Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Posts Tagged ‘Sovereignty

Changing (the) World, Changing (the) Words: Sovereignty, Circumscribing Sovereignty versus Global ‘Citizenship’ (the Unmentionable: then who is the Global ‘Sovereign’?). References. [Publ. Nov. 24, 2017]

with one comment

This topic came up in my recent posts during discussions of the “Global Framework for Tobacco Control” and HiAP (Health in All Policies) cited as an example of how to get national (countries) and local (states or territories in the USA, or presumably provinces in Canada, Australia, or elsewhere, i.e., sub-national political divisions) to implement a policy and laws to go with it, at the lower (lower than planetary) levels.

This post, Changing (the) World, Changing (the) Words: Sovereignty, Circumscribing Sovereignty versus Global ‘Citizenship’ (the Unmentionable: then who is the Global ‘Sovereign’?). References: (case-sensitive short-link ends “-7MB” started Oct. 14, 2017, published Nov. 24), came from  HiAP (HEALTH, not LAW*, in All Policies) Coordinated from Afar, Applied Locally, including throughout the USA (case-sensitive shortlink ends “-7LY”, published Oct. 24, 2017). That title added to tags as “Originating Post.”  This post in its concept also relates to a post published Oct. 26, (“Health as an Asset” “Thought Leadership” and the Chatham House Rule: ) and with extended “Foreword” section added later (but still pre-publication) and minor post-publication updates for clarity is about 8,500 words.

I am increasingly realizing how, for example, “tobacco cessation laws” and changes to the very health departments around the USA can be and have been initiated FIRST at the global level by NGOs and related organizations.  This has been given a “health” focus for justification.

See also financial standardization at the global level: My recent “Happening Now” post also references the processes in place as I write, and fairly recently (since the 2008 economic crisis) to standardize the system of “Legal Entity Identifiers” and to better monitor if not control “shadow banking activity,” meaning not necessarily illegal activity, but “bank-like activities” not under direct regulation by, for example, bodies like the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission). This is the economic, trading, finance, money sector with major implications for whether it will be completed and if so, how complete, and how well run.

The conversation (so to speak) below started on that HiAP (“HEALTH not LAW”) post with a hypothetical question I posed, and having noticed my own breezing right past the question of “sovereignty” when it came to global citizenship, I put on the brakes, looked it up in my favorite etymological dictionary. [“A map of the wheel-ruts of the English language”] and started looking for historical usages of the word. [“sovereign” in OED also includes other definitions using the word; see next two images:]

(ETMYonline.com, “Sovereign“)Note usage: “tax (n.): early 14c. obligatory contrib. levied by a sovereign or government.“)

search results for “sovereign” at ETMYonline.com



And, under “hegemony,” linked from the same “OE” search results for “sovereign,” (emphases added):

hegemon (n.)
1897, originally with reference to the position of Great Britain in the world, from Greek hegemon “an authority, leader, sovereign” (see hegemony).

hegemony (n.)

1560s, “preponderance, dominance, leadership,” originally of predominance of one city state or another in Greek history; [[Obviously, over the others..//LGH.]] from Greek hegemonia “leadership, a leading the way, a going first;” also “the authority or sovereignty of one city-state over a number of others,” as Athens in Attica, Thebes in Boeotia; from hegemon “leader, an authority, commander, sovereign,” from hegeisthai “to lead,” perhaps originally “to track down,” from PIE *sag-eyo-, from root *sag- “to seek out, track down, trace” (see seek). In reference to modern situations from 1850, at first of Prussia in relation to other German states.

Right away, you can see the usage is asserting “sovereignty” in opposition to something or some other authority.  This is where the concept of global citizenship as a tactic to minimize and place on a lower level “national sovereignty” (the laws of nation to which their citizens are subject) to some other source falls short of the language of reason, i.e., it wishes to take the positive connotations of one term, and omit the negative ones of the corollary term, while apparently not getting caught at it, which on closer look seems more like force by subterfuge than, overall, concern for the common good.

The more momentum and force is obtained through subterfuge, the less effort it causes those obtaining it, and apparently the less necessary it becomes to even pretend to legitimacy. This increasing quality unchecked will simply continue to saturate the economy and public institutions.  There are many parallels to mistakenly getting into a close or committed relationship with an abuser, batterer or in short, sociopath, from which exit is a serious and costly fight.  The basic lesson is, don’t enter into it by consent in the first place; know who one is dealing with.  And, know the wider context in which he or she  operates, including “with whom.”

Without something sovereign, it seems there can be no “citizenship.”  In the language used exalting global citizenship — I’ve added just a taste and reminder of this within a “Foreword” section below — the silence, or attempt to substitute the global “we” “us” or even “the planet” “earth” (etc.) — leaves an major information not just gap, but a chasm where credibility of the terminology does not exist.  Just exactly who do the leading advocates of “global is good, nationalism is bad per se, (by definition),” say is sovereign; and does that match who actions indicate some believe are already sovereign over the earth itself, and especially of its people?  Is it WHO, the World Health Organization, or the UN, or a collection of NON-government organizations?  And if these are NON-government, then how can they represent those global citizens being governed..

See also, published just days before “HiAP (Health Not LAW)”…

“Health as an Asset” “Thought Leadership” and the Chatham House Rule:** A Section Unearthed from My “Smoking Control/Tobacco Litigation” Post and Reposted Here, in light of Current Congressional Events, and in light of Senator Flake’s (2014) Commentary Before the CFR citing to 9/11 and the Iraq War Commended (?) for Unifying the United States. [case-sensitive short-link ending “-7QH.”  Re-posted  (bottom half) and written (top half) Oct. 25-26, 2017].[Published Oct. 26, 2017] (**the Chatham House Rule is basically anonymity of speaker within group conferences whose results may be published.  See post for more.)  About half that title added to tags as “Originating Concept Post.”

Examples of the language “global citizenship” language entrenched in institutions but without the corresponding discussion of the related concept, “sovereignty” alongside it.

When citizenship is to be re-imagined (it comes up below) and that citizenship is to be global, this entails a change of sovereign entity to which the citizens subscribe, and under whose laws they are to exist, and whose infrastructures they will be supporting with life energies and using, likely, that nation’s central banks currency, too, as well as its registration standards for corporations, for-profit and not-for-profit, and so forth.

I’m including a substantial “Foreword” with two “for example” sections to make the point that we are constantly being primed institutionally and business wise for “globalization + global citizenships” as a great, a “21st Century,” value”  (1) Common Core and Globalization, (2) Rutgers and Globalization or even the (as previously published) Tobacco Framework also in that context, but the related concept rarely discussed in the “Global Citizenship as a Positive Value” promotions and publications.  But this point was neither the inspiration for the post, nor its main point. They are there for examples, and added information, but they are not the “why” for this  post.

Also, in talking about Rutgers example below (which was not part of the original spin-off post, just an introduction to it), I’m in no way against “study abroad” programs or bringing international students here to study either.  That can and should continue happening.

But does it require going nuts over the “global citizenship” and “integrating it into the curriculum across 30 colleges and a biomedical research center” and granting awards for doing this — as Rutgers has?  [Documented below]Not really.  And IF one is going to talk “global citizenship,” then the question comes up, and should be handled in the same circles and on the same publications: “So, who’s “sovereign” (who’s on top?) of the whole “let us now globalize all” culture?  It isn’t, so I gather those behind the globalization are MUCH more interested in achieving it (their business and transformational goals) and not a fair or balanced presentation of the rationale behind them.

If we’re going global from cradle-to-career, where’s the corresponding discussion on switching allegiances and sovereignties?  You won’t find it in the examples given below.  The process is incremental and designed (so it seems) to alleviate violent protests over the erosion of the national, political jurisdictions. Among the countries that I say has the most to lose in that situation is the United States.  We’re large, we’re a developed country, we already support WHO and so forth.  Smaller countries, less developed countries, and those without constitutions that protect the public, and at least on paper, could handle major corruption, have a lot to gain. (See Thanksgiving-Day published post referencing the G20 and standardizing economic systems and business identifiers for better trade…).

Foreword — Other (than “HiAP”) Examples:

The common phrase “global citizenship” apparently is now to be engrained into the US Education system, it seems at PreK-12 and university levels both.  The Dean of Global Education at University of Oregon’s College of Education explains how in a global economy, business really does follow the lowest wages, so the least likely to profit from this are American students.  And other references.

(1) Globalizing a US PreK-12 Public Education (some Common Core debates, and featuring another Opportunist 501©3 Org. promoting the Transformation Tools)

Washington Post, 2013, The Answer Sheet posted by Valerie Strauss, Article by Yang Zhao, “Five Key Questions About Common Core.”  The Q&A makes sense on its own, but take a look at the author’s affiliations:

…Yong Zhao, presidential chair and associate dean for global education at the University of Oregon’s College of Education, where he also serves as the director of the Center for Advanced Technology in Education. He is a fellow of the International Academy for Education. Until December 2010, he was director of both the Center for Teaching and Technology and the U.S.-China Center for Research on Educational Excellence at Michigan State University, as well as the executive director of the Confucius Institute/Institute for Chinese Teacher Education.

Read the rest of this entry »

HiAP (HEALTH, not LAW*, in All Policies) Coordinated from Afar, Applied Locally, including throughout the USA. [Published Oct 24, 2017]

with one comment

Post title and shortlink: HiAP (HEALTH, not LAW*, in All Policies) Coordinated from Afar, Applied Locally, including throughout the USA. (case-sensitive shortlink ends “-7LY”) Published Oct. 24, 2017.  About 12,800 words. Tags, more than a dozen, added Oct. 27.

Two spinoff posts promised below (still in draft Oct. 27) are:

ICLEI in particular shows pre-planned globalism and tactics for it (with Canadian ownership from the start, and prominent connections to UNincorporated association in Europe, as I recall). ICLEI’s previous name is a big clue.  “EI” stands for Environmental Initiatives as I recall offhand.

[“Spinoff posts” are portions of drafts of this post which are felt to be significant enough for more attention under their own titles, and usually were nearly complete before moving them under their own titles.]

This post was written basically Oct. 14-16, and continues from a theme who has been promoting “Health as an Asset” globally (and some of the organizations involved) from an earlier post. Published without further work (now that “Governance: The Final Frontier” is done and has undergone the “post-publication review” (and extensive tags have been added). This one is published Oct. 24, 2017 (a Tuesday evening, my time zone) and will likely undergo a similar post-publication review (incl. added tags).

Why post-publication revisions:  As just one blog administrator, it helps sometimes to PUBLISH, then REFLECT/REVIEW MORE (which are activities with different modes and focus of attention).  If this were a subscription blog (currently it isn’t yet) of course that would be less acceptable, although even on-line MSM show “updates” after the original publish time.  I am also considering other timelines for the blog, urgencies to publish, responding sometimes to current events, such as government in motion,* outside the immediate scope of the blog and at times, when I publish after working on a specific post and its topics is just gut instinct.  I also maintain (again, a gut-level instinct) awareness of my personal limits on how much effort can be put into a single topic.

Source: WHO. Click image to enlarge. Notice at bottom: “Health is the driver” and at the top “Health requires…. all sectors work together…” and a collective set of conditions to re-organize society, throughout. (image is unusually long and looks like it might have been a hanging banner for a conference…)

Found in a list of resources at a CDC website:

Health in All Policies (HiAP): Framework for Country Action
Developed by the World Health Organization to serve as a “starter’s kit” for applying HiAP in decision-making and implementation at national and subnational levels, this framework can be easily adapted for use in different country contexts and at the regional and global levels.

! ! ! ! ! !

Notice the elements of WHO’s HiAP Banner for Worldwide Implementation, “How Does It Work?” Clean Energy | Housing | Urban Planning | Transport | Industry | Waste Mgmt | Local and Regional Authorities | Health MinistryMore Collaboration to Tackle Air Pollution.

[I’ve noticed that] Whatever the cause (Tobacco Control, HiAP, Environment, Peace, Equity, Sustainability) the push will alway be for more collaboration (coordination) of geopolitical jurisdictions, *government agencies, and between governments and private businesses (corporations) + corporate wealth.  All individuals are expected to understand that this is for their own good, regardless of where in the world they live, including in the USA.

*[i.e., focus on Local and Regional where in the USA, the States are primary levels of jursidiction on things not reserved to the federal government by the US Constitution],

This was also the request when the cause was to “prevent family violence” only then the preferred term was “coordinate” — Coordinated Community Response.” All terms will speak in collective (or “collectivist”) language. Individualism as a principle is throughout discouraged.  [Green font here just represents text added during post update Oct. 27]

In case the phrase or its acronym “HiAP” is unfamiliar, see the “infographic” to right, from the World Health Organization, also labeled as a tool for promoting HiAP at the Country level.  I’ll show it again below, larger.

Key concepts — consolidation of departments and agencies within government, and planned communities with not even a complete concept — just a single word “health” as the organizing factor.

Relevance to “FamilyCourtMatters” issues:

The immediately preceding post introduces my concerns about this topic, using “Big Tobacco” litigation (Public policy and economic impact)” under “health” rationale as compared with “Domestic Violence” (Child Abuse is related and parallel), something I had experienced and whose advocacy organization, both HHS and DOJ-funded, and others, I had researched (primarily posted on this blog).  After writing (but not publishing yet) that, I became engrossed in this aspect, especially after finding WHO citing to its involvement in a global treaty around tobacco (introduced 2003, signed by over 170 members or “signatories” – i.e., mostly countries — by 2005) as an example of why it should also lead setting the framework for HiAP — after all, it was experienced.

In that postSmoking Cessation/Tobacco Control Litigation I see is By Design GUARANTEED, (like Domestic Violence Prevention and Services) To Continue Incessantly. Meanwhile, a Wide Swath of Northern California Is Smoke-Filled and Lit Up, But Not by Tobacco. (October Local News and Blog Updates), (short-link ending “-7Lp”), which I plan to publish same day or within 24 hrs of this one,…

I discovered connections between major pharmaceutical (and other products) multinational corporation, its trust started only in 2007 (in Europe) but the company home base in New Jersey, USA — and meetings under the “Chatham House rule” (it said, “rules” but it seems there is only one — anonymity!) which is a connection to the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) in London. Which brings up the question, if we are to be globally aligned, and one country (the USA) doesn’t have a monarch, titles of nobility or a national (declared at least) religion, why would be be seeking to align one of our most expensive areas of public policy (i.e., “health”) with a country, formerly an empire, and to this day still characterized as a “kingdom” although with a queen instead?

If – hypothetically —  I were, from a position of authority (elected, appointed, or corporate, whether in the for-profit or not-for-profit sectors) to say over several years, and from a variety of platforms (each time referencing organizations or offices I held to underscore the authority of the message), such as a keynote speaker at a conference or university center, to say to Americans, that is U.S. Citizens, or (which is closer to the reality of networked organization communicating public policy themes), if I and my friends and colleagues… were, concurrently, repeatedly and openly, to say:

Hypothetical message/directive:

Everyone stop talking about legal rights and due process, justice as it relates to anything expressed in the U.S. Constitution, or state laws, as passed by the U.S. Congress or state legislatures (respectively), and instead, repeat after me:

“Health in All Policies”

…In fact, let’s not talk about laws at all — just policies, as enacted and implemented through the executive branch of governments, plural, of course in closest meaningful consultation with local, state, regional, national and international associations/NGOs working collaboratively. … From now on, when a conflict between law and policy comes up, policy wins every time.  When a geopolitical jurisdiction conflict comes up, regardless of the law, the argument, practice, or ideas originating in the larger body’s jurisdiction prevail and will become standard practice  — even if that’s not what either its or the smaller body’s law says (for example, federal vs. state).  From now on, right and wrong are no longer expressed in law, but in “policy.”

From now on, national sovereignty, and concern about it by any nation’s citizens, especially for the U.S.A. and its citizens = “bad.”  Global citizenship = “good, equitable, sustainable, fair and necessary for world peace (and the planet).**  And anyone who disagrees or protests is a lunatic/fringe element/conspiracy theorist, or _____(substitute other negative name-calling at will).  We allow freedom of expression, and value it — so they can talk, but we, the intelligent and reasonable, should not engage with such backwards nutcases.##

## The two sentences in blue weren’t in my original hypothetical, but after running across an OpEd and NY article using some of those terms (mocking the concept of “conspiracy theory” and applying certain labels to those in protest) — and having just been researching the organization being defended — I felt it appropriate to add.  A large part of public policy IS marketing it to the public; advertising, “PR.”  Part of PR is discrediting the competition, which here appears to be, using a different set of language, vocabulary and concepts to discuss common concerns….i.e., independence of thought, or reference to a different standard for reasoning and evaluation of public policy.  … Keep reading, I have examples….

From now on,  leave the complex thinking –including about your families and children’s educations, public schools, housing, transportation or energy infrastructure, etc.  — up to the experts, and go back to work funding them.  During your work, family, schooling or any leisure time, stay tuned in for any major changes in the current catechism…and what to think and talk about…”

**Interjection on the two-word phrase “Global citizenship” and logical corollaries:

In writing this, the phrase “global citizenship” slipped out so normally as a concept in common usage, that I didn’t at first consider how it implies but does not cite to a supreme or “sovereign” power over the entire planet.

Because the phrase and concept of “global citizenship” (unlike citizenship of known political States with their defined land and water masses) does not or cannot cite or refer to such a supreme or sovereign power with geographic/territorial authority over the whole planet (which I learned is key to the concept of “sovereign”) while also protesting allegiance to the same (warring nations, states, sovereign entities seeking to expand themselves) as the innate cause of war (and poverty, inequity, slavery and other human rights violations and social ills), the rationale for any means to achieve the concept of, and the ongoing use of the two-word phrase “global citizenship,” and corresponding allegiance to it, as a way of life or principle for assuming or assigning duties and responsibilities, however, fails.

Historically (especially post World War II) the call for global government by consensus as opposed to “national sovereignty” (which by definition comes with subjects or citizens attached…) comes from criticizing and attempting to distance all people (especially the more powerful, “developed” nations) from over-commitment to their own countries.  But, without an organized body politic which implies, historically, something “sovereign” and reigning supreme over all owned territories, there can’t be “citizenship.”

RELATED, PREVIOUSLY POSTED DISCUSSIONS: I’ve already blogged repeatedly over time about the concept of “functionalism” (David Mitrany, his involvement with the RIIA Royal Institute of International Affairs (US parallel might be the Council of Foreign Relations), (the RIIA, or “Chatham House” comes up again in the “Health as an Asset” context) and the incremental way of disemboweling, so to speak, or draining the innate power of governments — such as ours here, or the Brits, or the Germans, or the French, or the Spanish (the RIIA dating only to 1927, and it is in London) — by outsourcing it to trans-national bodies.  Or, within the USA, trans-state authorities, an early example of which would be the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) — as an example, of by persuasion, different states giving up some of their autonomy for a common geographic, regional good.

THIS ROUND, Fall 2017, having just used the word “global citizenship” almost without thinking, I went looking again for definition of “sovereign” and “citizen” and came across two Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (“SEP”) articles (one written in 2003, “substantively revised” 2016; the other in 2006, “substantively revised” 2017), which presented enough historical narrative to, I feel, communicate the concepts in a historic context well enough to explain my concerns.  (SEP “Citizenship” & “Sovereignty“)

From SEP on “Citizenship:”

Supporters of global democracy reject the conventional identification between demos, territory and citizenship. In their view, citizenship is not a set of practices and rights that need to be anchored in a particular demos defined by specific territorial boundaries. On the contrary, citizenship is ideally exercised in a multiplicity of ‘sites’, situated at different levels of governance: local, national, regional and global. Global democrats sketch a multilayered, global democratic order in which no single layer or site is dominant (Pogge 1992, 58, Young 2000, 266). This scheme {{scheme or sketch — which is it?}} implies a ‘vertical’ dispersal of power above and below existing sovereign states, which are stripped of their centrality. This would give less of an incentive for conflicts over power and wealth within and between states, “‘thereby reducing the incidence of war, poverty, and oppression’ and environmental degradation” (Kuper 2004, 30, quoting Pogge 1992, 102–105).  [[Citation: Leydet, Dominique, “Citizenship”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/citizenship/]]

(I notice in the news, the word “democracy” is so often used as opposed to “republic” when referring to the USA also, and intents to help promote it internationally.  When I was young, in school, I do not remember pledging allegiance to the “democracy” of the United States of America, but to the “republic.”…Apparently “republic” along with “Republicans” (unless you’re one) is also a bad word…)

The SEP article on sovereignty spoke of a major turning point (at least in Europe) between religious wars and the concept of sovereign states as recent as 1647: “the Peace of Westphalia” (History.com reference) ending the Thirty Years’ War AND, separately (though obviously with religious overtones) an Eighty Years’ War between Spain and the Dutch. And of the role of Martin Luther and the Reformation in changing the concepts of temporal versus spiritual power at the time.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

October 24, 2017 at 7:59 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Three Cities that Rule” Factoids — Bet You Hadn’t thought of This…

leave a comment »

And I was wondering why hunting down Washington, D.C. doings is like chasing the wind – – – – – why more than half the Congressmen in U.S. are millionaires, and they seem to be intent that while their own wealth is NOT from jobs, we must try to get OURs from jobs.

The real reason being, the debt will never get balanced anyhow, not with the interest.

From “Prisonplanet” forum, thread “Empire cities:  Three Cities that Rule The World.”

It’s pretty darned important to figure out whether or not any legal basis exists for anything we (civilians) are trying to get done in the courts, wouldn’t it make sense?

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-stateVatican City (A Sovereign City-State)
Main article: Vatican City
Until 1870, the city of Rome had been controlled by the pope as part of his “papal states”. When King Victor Emmanuel II annexed the city in 1870, Pope Pius IX refused to recognize the newly formed Kingdom of Italy. Because he could not travel through a place that he did not admit existed, Pius IX and his successors each claimed to be a “Prisoner in the Vatican”, unable to leave the 0.44 km² (0.17-square mile) papal enclave once they had ascended the papal thrones.
The impasse was resolved in 1929 by the Lateran Treaties negotiated by the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini between King Victor Emmanuel III and Pope Pius XI. Under this treaty, the Vatican was recognized as an independent state, with the pope as its head. The Vatican City State has its own citizenship, diplomatic corps, flag, and postal system[clarification needed]. With a population of less than 1,000, it is by far the smallest sovereign country in the world, and widely recognized internationally as such.
“Macro History site”

Nationalism and Empire within Europe, 1850-1900

Romania and Italy; discontent in Ireland; the Austro-Prussian War; Austria-Hungary and nationalism; Franco-Prussian War and German unification;
the Balkans and path toward Europe’s Great War of 1914; Germany seeks alliances

The Papacy Loses Rome and Latium

With the fall of Napoleon III in September 1870, the Pope lost the protection of French troops for his territory of Rome and Latium. On September 20, 1870, troops sent by Italy entered Rome. Pope Pius IX refused to accept Italy’s occupation of the city, and he withdrew to his palace at the Vatican and declared himself a prisoner. Italy annexed Rome on January 18, 1871, and King Victor Emmanuel saw the unification of Italy complete. Addressing Italy’s parliament he said:

The work to which we consecrated our life is accomplished. After long trials of expiation Italy is restored to herself and to Rome.

On May 13, Italy issued its Law of Guarantees, which left papacy with the Vatican and other palaces. On May 15, Pope Pius IX responded with an encyclical, stating:

When We were defeated by Our enemies in accordance with the mysterious design of God, We observed the severely bitter fortunes of Our City and the downfall of the civil rule of the Apostolic See in the face of military invasion …

We are suffering to be established and to thrive to the ruin of all authority and order. May God unite all rulers in agreement of mind and will. By removing all discord, claiming the disturbance of rebellions, and rejecting the ruinous counsels of the sects, may these rulers join in a common effort to have the rights of the Holy See restored. Then tranquility will once again be restored to civil society. [note]

City of London (A Non-Sovereign City-State)
See also: City of London Corporation
Although the City of London (a geographically small city within Greater London) is not commonly considered a city-state, it does have a unique political status (sui generis), a legacy of its uninterrupted integrity as a corporate city since the Anglo-Saxon period and its singular relationship with the Crown. Historically, its system of government was not unusual, but it was not reformed by the Municipal Reform Act 1835.
It is administered by the City of London Corporation, headed by the Lord Mayor of the City of London (not the same post as the more recent Mayor of London, who presides over Greater London). The City of London is a ceremonial county too, although instead of having its own Lord-Lieutenant, the City of London has a Commission, headed by the Lord Mayor, exercising this function.
(LGH insert here:::)
(hover, to see how many things are situated so close.  “B” is the corporation….)

Washington, D.C. (A Non-Sovereign City-State)

Not being part of any U.S. state, Washington, D.C.’s government operates under authority derived from the U.S. federal government. The city (generally referred to as “the District) is run by an elected mayor and a city council. The council is composed of 13 members: one elected from each of the eight wards and five members, including the chairman, elected at large. The council conducts its work through standing committees and special committees established as needed. District schools are administered by a chancellor, who is appointed by the mayor; in addition, a superintendent of education and a board of education are responsible for setting some educational policies. There are 37 elected Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners that provide the most direct access for residents to their local government. The commissioners are elected by small neighborhood districts, and their suggestions are given “great weight” by the city council and city agencies. However, the U.S. Congress has the ultimate plenary power over the District. It has the right to review and overrule laws created locally and has often done so. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which grants to states all rights not belonging to the federal government, does not apply to the District. Residents of the District do not have voting representation in the U.S. Congress.

UNBELIEVABLE.  People who live in washington, D.C. have NO congressional representatives and do not live in any of the 50 united states…

I keep telling women (and men) to think in terms of corporation & business / sales when they want legal reform.  Looks like I should’ve been looking a little higher up myself.   What comes to mind is — what kind of people have the time to unearth and post all this stuff?  (childless singles without a social life? noncustodial parents?  the independently OK, but not actually wealthy?)

Read the rest of this entry »


Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

It Takes "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

Legal Schnauzer

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

%d bloggers like this: