Illegitimate Federal Government and the Rule of Martial Law in the United States

reply to post by tide88

BTW I know what the word is. I just dont tend to proof read and when typing fast I tend to make mistakes. Regardless, you know what I meant.

It's a common mistake actually, so no problem, I did indeed understand.

In the end though, if you want to prove that a quorum did in fact exist, you will have to show it. Show each seat, how it was filled, and how Americans were stripped of their right to democratic representation in Congress if you choose to go that route to diminsh the number required.

reply to post by jackinthebox


As you know, I agree with tide on this. I am actually amazed the guy has withstood what has equated to a forum pile on with shots being taken from all sides at him. By this point even I would have given up due to the piling on. However, what I am about to say has no basis in that support, its just a function of logic:

The burden of proof here is on you jack. The person offering the accusations must offer proof for their accusations. I went through and double checked, but I have not seen you ever offer any evidence that a quorum did not exist. I have seen a lot of you stating that it did not, but have not seen any evidence or reason to believe it. The burden of proof is on you to prove it, not him.

reply to post by ALightinDarkness

I am actually amazed the guy has withstood what has equated to a forum pile on with shots being taken from all sides at him. By this point even I would have given up due to the piling on.

Oh come on. Please. At least he has you. Not to mention the fact that he started dragging in posts from other message boards, against T&C, to try to blindside me with snippets of arguments that I had no part of.

I went through and double checked, but I have not seen you ever offer any evidence that a quorum did not exist.

Without the Southern delegations, a quroum did not exist, as I have stated.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Your attempts to get people punished whenever they disagree with your are characteristic of your tactics. You cannot handle the other arguments presented to you, so you go running to moderators to do whatever possible to shut him up. People use posts from other boards to support their arguments all the time, its not against the T&C. In fact, using someone else's argument without attribution would have been a violation.

Without the Southern delegations, a quroum did not exist, as I have stated.

You have not shown that southern delegates are required to create a quorum. That is why the burden of proof is on you. Of course, I know you can't show this because what you would have to show is not true, but you could at least try and not try to make up rules of logic on the spot to deflect. Burden of proof is in your court at the moment, and has been for quite some time.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
reply to post by jackinthebox

 

As you know, I agree with tide on this. I am actually amazed the guy has withstood what has equated to a forum pile on with shots being taken from all sides at him. By this point even I would have given up due to the piling on. However, what I am about to say has no basis in that support, its just a function of logic:

The burden of proof here is on you jack. The person offering the accusations must offer proof for their accusations. I went through and double checked, but I have not seen you ever offer any evidence that a quorum did not exist. I have seen a lot of you stating that it did not, but have not seen any evidence or reason to believe it. The burden of proof is on you to prove it, not him.

Light...are you going to cry about dog piling again!!! I thought we were past this. Your sig says gloom and doom debunker. When you go into these threads to debunk dude your going to get piled on. You like it and you know it. Its no different when I go into the race & religion bait threads and I get piled on for saying that there is a Jew World Order and that blacks have all the same opportunities as white. You dont think I dont get piled on? I kind of like it. Tide isnt getting piled on its been pretty much a 2 way conversation and if Tide is in the right he shouldnt have any issues facing a dog pile if there is one would he. No he is just a good debater.

reply to post by mybigunit


This is completely off topic but since the mods seem to want to let it stand I'll just go ahead and reply...

You couldn't time this any better. Right on cue. Its interesting how the same people always seem to back each other up in different threads, with astounding coordination. Forum gangs are against the T&C, you know.

The reason why people pile on is because the "normal" reaction to anything that disagrees with group think is to attack. Anything which does not fit the narrative and storyline is immediately stomped on, because too many differing opinions cannot be tolerated, it might mess with the group consensus.

..Now, lets get back on topic please.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

reply to post by ALightinDarkness

..Now, lets get back on topic please.

Yes, let's. Your attempts to derail this thread by arguing about arguing were right in cue. Do you have any evidence to present which refutes my premise? If not, kindly keep your off-topic comments to yourself.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Once again, the ball is in your court. You have the burden of proof, which you have not yet shown evidence for. Once you show evidence, than the burden of proof changes. After all these pages, you still have not done so on the topic of quorums - and in fact your now deflecting and trying to tell everyone else its their job to prove you wrong when you've offered nothing to begin with!

I must applaud you on such an outstanding reference of high value information. After reading the entire composition of listed material, I can only hope many people will see what direction we are heading in. Perhaps before it is too late, that direction can be reversed, only time will tell.

With an increased knowledge of this Nations past, or at least a better understanding, perhaps enough of those who care to make a difference, will represent the spirit of our Founding Fathers, and not allow what they gave us as a people, to fade away.

Keep up the great work, looking forward to reading other contributions from you on this site.




Also, after reading over the many replies, I must insist on this staying on topic. Please take other such posts to u2u, or arrainge for a debate. It matters not to me, so long as the thread topic is not detracted from.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by ADVISOR]

King George not only demanded , but also got every demand he made without exception ,go back and read the original text.

you make it sound like he capitulated which is simply a fabrication

Another fabrication is that the rag tag army beat the mighty British at the height of their power this also is a fabrication.

Indeed the traitors to the crown may have one a few battles but the war did not continue, it was settled by King George demanding and the traitors agreeing to all of his demands.

perhaps this is why
American presidents have joint bank accounts with the monarchy
that the irs is there in America to make sure you pay your tribute to the monarchy and you had better not faulter in your payments

perhaps this is why America pays 13% for every scrap of mere paper
that the Fed prints up to a mysterious unknown source.

Certainly on your premise that the Constitution has been attacked in the past
and is under attack now and will continue to be attacked until it is a god damn useless piece of paper is precise and exact.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Do you forget what posts u previously make. I was mearly using that as an example for the comment you made

There was a time that the U.S. was not recognized by other countries

I was mearly pointing out the fact that not only did the USA not recognize the CSA neither did other nations.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by tide88]

I forgot to add
very well done ! For the write up and researching of the loss of the constitutional power of Americans .


very Astute of you *****

reply to post by tide88

I was mearly pointing out the fact that not only did the USA not recognize the CSA neither did other nations.

I wouldn't expect that any other countries would, especially without a key military victory to show that that the position of CSA forces was tenable. Outside nations would have little concern over the legality of the matter.

More importantly, the US threatened war against any country that recognized the CSA.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by tide88

 

BTW I know what the word is. I just dont tend to proof read and when typing fast I tend to make mistakes. Regardless, you know what I meant.

In the end though, if you want to prove that a quorum did in fact exist, you will have to show it. Show each seat, how it was filled, and how Americans were stripped of their right to democratic representation in Congress if you choose to go that route to diminsh the number required.

A quorum: Quorum- A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold meetings.
When the resigned from their seats they were no longer members. So they did not account towards a quorum.
Here is where they discuss this during the session:

A related question was raised when Ohio Senator John Sherman proposed a resolution declaring
a quorum of the Senate to be a majority of those chosen or qualified, not of all those who
could have been elected. Garrett Davis of Kentucky pointed out that Article I, § 3 provided that the Senate should consist of two members from each state; Reverdy Johnson of Maryland responded
that the provision actually referred to Senators “chosen” by the states. Sherman modified
his resolution to define a quorum as a majority of those duly chosen, and the Senate passed
it by a vote of 26-11. See Cong Globe, 38th Cong, 1st Sess 2051, 2082–87 (May 3–4, 1864). House
Speaker Galusha Grow had reached the same conclusion on the same ground in 1861

source
Okay so there were 34 states. that would make 68 senators. 2/3 would be 45 or 46. Here is the chart for
Membership of the 37th Congress of the United States
If you count the active members it is 48 senators. So even with the sucession a quorum was indeed possible. You can count for yourself.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by tide88

 

I was mearly pointing out the fact that not only did the USA not recognize the CSA neither did other nations.

I wouldn't expect that any other countries would, especially without a key military victory to show that that the position of CSA forces was tenable. Outside nations would have little concern over the legality of the matter.

More importantly, the US threatened war against any country that recognized the CSA.

Yes, I am well aware they did threaten Britain.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by tide88]

reply to post by tide88


Now that is a good post, even though I happen to disagree with the conclusion you draw. What the information has shown me esentially, after a brief review, is that the remaining Congress "moved the goalposts" so to speak, in order to legitimize themselves.

reply to post by tide88


Okay, by 28 March 1861, I only count 44 members of the Senate. Will dig some more. Keep in mind, that there is also the possibility that Senators from Northern states may not have been seated.

reply to post by tide88

Need to add that there were actually 36 senators present on the next day so there was infact indeed a quorum. Seeing they only need 32 to consititute a quorum.

Your own words here seem contradictory, but if there were in fact only 36 Senators present, then the quorum did not exist after all.

You also state this...

And that day they adjourned sine die

...which means that they ceased to exist as a lawful deliberative body, and when next they did convene it was in fact by Executive Order, after Congress had actually ceased to exist.

reply to post by jackinthebox


US Government Guide: quorum
A quorum is the minimum attendance—half the members plus one—necessary for either the Senate or House to conduct business.
There is a total of 68 senators. So a quorum is half + 1. That would mean 35 senators would be enough to constitute a quorum. There were 36. ANd then again we have to bring up a quorum consist of actual membership. Those seats were also vacated so they did not count towards a quorum. Again for the cheap seats Unless there is a vacancy, the presence of 51 of the 100 Senators constitutes a quorum. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states, in part, that a "Majority of each [house] shall constitute a quorum to do business...." The Senate presumes at all times under all circumstances that a quorum is present unless and until the absence of a quorum is suggested or demonstrated. In fact, this presumption allows almost all Senate floor business -- including voice votes -- to be transacted with fewer than 51 Senators present. Only when a Senator "suggests the absence of a quorum" does the presiding officer direct the Clerk from the office of the Secretary of the Senate to call the roll. Of course the number 51 would be modified to 35 seeing there were onli 34 states back then. quorum
Oh I was wrong on the numbers in the above mentioned post. 35 consitituted a quorum. Not 32. However seeing those seats were in fact vacated a number as low as 24 could have made a quorum.

reply to post by tide88

There is a total of 68 senators. So a quorum is half + 1. That would mean 35 senators would be enough to constitute a quorum.

But not enough to constitute the 2/3 majority needed to conduct most business.

ANd then again we have to bring up a quorum consist of actual membership. Those seats were also vacated so they did not count towards a quorum.

But by acknowledging that the seats were vacated, they also acknowledge receipt of the documents from the Southern delegations. In other words, they recognize that the Southern states had seceded and were no longer represented in the US Congress.

The Senate presumes at all times under all circumstances that a quorum is present unless and until the absence of a quorum is suggested or demonstrated.

On what date did this rule go into effect?

EDIT to add: BTW, thanks for that "quorum" link. Good find.

[edit on 7/28/0808 by jackinthebox]