Exactly. Both a corporation and a national government. Research further yourself. I’m not going to argue this point here. I’m not the expert making this case. Suffice to say conspiracy theories can be true conspiracies ie crimes by a group.
Why would a government create itself again as a corporation? Which one collects your taxes … and spends the proceeds? Which set of books do you see?
It didn’t. Enough said.
Your proof? I don’t accept your assertion. Too afraid to check?
Try reading a bit deeper.
https://www.youhavetheright.com/tour1/Cooperative_Federalism.pdf
Most of our presidents could be convicted of something… How do we “rid the nation of the criminal that currently occupies it”? Snark is great, but not helpful in this case.
How is this type of dialog helping your cause? It’s only strengthening their resolve making everyone angry. Calm discourse with solution oriented ideas, please.
This has been an interesting, fun mental exercise trying to guess which states would get together. California, who has so many natural resources and so much diversity and a huge talent base…is broke. How would the southern states align? What would the states in New England bring to the table? Would it be a bit of a “Hunger Games” scenario with “districts”? Would it further separate the haves from the have nots? What about organizations like FEMA look like in all of this? Cool mental puzzle.
Pass that on to the MAGA crowd, Newsmax, Fox and Truth-social. Snark and vitriol has been very successful for them and they don’t do calm discourse and solution oriented ideas.
Both sides have been pretty bad - But the MAGA crowd won. And here we are. Just because they do it doesn’t mean the other side should continue to do it. Change your messaging - or else live with the consequences? This kind of discourse only pushes people farther from the middle. I’ll say it again, most Americans want the same things - don’t listen to the screamers.
There’s nothing to check. As usual, you are just puking up nonsensical giberish.
Which illustrates the benefits of the League system. States like CA, WA, NY, NJ, and IL contribute far more in federal taxes on a per capita basis than their citizens get back in services. States like WV, LA, and KY receive far more federal money than they pay into the federal system.
Yet many citizens in these Red states point to CA etc. and say, Ha! You’re broke! Even though CA etc. are supporting the services in these taker-states.
JD Vance wrote in his book that this system of having states like WV become taker-states living on the largesse of states like CA ultimately hurts the taker-state because it robs them of initiative. If he and people like him truly believe that they should be in favor of the League system.
In a League system the states would doubtless form leagues on a political basis: Blue League and Red League. Each determines what, if any, social programs they want.
When a person moves between leagues their benefits would be paid by for a time by the league they spent the most time in, until they are vetted over a period of five years into the other league’s social program base, such as it is.
Citizens still move around freely through the country. But they have to make an informed choice about which league of states they want to work in to get the best benefits. The vetting period prevents a stampede of workers moving from one state to another just to get better benefits.
Meanwhile, states like CA, WA, NY, NJ, and IL will suddenly see a reduction in their federal taxes on the order on 10-20% as they stop funding states that people like JD Vance says don’t want their money in the first place.
That frees up money to stabilize SSA, etc.
Each political side gets exactly the level of social programs they want. No more squabbling over it on the federal level. That would make the election of more centrist presidents easier.
It’s interesting because that’s exactly what the founders had intended (in my opinion) when states formed - states get to do what they want, aside from a few laws, policies, and programs that should be paid for by the country. Since that doesn’t seem to be working anymore, this would, in effect, be exactly what the founders intended for states’ rights and powers. I think, anyway…
What do you think should happen to the states no league wants?
The commission which oversees the enleaguing process would assign ‘orphan-states’ to that league whose combined federal voting record most closely mirrors that of the orphan-state.
For simplicity I say there would be only two leagues: Red and Blue, combining along political lines. There could be three or four leagues, and orphan-states would be assigned to the league whose combined federal voting record mostly closely resemble their own.
But I think there would be two or three leagues at most, because the bigger a league is, the bigger its economic potential.
That’s why a Blue League would be eager to snap up a state like New Mexico. Yes, NM draws in far more federal money than it pays in taxes. But that’s partly because NM is home to high-tech laboratories funded by federal money. States like WA, NY, and CA respect science. The Blue League that they would be a part of would be eager to gobble up all the science-based economies and skilled workers they can because they increase the economic base.
Being part of the DOD these NM labs would still receive federal money from all states, but the workers in those labs would be more likely to continue working in Blue states where their work would be respected, further developing the economies in those Blue states in their working lives.
A scientist working in NM 25 years might choose to retire to a Red state later, helping those states by bringing in retirement money from Blue states. Each league gets something. The money still circulates between the states.
Who do you see making up the commission? Will they be state appointed? And do you see a head of each league, like a governor of a league? Voted in by the league population or governors?
You’ll be wanting that tinfoil hat. The United States of America is not a corporation. The US Postal Service and the FDIC are examples of Federal Corporations. There are others, large and small. As @AKBJR says, referring to a Federal Corporation as “United States” is a term of art used in court proceedings and similar.
Anybody want to take a stab at solving our joke of a public education system?
None. You’re reading the definition backwards. It doesn’t say that the US is a Federal Corporation. That was added by the loony who wrote the link you posted. Rather it says that a Federal Corporation (such as the Post Office) may be referred to as the United States in certain places in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Like most governments a league has a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary.
The legislature is simply each state’s federal congressional reps/senators. Monday through Thursday they work in the Capitol on federal matters . On Fridays they work on league matters in some drab office building in DC.
The executive powers reside in a quorum of 2/3 of the governors of the states in each league. If there are 30 states in a league at least 20 of the governors would have to agree to take any executive action.
By design the legislature is coequal to the executive branch. But since the legislature works on majority vote, it would in effect be more powerful. Which makes sense. Leagues only devote themselves to bureaucratic matters. There is no need for a fast-moving executive branch. There is no ticking time bomb in housing disbursements from HUD.
The judiciary branch is thin because league laws are restricted to bureaucratic matters, and the malfeasance of public funds. There would be no laws dealing with murder, marriage, no contract law, etc. because leagues have nothing to do with those matters. Leagues just administer social programs to the same degree that our federal congressional reps/senators do now. The league judges would be state judges seconded to league work.
What law enforcement is needed would be delegated to state troopers/patrol, but the only need to arrest someone would be for embezzlement, etc.
As for the enleaguing commission: once the federal government passes an act authorizing the league-system Congress would require each state’s congressional delegation to appoint a commission to oversee the process of enleagument within their state, following the rules set out by Congress. Commission members would most likely be former congressmen, governors, and senators.
It’s a little different when the color of skin is due to the vain choice to use bronzer. What male do you know that uses bronzer like that? If I had a friend who did that I would seriously counsel them to knock it off and just go with the natural color of their skin. It’s basically makeup. It’s funny that much of the GOP has issues with drag shows but they are perfectly willing to support a man who constantly presents wearing makeup to cover the actual color of his skin.
The dude dyes his hair and his skin. He’s a weird one alright.
