Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: US vs. USA

Expand Messages
  • Brian Hamill
    This is an interesting thread. It seems to me that any distinction between United States and United States of America came much later, and at the time, the
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 10, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      This is an interesting thread. It seems to me that any distinction between "United States" and "United States of America" came much later, and at the time, the two meant the same thing.

      I do not know of any wording from the time the Constitution was written that uses the familiar "includes... the District of Columbia, Guam, Virgin Islands..." etc.- that all came much, much later, correct?

      I don't think that the founders concieved of "United States" ever coming to mean something other than all the states. For the founders, the term would not include DC and any other territories that the Federal gov't alone might acquire. This is a loophole that people in the government have certainly utilized, making it the biggest flaw in the Constitution.

      -Brian
    • dave
      Go to www.edrivera.com There all will become clear in the end..but you have to muddle thru for awhile of frustration as the usurpers who came up with the
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 10, 2009
      • 0 Attachment

        Go to www.edrivera.com

        There all will become clear in the end….but you have to muddle thru for awhile of frustration as the usurpers who came up with the CONstitution did not make it easy:

         

        ·         34 of 55 were lawyers.

        ·         All lawyers are trained in contracts to spot “NOUNS of DISTINCTION” and make sure they are accurate. Contracts with NOUNS that don’t match-up are AUTOMATICALLY called into suspect by good lawyers as being potential DECEPTION. [Example: CocaCola Corporation would never be called Coke in one spot of a contract…or The Corporation of CocaCola in another….or an in CocaCola assembled. For example: A  lawyer makes things clear for you when he wants to. Have seen such as this in a contract: CocaCola Corporation herein “Coke”?]

        ·         Examine the Constitution with a highlighter: How many Presidents? How many Congresses? How many things united?

        ·         This group of largely lawyers met in secrecy.

        ·         They had plenty of time to correct any errors or typos.

        ·         They had a whole group of 34 lawyers to revise same and review plenty of times.

        ·         They were coming up with the SINGLE most important piece of LEGAL document in ALL THEIR COLLECTIVE lives.

        ·         After all this….someone who tries to convince you that the NOUNS OF DISTINCTION are not there for a reason is crazy!

         

         

         

        From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Brian Hamill
        Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:21 AM
        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: US vs. USA

         


        This is an interesting thread. It seems to me that any distinction between "United States" and "United States of America" came much later, and at the time, the two meant the same thing.

        I do not know of any wording from the time the Constitution was written that uses the familiar "includes... the District of Columbia, Guam, Virgin Islands..." etc.- that all came much, much later, correct?

        I don't think that the founders concieved of "United States" ever coming to mean something other than all the states. For the founders, the term would not include DC and any other territories that the Federal gov't alone might acquire. This is a loophole that people in the government have certainly utilized, making it the biggest flaw in the Constitution.

        -Brian

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.