I found this in an article from epochtimes about why D.C. cannoli become a
state. They did the research so they get the credit. John
Here are the key paragraphs. It supports my claim that the District is in this
state, meaning Maryland.
The terms of Maryland’s 1788 offer of cession also present objections to D.C.
statehood. The Constitution authorizes Congress to assume jurisdiction over a
portion of a state only if the state cedes it. As another part of the Enclave
Clause makes clear, cession represents the consent of the state to loss of some
of its territory.
But Maryland’s consent to cession, as well as Congress’s acceptance, was
clearly based on the land being used as a national capital. The 1788 Maryland
law provides that cession is to be of a “district in this State not exceeding
ten miles square, which Congress may fix upon and accept for the seat of
Government of the United States.” Maryland did not consent to the creation of
another state out of its territory. Doing so would have required action under
an entirely different part of the Constitution (Article IV, Section 3).
In other words, Maryland’s consent was effective for creating a federal
“enclave” to be used as a national capital, but not effective for creating a
new state. Turning all or part of D.C. into a state would require either a new
agreement with Maryland, or a constitutional amendment.
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 19, 2021, at 6:50 PM, Ray Greninger <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
As I said in so many words the District of Columbia is a creation of the
people through their representatives that created the document that set aside
that 10 square miles for the federal gov to “ inhabit.” The fed jurisdiction
comes from that document. It has plenary power within that area but it cannot
supersede the authority of its creators. “It’s” property is our property.
On Jul 19, 2021, at 4:28 PM, NELSON DICE <nelsondice@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ray,
With all due respect, I believe those that stormed the capitol are guilty
because,
The original Constitution authorized a District not exceeding 10 miles
square.
One could maybe even state correctly that any part of 63 sq miles of
Maryland today that is “Washington, D.C. overlay zone is legitimate Federal
Property
So, I think those that insurrected hadn’t learned about the jurisdiction of
Washington D.C.
Like Storming Ft. McHerry rtc, a military facility etc established prior to
1860
From: Ray Greninger
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 6:16 PM
To: administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: Public Building Library
videotaping freedoms
Hmmm, those buildings are public property. The schmucks just occupy them.
Nancy, the old bag, was beside herself (for the cameras) when the people
“stormed” into their own property on the day of the “ insurrection.” We cant
have the peasants entering their own capitol building, now can we?
The corporation doesn’t own anything when all is said and done. If any
entity can be said to own that stuff (entities can’t really own anything
regardless of what they claim) it would be The United States of America.
That is the original entity that administers the public property, including
The United States, the United States and UNITED STATES etc.
On Jul 19, 2021, at 3:25 PM, Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
They own the building so have authority but the Constitution states their
limited to what they own. Fine line
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 12:31 PM NELSON DICE <nelsondice@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Charley,
if my local library is a subsidiary of the City of Ocean City, and a state
statute says i cannot film people or employees while i am there, and yet,
the city has surveillance cameras, does 1.8.17 preclude them from
successfully charging me with a statute violation if i videotape my
interactions with employees?
i have video of one fabricating evidence against me and now the library is
possibly looking to trespass me.
thnaks
nelson
--
Life in one word--LOVE
