The Act of 1871

[the inquirer]

I thought this was interesting enough to post. The quotes seem pertinent to the video, Enjoy!

The Act of 1871
https://www.youtube.com/v/gABSat3N7xg&hl=en_US&fs=1&

“A government of the people, by the people and for the people no longer. A government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations”
--Rutherford B. Hayes, 19th President of the United States of America, 1879-1883

“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson— and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of WW…”*
--Franklin D. Roosevelt in a letter to Colonel Edward Mandel House, November 21, 1933, as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), pg. 373.

* Written 5 days after the London Economic Conference, WW= Woodrow Wilson

[fortinbras]

The aforementioned Act of 1871 was the establishment of the District of Columbia as a municipal corporation (previously it had been unincorporated with at least two distinct townships of Georgetown and Washington).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... ct_of_1871

[wserra]

I don't watch videos that purport to deal with the law. If you have something to say about the law, use a little effort and put it in writing.

"My position, Judge? Here, watch this video."

[Pottapaug1938]

On top of that, I'm not going to decide a legal principle based on the political comments of anyone. If you or anyone else wants to contend anything other than that the Act of 1871 did nothing else but constitute a city government for the District of Columbia, tell us why -- in words.

[notorial dissent]

You mean like real words and facts, not conjecture and fantasy?

[fortinbras]

The DC incorporation act of 1871 is a regular bugaboo with the sovrun twits. They manage to torture it into some kind of nationwide legislation that turned the whole of the federal govt or even whole of the USA into a corporation, with the Constitution no longer operative, etc. etc.

Total nonsense but they refuse to listen to reason.

[fortinbras]

Here is an example of how those out-patients get all excited about the 1871 incorporation of the municipality of Washington, DC"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/152113861/149 ... of-America

[the inquirer]

Perhaps, this will help:
“Two national governments exist; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and Independently of that Instrument.”
--- Supreme Court Justice Marshall Harlan (Downes v. Bidwell, 182, U.S. 244 1901) in his dissent (also famous for his dissent in Plessy v Fergusson, 1896 (Separate but Equal)
Justice Marshall, our first black Supreme Court justice, called Justice Harlan the man who most inspired him.

Also this political cartoon, circa 1912, or so will give you an idea of who's in charge ("I am" according to former President of the Federal Reserve Bank of NY, Timothy Geithner, September, 2011). The Aldrich (father in law of John D. Rockefeller) plan, which Senator Aldrich introduced into Congress eventually as the federal reserve act, became the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank of NY (separate from but "in charge of" the Federal Reserve System).

[fortinbras]

The Federal Reserve Act celebrates its centenary tomorrow (Monday, Dec. 23rd).

It was one of the most thoroughly prepared pieces of legislation in US history. To properly inform themselves, Congress ordered the printing of several books on the banking systems of other countries, including reprinting and translation of books which had been published in Europe.

It passed both Houses by a comfortable majority. Its success might owe something to the fact that shortly before it came up, J. Pierpont Morgan died. Morgan had unofficially been behaving like the federal govt's central bank, lending enormous sums to shore up the govt during financial crises (and collecting a substantial interest on these loans -- there were suspicions that he had secretly manipulated one or two of those crises). With Morgan's death, the govt needed to set up something a bit more permanent and impersonal. For the first half of its existence, the FED had regulatory authority only over banking, but with the Great Stock Market crash of 1929 it was realized that its regulatory power should extend to investments as well. The workings and history of the FED are complex.

[wserra]

Perhaps, this will help:
“Two national governments exist; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and Independently of that Instrument.”
--- Supreme Court Justice Marshall Harlan (Downes v. Bidwell, 182, U.S. 244 1901) in his dissent

Perhaps it would help even more to look at the context of that quote:

The idea prevails with some - indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar - that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise. It is one thing to give such a latitudinarian construction to the Constitution as will bring the exercise of power by Congress, upon a particular occasion or upon a particular subject, within its provisions. It is quite a different thing to say that Congress may, if it so elects, proceed outside of the Constitution. The glory of our American system of government is that it was created by a written constitution which protects the people against the exercise of arbitrary, unlimited power, and the limits of which instrument may not be passed by the government it created, or by any branch of it, or even by the people who ordained it, except by amendment or change of its provisions ...

[T]he Constitution enumerates the powers which Congress and the other departments may exercise - leaving unimpaired, to the states or the People, the powers not delegated to the national government nor prohibited to the states. That instrument so expressly declares in the 10th Article of Amendment. It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.
...
Congress, as I have observed, has no existence except by virtue of the Constitution. It is the creature of the Constitution. It has no powers which that instrument has not granted, expressly or by necessary implication. I confess that I cannot grasp the thought that Congress, which lives and moves and has its being in the Constitution, and is consequently the mere creature of that instrument, can, at its pleasure, legislate or exclude its creator from territories which were acquired only by authority of the Constitution.

The "quote" is paraphrased. Worse, though, the poster sets it out as though the statement were Harlan's opinion. In fact, of course, Harlan prefaced the words "the inquirer" posted with words "the inquirer" omitted: "The idea prevails with some". He then goes on to explain why the "some" are wrong. So "the inquirer" quotes (well, sort of) as Harlan's opinion a statement with which Harlan in fact strongly disagrees.

I may not yet have gotten into the holiday spirit, but some people are so bloody stupid that it's a miracle they don't eat rocks and die of constipation.

[notorial dissent]

It has never been in doubt that the Inquirer’s grasp of fact and reality is tenuous at the very best of times, and that his ability to read for comprehension is all but non-existent, so this latest scribble should be no surprise. I think Wes’s current statement pretty well sums it all up.

[AndyK]

The previous post gives too much credit to the inquirer's possible weaknesses.

The post overlooks the inquirer's long history of intellectual and factual dishonesty.

As with many tax deniers, 'we the people' ignorami, gurus of all flavors, Sooey Juris (now fled to the Merrill forum) members, etc ad anauseum, the inquirer strictly adheres to basic tenets of:

- fact-checking is non-existent
- fact distortion is rampant
- contextual significance is erased
- what doesn't agree with them is wrong

Oh, and if it's on the Internet, then it's true.

[wserra]

The previous post gives too much credit to the inquirer's possible weaknesses.

"[T]oo much credit"? Smile when you say that.

[Number Six]

I've never cared for video references; reminds me of "1984", or from "The Honeymooners", the space cadets who waited for their special program. There is nothing wrong with the english language.