Talk:District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871

message: I don't exactly know what else to say, so it could use some expanding.--Joseph Leito 16:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article states: "...Others however, believe that it does not, only setting a corporation of the District of Columbia."
If people are responding to the Corp US scenario with the above, it's worth pointing out that corporations can hold jurisdiction beyond their boundaries through the rule of contract. Throughout our life, we contract with the government institution. If the government we contract with is the corporate government, where it resides is of no significance, as a contract is a contract, and those who sign are subject to the terms and conditions laid out in the contract.
THAT is how the DC, Corporate government can gain control over individuals - by LEGALLY subjecting them to their terms and conditions under contract and commercial law, yet never requiring the subject/citizen to reside within their geographical jurisdicition.
Any thoughts? Am I talking complete bullshit?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.40.3 (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Those who say this act was not significant in regards to "Corp US"

message: The Act of Congress of 1871 states
The period about the city name has been modified without consensus, and I suppose it must be restored as it was Jalo 14:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Washington or District

message: Given that this Act COMPLETELY CHANGED our system of government into a corporate governing body, treasonously, understanding this act should be of critical importance.  This system enabled the corporate/admiralty law statutory court system to rule us as opposed to the common law courts, now called petit and grand juries
Javalizard (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that nothing of the sort is even remotely true, and Wikipedia is not a compilation of crazy conspiracy theories, no. It should not be considered "of critical importance." 75.76.213.161 (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Change in importance

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/tab23.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090331094658/http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/history to http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/history
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110920082120/http://www.culturaltourismdc.org:80/things-do-see/trails-tours/african-american-heritage-trails/brief-history-african-americans-washingt to http://www.culturaltourismdc.org/things-do-see/trails-tours/african-american-heritage-trails/brief-history-african-americans-washingt
*Added  tag to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/1870.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060205140540/http://about.dc.gov/symbols.asp to http://about.dc.gov/symbols.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Article states that Washington, D.C. filed for bankruptcy in 1873 but I am under the impression that a governing body with private and public obligations cannot reorganize their debt.
The contracts clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits state governments from ‘impairing the obligation of contracts.’ As originally understood and enforced, this clause prohibited state legislatures from passing any laws to relieve either private debt or the state government's own debt. https://www.investopedia.com/can-u-s-states-declare-bankruptcy-4843140
This needs to be addressed because the article goes on to mention conspiracy theories regarding the USA being a corporation and if a soverign government with obligations to their citizens can just claim bankruptcy, would they still be able to be considered sovereign..?
I think the fact that UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a corporation and not a government is clear as day. To go further, the US constitution states only the Department of the Treasury can coin and mint. However, our current structure is set up in such a way that the Department of Treasury issues bonds (another corporate word), which are bought by a private corporation called the Federal Reserve Bank. This only came into existence POST 1871 Organic Act.
But regardless, I'm sure you might want to fix the article to "remove" and "hide" the fact that Washington, D.C. filed for bankruptcy, otherwise you're just lending credence to the "conspiracy theory"
https://www.csg.org/pubs/capitolideas/enews/issue65_3.aspx
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.240.203 (talk) 
: 1. The article doesn't say DC "filed for bankruptcy", it says it was bankrupted. The source simply says that too. It is very possible the term is being used here in a layman's sense and means something closer to insolvency or just being unable to pay without actually having filed for bankruptcy. Congress subsequently took over the affairs of the DC government and presumably handled its debt, not through bankruptcy.
: 2. DC is not a state, so the contracts clause does not apply.
: 3. No sovereign government claimed bankruptcy. The District government went bankrupt (in whatever sense as per point 1), not the country.
: The stuff about the Federal Reserve isn't quite right either, but that isn't relevant to this article. --eduardog3000 (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please address conflicting reports in article