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

Originally posted by jackinthebox
The End of Constitutional Government, and the Declaration of Martial Law

On the 27th of March in 1861 Congress adjourned “sin die,” or “without day,” no longer having the required quorum under the Constitution. In other words, having lost the delegates of the seceding states, Congress no longer had the minimum number of required persons to lawfully conduct any official business, except to set a date to reconvene, under Article One of the Constitution. They did not set a date to reconvene, and as a result many have argued that the Congress of the United States of America was thereby dissolved. There are also those who argue that only Congress itself would have the authority to dissolve the body permanently. I find the argument to be moot. The fact is, that the Congress of the United States of America has never reconvened “de jure,” or “by law.” Instead, they have operated by Proclamation of the President of the United States, as shown here, in what is often referred to as Executive Order One:

"Congress does not have the power to "dissolve" itself. This concept does not exist in U.S. constitutional law at all, and is typically a feature of parliamentary systems; and even in those systems, dissolution is actually a call for new elections (apart from the regular period when they would be held) and does not permanently dissolve the body at all, which remains seated until the new parliament is elected" from Ian usconstitution.net

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by tide88

 

Matial Law cannot exist where there is civil authoriy or at times of peace.

The problem is, that despite the Preidential Proclomation you cite, civil authority was NOT restored. Congress was still not convened Constitutionally. For the Proclomation to be legally effective, the Southern delegations would have had to be re-admitted to Congress, before ANY business could be attended to.

And the 14th Amendment is not Constitutional either for a variety of reasons, but that is a whole 'nother thread.

Again not true. The southern delegations did not have to be readmitted before any business could be attended. They Vacated their seat. Explaination from Ian

1. They withdrew (i.e., resigned) their seats when their respective states declared secession. The fact that the secession itself was illegal (and thus the states did not, in fact, "secede," but instead engaged in rebellion) does not mean those seats were not left vacant. This is distinct from mere absence, as when a presidential candidate fails to appear for a particular vote. These Civil War Senators actually vacated their seats, meaning replacements would have to be elected. A vacant (as opposed to merely momentarily empty) seat does not get a vote; there must be an elected person present to vote.

2. Several of the southern Senators were expelled for adherence to the rebellion, which vote requires (under U.S. Const. art. I, § 5, cl. 2) a 2/3 vote. Expulsion has the same effect as a resignation (or, for that matter, death): the seat is open, and does not get a vote.

3. Only elected persons present get a vote. That a state is entitled to elect two Senators does not mean it has done so. An empty seat – i.e., one not associated with an elected person – is neither a member of the House nor a Senator, and so cannot be counted amongst the membership. A quorum is, as defined by U.S. Const. art. I, § 5, cl. 1, a majority of the members of each house. The only members are those elected (and who have not died, resigned or been expelled pursuant to clause 2 of the same section). Since the south's Senators either resigned or were expelled, and those states did not subsequently elect Senators through the course of the war, those states had no members of the Senate, and thus the membership did not include the vacant seats for which no person had been elected.

4. Virginia is a unique case during the Civil War, because of the state's split into two states. For a couple of years, Virginia had two governments: the "regular" one in Richmond, which rebelled against the U.S.; and a loyalist government in Charleston.

Now, Virginia had two Senators for the 1859-1860 term: Robert M.T. Hunter, and James Murray Mason. Both withdrew and were expelled from the Senate in 1861 for their support of the rebellion. John Snyder Carlile was elected to fill Hunter's vacancy, and remained a Senator through the end of the term (which had begun 3/4/1859) on March 3, 1865. Waitman Thomas Willey was elected to serve out Mason's term, which had begun on 3/4/1856, and ended March 3, 1863; at that point, Willey had been elected the first new Senator from West Virginia (term ending in 1865, re-elected for a full term ending 1871) along with Peter G. Van Winkle. In the meantime, Lemuel J. Bowden was elected to fill the vacancy left by Willey, and died in office in 1864.

The two expelled Senators had been chosen by the rebelling legislature; however, the two subsequent Senators – possibly both chosen by the loyalist legislature – split upon West Virginia's admission to the Union as a separate state; one remained a Virginia Senator, the other became a West Virginia Senator. When the war ended, the Richmond legislature (the Charleston legislature now being a separate state) did not send new Senators until 1869.

Iny any case, when there is no validly elected person to a seat in either house of Congress, that seat does not count as a member; only the person counts as a member. What are counted are members, not seats available. Obama and McCain are members of the Senate, even if absent for any reason, and thus their absence is counted as such for purposes of determining a quorum; seats to which no person was elected are not counted; and seats from which persons have resigned, died or been expelled are the same, and also cannot be counted.

Mod Edit: Removed unnecessary post.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by GAOTU789]

reply to post by tide88


I would advise you to please review our Terms and Conditions, specifically this clause...

1d.) Cross-Posting: You will not cross-post content from other discussion boards (unless you receive advance permission from The Above Network, LLC). You will not post-by-proxy the material of banned members or other individuals who are not members, but have written a response to content within a thread on these forums.

If the members of the other forum want to debate jackintheboxes premise of this thread, they may do so by joining ATS. You will stop posting material by them here.

Tide, I note jack is working furiously with the mods to try to do whatever possible to stop you because he doesn't like this, but I would think that posting your opinion on something and then quoting relevant points from someone else as the basis of your opinion would be in the T&Cs. Would that not be true, moderators? We do this all the time anyways. Not block quoting, but writing an opinion to a post and quoting someone else as a concurring opinion or brought up something as evidence?

I personally am interesting in seeing what other people think of this "theory" if its concurs and backs up with something we've already said. Or if its something new that someone else has not already mentioned. I have seen people quote segments of other message board posts and use them in their own posts in different threads, which makes sense since everything from conspiracy blogs to books are cited as sources on ATS.


[edit on 21-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

Originally posted by tide88

First of all, without even reading the referenced thread, it is rather safe to say the United States is in no way operating under martial law, because of the simple fact that the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385), passed in 1878, prohibits the use of military forces for domestic law enforcement purposes.

In reference to your quote from IAN USCONSTITUTION.NET...
There's the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (H.R.5122) (2), signed by Bush. Even though we may not technically be in Martial Law right now, this document makes it easier for Bush to declare Martial Law & violate the Posse Comitatus Act in that he can (& probably will) use US Military on US soil as well as take command of militias & other State/Domestic forces.

This is something that's already been discussed here in other threads & here's a supporting link to Toward Freedom...With an excerpt:

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

Here's some other links about the Warner Act:
GovTrack--Shows when it became law & you can access the actual text of the Act.
American Free Press
Library of Congress
...There are other links & data, but you get the point by now.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
P.S. tide88..you would be surprised at the amount of 'experts' we have roaming these boards.

...Don't forget to mention the "Scholars" too...We gotta earn those titles here...

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer


Yes I am well aware of that but it has nothing to do with the arument at hand. Which seems as though I have provent to be incorrect. We today are indeed living under a legitamate federal govenment and we are not under the rule of martial law.



[edit on 21-7-2008 by tide88]

reply to post by GAOTU789


People post things from other message boards all the time on here. Also the post about the quorum has nothing to do with the OP, it based on a question someone else asked. The Question posed was: How was any action by the Congress of the United States valid after the South walk out when a required majority could not be attained? The North always maintained that the South could not secede. It is a completly different subject that just happens to pertain to this thread. I could have done what most people do and posted it as my own. No one would have ever known. I however was not aware of the terms and conditions and will make sure to follow them in the Future. I apologize. On another note another mode was informed on here on what I was going to do and never said I was not allowed to. He just told me to give jack credit, which I did.



[edit on 21-7-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 21-7-2008 by tide88]

reply to post by tide88

One reason I would like to stick to this thread is because of all the stars and flags he has received. If he is indeed wrong I think everyone who visits this thread should know.

So it seems that you have revealed your true purpose here. You are more concerned about the number of stars and flags this thread has received than the content. You stare right through the facts, keeping your eye intent on your sole purpose of debunking this thread instead of setting aside your own childish notions of reality and actually learning something.

Please, do your own research, and present what you have learned. Parroting parts of discussions from other boards is not very good form at all. Furthermore, I will not respond to such posts.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by tide88

 

One reason I would like to stick to this thread is because of all the stars and flags he has received. If he is indeed wrong I think everyone who visits this thread should know.

So it seems that you have revealed your true purpose here. You are more concerned about the number of stars and flags this thread has received than the content. You stare right through the facts, keeping your eye intent on your sole purpose of debunking this thread instead of setting aside your own childish notions of reality and actually learning something.

Please, do your own research, and present what you have learned. Parroting parts of discussions from other boards is not very good form at all. Furthermore, I will not respond to such posts.

Wow. Of course you are not going to respond to them. You can't. The purpose is for people to know the truth. You are getting star and flags from people that actually believe your theory. You are the one who was actually asking people to star and flag your own thread. You obvioulsy do not want the truth to be known. Maybe I am wrong but I thought the whole point of this board was to find out the truth no matter what the circumstances. All I hear about is disclosure this and disclosure that. Look at all the 9/11 threads. They are filled with info form other boards and forums. It is funny no one ever complains when it back up their arguments. Also you stated

I can't say that I am certainly right, but from the research I have done, I stand by my statements for the time-being. I keep an open mind, and always look forward to new information to consider.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Well now I posted new information and now you do not want to respond.
You also pecifically stated before when i was contacting experts on your theory you said

Okay, I took a peek at his "resume." Looks like he has indeed written a lot of books. Ever heard the expression, "history is written by the victor"? Intentionally or not, he is a propogandist. Now if you, or he, or ANYONE ELSE can show me facts which refute my premise, I will consider them. But I am not going to take someone elses word for it just because they have a degree or have written a lot of books. Perhaps the expert himself should have a look at the material I have presented.

So now I actually get one of those people to look at your post and refute it and you refuse to answer. You yourself challenged me. Guess you thought you could not be proven wrong.


It is proven from the above posts that every thing you state as fact is indeed wrong.

reply to post by tide88


Still arguing about arguing?

In the end, there was still no quorum. End of story.

reply to post by jackinthebox



There was a quorum as it has been proven in the post I quoted from another source above. Here is a direct link to that argument for those who want to know the truth. POST CIVIL WAR WALK OUT. It explains everything and is argued whether or not there was a quorum. www.usconstitution.net...

IN the end there is no quorum. End of story

This hardly refutes any of the information that I have provided. And is quite childish. Sorry your lifes work has been proven wrong. I guess when you claimed that you would be welcome to new information you didnt really mean it.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by tide88]

reply to post by tide88


If there was a quroum, then why did they end their session? Why was an Executive Order reguired to compel them to reconvene?



[edit on 7/21/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by tide88

 

If there was a quroum, then why did they end their session? Why was an Executive Order reguired to compel the to reconvene?

First off the president has the power to convene congress under normal powers of the president.

The President can convene Congress for special sessions. topics.law.cornell.edu...

This power has nothing to do with martial law. Also here are the members of the house and senate during the civil war sessions.borzoiblog.com... As you can see there were more than enough member to consitute a quorum. And also as previously stated those seats vacated and expelled did not count towards the quorum . Also you can also see here en.wikipedia.org... Also the special session started in March 4, 1861 and ended march 28, 1861. This special session was convened the day lincoln became President of the USA. He also convened congress on july 4, 1861. On march 27 there was a debate whether or not there was enough members to consitute a quorum.congressional document dated march 27 1861 Congress went into executive session later on the day of march 28 as stated in the middle paragraphs here Congressional Document march 28 1861. Also if you read the right hand paragraphs you can see there was indeed a quorum on this day. By adjouning sine die would mean that it is anticipated that this particular body will not meet again; the next session of the legislature would have a somewhat different membership. Also Adjournment sine die is an adjournment until the next session of Congress, there being two sessions to each numbered Congress (e.g. 110th Congress—encompassing the years 2007 and 2008). This is as opposed to an adjournment to a date certain, which occurs periodically during the year. Sine Die adjournments in the U.S. Congress typically do not have a date certain, but rather to be determined by the Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate at a later time.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjournment_sine_die" Therefor they did not need to set a date to reconvene. However they did reconvene dec. 2 1861 pursuant of the constitution and a quorum was present. As stated here Congress Convened pursuant of the constitution Also here Congression Document Aug 1852 you can see that congress closed sine die well before the civil war. They did it many times before the cilvil war and still do today.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjournment_sine_die"
en.wikipedia.org...





[edit on 21-7-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 21-7-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 21-7-2008 by tide88]

reply to post by tide88

First off the president has the power to convene congress under normal powers of the president.

We already know this. But your long-winded post has still not answered my question.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by tide88

 

If there was a quroum, then why did they end their session? Why was an Executive Order reguired to compel them to reconvene?



[edit on 7/21/0808 by jackinthebox]

They ended their session because it was over. It had nothing to do with the quorum. The session ended on the 28th of March and they had a quorum when it ended. They did not end it on the 27th as you state here

On the 27th of March in 1861 Congress adjourned “sin die,” or “without day,” no longer having the required quorum under the Constitution. In other words, having lost the delegates of the seceding states, Congress no longer had the minimum number of required persons to lawfully conduct any official business, except to set a date to reconvene, under Article One of the Constitution. They did not set a date to reconvene, and as a result many have argued that the Congress of the United States of America was thereby dissolved. There are also those who argue that only Congress itself would have the authority to dissolve the body permanently. I find the argument to be moot. The fact is, that the Congress of the United States of America has never reconvened “de jure,” or “by law.” Instead, they have operated by Proclamation of the President of the United States, as shown here, in what is often referred to as Executive Order One

They ended it on the 28th. Your OP isnt even based on facts.

Secondly an executive order was not required to compel them to reconvene the constitution was. There second session was Dec. 2, 1861 to July 17th, 1862. It opened PURSUANT OF THE CONSTITUTION and adjourned sine die April 17, 1862
They did this many times before and many times after. This was not by executive order!

[edit on 21-7-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 21-7-2008 by tide88]

reply to post by tide88


So why did Lincoln have to order them to convene? Why the Proclomation?

reply to post by jackinthebox



He didnt constitutional law did.

reply to post by tide88


No, an Executive Order did.

Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at 12 o'clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July, next, then and there to consider and determine, such measures, as, in their wisdom, the public safety, and interest may seem to demand.

reply to post by jackinthebox


What are you talking about. We are talking about march. you are talking about july.