Should there be term limits on US Congress?

[QueEx]

<font size="3">

You Are Out of Your League Cruise:
</font size>

municipal corporations do not have constitutional protection. 1907 Supreme Court decision - Hunter v. Pittsburgh

Bro, you need to make arguments about shit you might know something about. LOL

That case simply stands for the proposition that municipalities do not have powers that are superior to the states or, for that matter, the United States.

Simply: municipalities are creatures (political corporations authorized to be created) by states. The power of the sovereign is in the state, however, in authorizing the creation of cities (municipalities) the states grant certain of its powers to the cities. The state has the power to curb, take back or grant cities more power.

In the Hunter case, the City of Pittsburgh sought a ruling from the Supreme Court to the effect that the federal constitution protected cities from the state's power to reverse city policies (ordinances). As the article pointed out, "[t]he Supreme Court decisively rejected the attempt to impose constitutional limits on state power over cities."

That case DOES NOT stand for the proposition that municipalties are not protected by the Constitution -- it simply stands for the proposition that cities cannot overrule states and the federal government -- and they shouldn't -- otherwise, we would have absolute chaos, i.e., the voting rights cases would be meaningless.

You need to stay out of this area; OBVIOUSLY, its not your forte.

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

My assertions are...

the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 created a new federal corporation, the United States, rather than the united States of America.

This corporation was formed as a muncipal corporation with no geographic location, but rather a district called the District of Columbia.

This District of Columbia contains the states, territories, and possessions of the United States.

The states no longer are a federation, but are now a federal agency or instrumentality (28 usc 3002 15) of the municipal corporation of the District of Columbia. These are now called the United States (rather than the united States of America prior to 1871).

The District of Columbia, as a municipal corporation, has no constitutional protections.

Therefore, the states, possessions, and territories of the District of Columbia have no protection under the constitution.

14th amendment citizens are citizens of this new construction. Since non-whites are specifically listed as not having voting rights nor human rights under the constitution, we as non-whites must be satisfied with this new political entity resulting from the Civil War.

However, this new political entity simply transferred one owner (former slavemasters) for a new one (the new national government, which is nominally called a Federal corporation), the United States.

Bro, you are so far off the mark its not worth taking the time to correct. Seriously, its that fatally flawed. This balderdash reminds me of something an old and very well respected lawyer (actually, my best friend's late father and one of my inspirations) once said to someone:

"It ain't what you don't know that scares me;

its what you do know, that just ain't so."​

Go back to arguing economic theory or something. I don't know as much about the underpinnings of that, as perhaps you do. But the things you're talking about IN THIS THREAD, are what I get paid to know, lecture on, argue before the courts (trial and appellate) and pay the mortgage.

QueEx

 

[Cruise]

Bro, you are so far off the mark its not worth taking the time to correct. Seriously, its that fatally flawed. This balderdash reminds me of something an old and very well respected lawyer (actually, my best friend's late father and one of my inspirations) once said to someone:

"It ain't what you don't know that scares me;

its what you do know, that just ain't so."​

Go back to arguing economic theory or something. I don't know as much about the underpinnings of that, as perhaps you do. But the things you're talking about IN THIS THREAD, are what I get paid to know, lecture on, argue before the courts (trial and appellate) and pay the mortgage.

QueEx

I have no problem being wrong and looking bad doing it if it leads to greater understanding and truth.

This is not my area of expertise nor have I spent much time thinking about it.

I will be wrong a lot since the time invested is insigificant compared to my experience with money, credit, and finance.

However, the existence of the IRS, the Federal Reserve, and the monopoly status of money show something is wrong.

It is just a matter of time before I find out where this all started.

So, you win this round.

 

[QueEx]

I have to give it to you Cruise, you took it better than most and your gracious admission in the end has caused me to reconsider my tone, above. In that regard, I apologize as I was more than a little ostentatious.

In fact, I'd like to see you find the answers you seek, in the meantime, I have a piece of advice: be careful of being presumptious of the facts and, most importantly, of the intent of those of whom you judge.

QueEx

 

[thoughtone]

We already have term limits - THEY ARE CALLED ELECTIONS!!!

Amen! And most of those that don't vote, do the bitching.

Wow, we agree on something!