United States or United states of America...
This is a must read for anyone that is confused about what is happening today with the Constitution and our country.... If you do not know about the Act of 1871 this is a good place to start... http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/us-v-usa.htm
Dear Friends,
For an entity to become a corporation under federal law,
there must be an Act of Congress creating that corporation.
There are no Acts of Congress expressly incorporating
either the "United States" or the "United States of America".
In 1871 Congress did expressly incorporate the District
of Columbia, but D.C. and the "United States" are not
one and the same. In that Act of 1871, Congress also
expressly extended the U.S. Constitution into D.C.:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/i ... d.htm#1871
In United States v. Cooper Corporation, 312 U.S. 600 (1941),
the Supreme Court wrote:
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/312/600.html
"We may say in passing that the argument that the
United States may be treated as a corporation
organized under its own laws, that is, under the
Constitution as not to merit serious consideration ."
Some of the confusion rampant on this subject may have
originated in the definition of "UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA" in Bouvier's Law Dictionary here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/dict/bldu1.htm#union
See Paragraph 5 quoted here:
"5. The United States of America are a corporation
endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey
and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181.
But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought
against the United States without authority of law."
Note that the plural verb "are" was used, providing further
evidence that the "United States of America" are plural,
as implied by the plural term "States". Also, the author
of sentence. This only adds to the confusion, because the
term "United States" has three (3) different legal meanings:
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/hooven/h ... ted.states
However, the decision cited above is Justice Marshall issuing dictum,
and it is NOT an Act of Congress. Here, again,
be very wary of courts attempting to "legislate" in the absence
of a proper Act of Congress. See 1 U.S.C. 101 for the
statute defining the required enacting clause:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/101.html
And, pay attention to what was said in that definition here:
"to suit can be brought against the United States
without authority of law". That statement is not only
correct; it also provides another important clue:
Congress has conferred legal standing on the "United States"
to sue and be sued at 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1346, respectively:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1345.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1346.html
Congress has NOT conferred comparable legal standing
upon the "United States of America" to sue, or be sued,
as such.
Furthermore, under the Articles of Confederation, the term
"United States of America" is the "stile" or phrase that was used
to describe the Union formed legally by those Articles:
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States
of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and
Georgia.
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be
"The United States of America."
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom,
and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right,
which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated
to the United States, in Congress assembled.â€
