... It just happens that the nich the federal reserve fulls allows it to make a profit, unlike much of the rest of the federal government. The Federal reserve uses part of this profit to run it's operations, and the rest is turned over to the federal government. If the fed was a private bank as you suggest it wouldn't have it's chairman and primary officers appointed by the President and veted by the senate. Also if it was a private corporation it wouldnt turn over all it's profits to the Federal Governemnt or privide congress with weekly reports on the status of it's money accounts.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 You have to look at the definition of corporation under that statute as well. My guess is that its very broad. And the term corporation is probably being used in this law for the sole purpose of making it possible to sue the U.S. Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 We have a federal government who controls private industry through subsides, tax breaks, no bid contracts and law making. We have private industry who controls our federal government through lobbyist and bribes. I wouldn't call it a corporation, despite it being run like one. I think there is another word we are looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Hmm, you might be right about that actually. I could just be reading into the term too much. Anywho, thanks for the insight because it does make more sense. I'm not sure what the effects would be even if it did make the 'United States' a corporation in any case. Henry, it's not a "might be" right, he's right period. One does not need to be an attorney (which I am not) to READ...The very first line of the text is "As used in this chapter:" That means that the definitions listed only apply specifically to whatever legal gobbledygook that follows. Doing so allows them to later reference "The U.S." instead of having to say "a Federal corporation; an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States or an instrumentality of the United States." It makes the document shorter, easier to understand and most importantly, explicitly spells out exactly what/who is meant by the terms that follow. This is a standard feature of pretty much any legal document. So if you get anything from this it should be to please, please take the stuff you read from the foil hat crowd with a grain of salt. Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footballhenry Posted November 17, 2008 Author Share Posted November 17, 2008 Henry, it's not a "might be" right, he's right period. One does not need to be an attorney (which I am not) to READ...The very first line of the text is "As used in this chapter:" That means that the definitions listed only apply specifically to whatever legal gobbledygook that follows. Doing so allows them to later reference "The U.S." instead of having to say "a Federal corporation; an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States or an instrumentality of the United States." It makes the document shorter, easier to understand and most importantly, explicitly spells out exactly what/who is meant by the terms that follow. This is a standard feature of pretty much any legal document. So if you get anything from this it should be to please, please take the stuff you read from the foil hat crowd with a grain of salt. Please. Yes, of course I recognize that he's right. Hey buddy, the thread title of this is asking a 'question'...I did not come out and give you some 'foil hat crowd' conspiracy theory of any sort. Now, I am satisfied with the 'answer' and hell we learn from each other so it's maybe a good thing I didn't notice the 'as used in this chapter' so it can clear it up for anyone else that may come across it. I totally agree by the way of taking 'information' (whether it be prevailing conspiracy theories or 'official' theories) in general with a grain of salt. "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." Buddha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 As is typically the case with Buddha that's good advice. However, try to take into account that it assumes a certain degree of self awareness about one's own knowledge, judgement and common sense which is often difficult for all of us. To use myself as an example, I generally know when my knowledge of a topic is shaky. It's when I think I know what I'm talking about that I get into trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footballhenry Posted November 17, 2008 Author Share Posted November 17, 2008 As is typically the case with Buddha that's good advice. However, try to take into account that it assumes a certain degree of self awareness about one's own knowledge, judgement and common sense which is often difficult for all of us. To use myself as an example, I generally know when my knowledge of a topic is shaky. It's when I think I know what I'm talking about that I get into trouble. Haha, I agree with you there. Often times I think we all encounter evidence to destroy our 'assumptions' of the world; just when we think we have it all figured out....like you said, it's important to realize how much we really don't know. I kind of look at it as fluid belief systems v.s. rigid belief systems. If you are fluid then you are open to information and can adapt accordingly, but if you are rigid then often times you will reject the information before even analyzing it. From my studies theres an actual effect of such modes of thought on the biology of our brain, it's quite fascinating really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.