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

reply to post by tide88


No I think its the government for the educational downturn. Since the dept of education our education is going down the tubes maybe it is a coincidence but I try to call things that waddle, quack, and have a bill a duck. Students part of the issue yup they are a part of the issue also which leads right back to the parents who are both working full time and then some to afford the high prices of goods caused by inflation which is directly caused by the government. So those parents arent there to raise their kids and keep an eye on them and put the smack down when needed. The fact is the less government involvement in most things is a must. There is a few things they need to do but I mean just a few things. They have way overstepped their boundaries in many fashions and education is one of them. Im partial to the Polish style of education myself but hey what do I know.

I dont think the middle and high schools should be there to help you find jobs they are there to educate you. College is to help you with your jobs and thats why I think the focus for our education should be our rights and our history among some other well needed survival type classes. Wont ever happen though and I agree with you on the immigrants. When you look at who won the spelling and geography bees this year you will notice they were both won by little Indian kids whos parents came here from India. But they also learn alot outside of our education system.

[edit on 24-7-2008 by mybigunit]

Originally posted by mybigunit
reply to post by tide88

 

I dont think the middle and high schools should be there to help you find jobs they are there to educate you. College is to help you with your jobs and thats why I think the focus for our education should be our rights and our history among some other well needed survival type classes.
[edit on 24-7-2008 by mybigunit]

You do realized that the percentage of people that actually graduate highschool is around 75%. And the percentage that go to college is around 25%. So if k-12 isn't there to prepare you for the real world and work, what are those 75% of the people that dont go to college do for work. I remember seeing a show on 20/20 about these amish kids. There education stops at 8th grade. The only skills they have because of this is farming and building. This show was also about how these kids left the amish community to go out into the real world. That had extreme difficulties in the real world and most ended up having to go back to their amish homes. I do agree that it has a lot to do with parenting. That is the biggest problem. Still do not blame the government though, at least I dont think there is a conspiracy by them to make us dumber. I also agree that less government is better. Actually the least amount is best. Unfortunatly knowing our rights and our history isnt going to pay the bills. Not that I disagree. I believe we should know them.

reply to post by tide88


I do feel its the government we will have to disagree. The fact is both parents have to work these days to sustain a reasonable lifestyle. Why? Because wages have not even come close to meeting inflation over the past 20 years. So who is home to watch the kids. So when the parents arent looking why not teach them crap. Example how many classes in high school teach you about money and credit? None and you will deal with that more than any calculus math equations that you do in 12th grade. Do you think this is a coincidence? It isnt. The fact is if everyone knew how money worked and how credit worked it would ruin our consumer and debt driven system called the fractional reserve system. Yes it all comes down to money and that is why they want dumb kids. So the banks can siphon wealth off the working class. Legalized theft as I call it and yes it does exist and the government aids and embeds it.

reply to post by jackinthebox

The dissolution of the seat was not recognized. There wasn't a vote accepting it, and they never even put it to a vote. If there was a vote and it was accepted you may have an argument there. Things have to be voted on to be passed. They never accepted anything. They just read it before the house and ordered it to be printed. They also go on later in the session to talk about the attepted withdraw of S.C. If they accepted that they wouldnt use the word attempted withdraw.

[edit on 24-7-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 24-7-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 24-7-2008 by tide88]

reply to post by tide88


Sure it was recognized, by the seceding states. The voting was done in each sovereign state. That was the will of the people.

reply to post by jackinthebox


This debate is getting out of control. The fact is half of your OP is based on fallicies.

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

FALSE

As stated in this document, both houses of Congress were ordered to reconvene, by President Lincoln, without the quorum required by the Constitution. The order is dated two days after the surrender of Fort Sumter by Union forces, in South Carolina, and remains in effect to this day.

FALSE

You are trying to deflect here. The fact was they did reconvene with a quorum. Regardless whether you think there was one there or not. There was no quorum call therefor it is assumed there is a quorum.









[edit on 24-7-2008 by tide88]

reply to post by tide88

There was no quorum call therefor it is assumed there is a quorum.

You know what they say about assumption don't you? The Constitution says there needs to be a quorum, not that they can just assume to have one.

reply to post by jackinthebox


I have posted the rules of the house and senate. Under the rules and customs of the House, a quorum is always assumed to be present unless a quorum call explicitly demonstrates otherwise. Whether you like it or not these are the rules. And this proves your OP to be false. Since most of it is based on a the assumption there was no quorum. So lets review.
Lets look at the three scenarios:
1. There was not a quorum call therefor by the rules of the house and senate there was a quorum.(by the way this rule was well in effect before the date being discussed and there were many times previously that no quorum was actually present however no quorum call was asked to be voted on they were still able to go about their business.)
2. Those seats were vacated by those states that attempted to succeed from the union. Vacated seats are not counted towards a quorum therefor there was indeed a quorum present.
3. Those seats were disolved but the succession of the states therefor the seats no longer counted towards a quorum. Therefor the remaining members did indeed have enough members to constitute a quorum.
So no matter what the circumstance there was indeed a quorum present.

Originally posted by tide88
We today are indeed living under a legitamate federal govenment and we are not under the rule of martial law.

The government (& especially the Courts) currently upholds military law & commercial law as higher than the Constitution, which is in violation of the only legitimate law in the USA...The Constitution itself. Try invoking your Constitutional Rights in court & you're likely to be charged with Contempt of Court: They'll hold you accountable to military or commercial law first & foremost.
Whether we're technically in martial law or not at the moment is not the determinative factor of whether the current government is legitimate or not. Before any Government Officer can assume their official duties, they are required by LAW to swear/affirm a legally-binding Oath of Office to preserve & defend the Constitution & act only "in pursuance of" the Constitution. This is covered by Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 8 & 9 for the President & Article 6, Clause 3 for all others in every Branch & on both State & Federal levels (& also note that there's no difference mentioned as to whether the Office is elected or appointed).

Irregardless of their personal feelings or opinions of the Constitution itself, once they take their Oaths & positions, they must abide by their specified obligations & duties. One of those duties is to uphold a Republic form of government (Article 4, Section 4) according to the terms & conditions of the Constitution, instead of the so-called Democracy (which history has proven will always degenerate into tyranny or fascism).
Every single action that any of them takes that violates any terms or conditions of the Constitution are illegitimate actions & they must be held accountable according to Constitutional due process, not to the "Statutes" that they hold more dearly. And yet, even according to the "commercial laws" (aka: "Contract Laws") of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) they uphold, they're still violating the the Constitution that is a binding contract for their employment by the People.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
The Constitution says there needs to be a quorum, not that they can just assume to have one.

Well, that much is true:

Article 1, Section 5, Clause 1:
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

...However, for certain specific business a higher fraction of each house is needed, such as the 2/3 being required to expel a member, for example.

Originally posted by tide88
The dissolution of the seat was not recognized. There wasn't a vote accepting it, and they never even put it to a vote.

Originally posted by tide88
Those seats were disolved but the succession of the states therefor the seats no longer counted towards a quorum.

Those two statements sound self-contradictory:
If the States that succeeded were not officially recognized & acknowledged by the remaining members then those empty seats still need to be counted as a part of the total number of seats. How could they, for example, achieve a "Majority" if more than half of the voters aren't even present to vote? Even if a seat is "temporarily empty" (ie: not having been accepted as dissolved from either house), then those seats must still be counted.
Considering that a "quorum call" is not a Constitutionally valid reason to determine the presence of a quorum, except as a method to "count heads" that are present (The Clause above states "...a Majority...shall constitute a Quorum"). The house "rules & customs" you later mentioned cannot overrule the Law as stated in the Constitution, therefore the lack of a quorum call would not be valid for actually determining/assuming that a Quorum is present.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Sure it was recognized, by the seceding states. The voting was done in each sovereign state. That was the will of the people.

Ah, this is the key: Only specifically-defined & specifically-limited Powers were Constitutionally-granted to the Union Government...And only those Powers. Every step they've ever taken beyond those Powers & Limitations have been illegitimate. Except for a certain few specific limitations imposed on the States, the States actually have wider-ranging Powers than the Union:

Amendment 10:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the States from succeeding from the Union, then they may succeed by their own Power or by the Power of the People. This is the key point that the Feds have violated, by forcefully assuming such Power to reunite the States that was never Constitutionally granted to the Feds in the first place.
The Constitution was originally written & ratified by the States in order to create the Union in the first place...The Union itself would have never existed if not for the States' (& Peoples') will to unite with each other. Therefore, the Union had no Constitutional Power to forcefully reunite a dissolution of States.
Where the Union violated the Constitution is that they had stolen a Power that was not expressly granted to them by the Constitution.

Granted, this is my own interpretation of how the Civil War was illegally (& illegitimately) initiated by the Union against the Confederacy. But these interpretations are based on the Constitution itself & the specific Powers granted (& denied) by the Constitution...One of the specific guidelines recognized by Constitutional Law is that "inclusion of one constitutes the exclusion of others": The key point being the exclusion (no specific mention) of any such enumerated Power being granted to the Union & also the Power to succeed from the Union was not specifically denied to the States, as stated in the 10th Amendment.

I haven't had the chance to go through all of the material yet (from both Jack & Tide), that's why I'm only addressing these few statements posted...I had comp problems which left me without internet for the past four days & I'm only now trying to catch up (even though it's after 4 AM where I'm at right now).

[edit on 26-7-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer


Those statement do contradict each other. I was using them as examples. As three different scenarios. Also if those seats are vacant and no one is voted in to replace them then they do not account towards a quorum. Same as if someone died. "Article I, Section 5, clause 1 of the Constitution states that “a Majority of each
[House] shall constitute a Quorum to do Business.” A quorum has long been defined
as a majority of the whole number of the House, and the whole number of the House
has long been viewed as the number of Members elected, sworn, and living.
Whenever the death, resignation, disqualification, or expulsion of a Member results in a vacancy, the whole number of the house is adjusted.
Show me where people have tried to invoke their constitutional rights and been charged with contempt of court. I have seen case after case where people constantly invoke the 5th amendment and the courts can do nothing about it. There are also hundreds of thousands of other cases where the other people have used their constitutional rights and the constitution in their defense. I would like you to show some specific examples. I want to see some examples where Those courts are holding people accountable under military or commercial law.

Whether we're technically in martial law or not at the moment is not the determinative factor of whether the current government is legitimate or not

actually it is since we are discussion the OP. Who claims we are. And that is the whole debate and what his OP is based on. If you want read some of the real proceedings during those time. I have posted them. Trust me they followed the constitution and held it as the highest law in the land. I have read thousnads of pages and trust me they follow the constitution. They are very careful to make sure they do so. I dont have time for more right now am going on the boat. However read the preevious posts. Actually I see you already posted on the pages a few back and we have already gone over what constitutes a quorum. Are you the same midnight that posts of at USconstitution.net. Why dont you pose your thoeries to them. Looks like your last one already did get shot down over there.

reply to post by jackinthebox


I learned from my history teacher, Mr. Frank Freden, that the reason President Lincoln did not, nor congress in the remaining states of the Union, recognized the Confederate states was because of the "rules" of war at the time. Had the South been recognized, foreign countries could have assisted the "revolution". Instead it was deemed a "civil" internal matter, thereby preventing foreign countries to aid the Confederate States in a war against the States of the Union. Smart move on Abe's part! Dumb move on the part of the South. Had they worded their independence differently, we would be two separate countries now.

I think John Quincy Adams may have been the father of the notion of a bigger federal government. The nation was still in it's infant stages when he first come into the political field as a nationalist and the individual states still retained more power than the federal government.

Now, our federal government, through many illusions and altered documents is recognized as having more authority than the individual states and can make laws that all states must conform to (thank the South for closing up that loophole). Once upon a time it used to be the federal government took care of foreign policy and the states took care of their people. Not so anymore. Then again, that was also back in the day when the people had a voice. Not so anymore.

Makes me wonder what the point of the Boston Tea Party was. Taxes? Wasn't that the reason for the war in the first place? We got tired of paying for English government? Through the years we established an "almost" monarchy and now must pay for Federal government. What's the difference?

reply to post by mybigunit

You did not mention the newer laws preventing a parent from "old fashioned" discipline. A parent now is threatened with jail or Social Service intervention if the child claims verbal or physical abuse. Then when the parent refrains from everything that could remotely resemble any form of abuse, the courts still rule against the parent when their child messes up, stating the child should have had more discipline! I throw my hands up trying to figure that one out.

Both parents are required to work in order to have the "comforts" of our modern society. Does not mean both parents have to work to survive. I am a single mom. I never received child support payments from my ex and my one income supports my children. The school does not allow sufficient time to complete assignments in class and I do not have the time to offer the guidance to my children on their assignments because I work. Add to the equation, my 12 year old son was permanently expelled from school (8th grade) due to the zero tolerance rules of the school and my son broke one of them.

He took a camping knife (spoon, fork, compass, knife, corkscrew.. you know the kind?) to school and was caught with it... zero tolerance! They did not care that he had used his backpack when we went camping and simply forgot to take it out... zero tolerance! Not only that: they brought criminal charges against him and he went to an institution for a year. When he got out, he had learned quite a lot in that institution... how to be a "gangsta" and commit crimes.

We now have so many "for your own good" laws that the average person is a criminal waiting to get caught. Raise your voice to your child.. verbal abuse. Treat your child at home for illness and it gets worse.. medical neglect. Point a gun at a trespasser on your property.. attempted assault with a deadly weapon. God forbid a criminal get hurt on your property.. But, hey.. when they altered the constitution they took our individual rights away in favor of socialism and nationalism. Whether that was the intention of our forefathers or not, it is what we now have.

It isn't the government's fault, it is our fault for letting it happen! What can one man do against so many? Have we all forgotten that "We the People" outnumber those in government office? Have we all convinced ourselves that we are powerless to change things? No matter how we look at things, the facts are: the government is not an entity.

I am learning things all the time, especially on this forum from people who truly do some research. Our government officials do immoral and illegal things. What are we going to do to stop them? I can't answer that yet because, like I said, I am still learning, but what about any of you that read and post on these forums with more knowledge and experience than I? According to our laws, we only have one god given right and that is to live; how we live is controlled by man's laws.

There is a 60 year old man out in California that just graduated law school not that long ago and took on his first and only civil rights case and won. He did something! A village in Mexico took on the whole police department when the cops went too far brutalizing students. They did something! What are you doing? I am going to school learning about why people do the things they do and then I am going to find ways of people getting along in a society without being forced to sacrifice for the "greater good" (which is actually for the ones rallying for the greater good yet not sacrificing anything themselves) and yet still be able to help one another because they want to... not because they have to.

I know some of what I am being taught is tainted so I verify by coming to boards such as this. Thank you all for your opinions and research to broaden my education.

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer


Star for you.


reply to post by peggy m

I learned from my history teacher, Mr. Frank Freden, that the reason President Lincoln did not, nor congress in the remaining states of the Union, recognized the Confederate states was because of the "rules" of war at the time. Had the South been recognized, foreign countries could have assisted the "revolution".

Foreign countries almost did though. Britain in particular. There was no real "rule" preventing other countries from recognizing the CSA.

The real reason that Lincoln nor Congress could recognize them at all was because the minute they did, they would also be admitting that their actions against the South were illegal. Sovereigns have been subjects ever since.

Good post though. Thanks for jumping in.

[edit on 7/27/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by jackinthebox

Foreign countries almost did though. Britain in particular. There was no real "rule" preventing other countries from recognizing the CSA.

[edit on 7/27/0808 by jackinthebox]

"the CSA was never recognized by other countries, it was never a de jure independent country according to international law and custom."
en.wikipedia.org...

You know what they say dont you jack. almost only counts in horseshoes and handgranades or is it close. Anyway same difference.

reply to post by tide88


There was a time that the U.S. was not recognized by other countries, don't forget that. We needed a big win before France would come in on our side, and they hated the Brits.

Wiki is not the greatest source for accurate info anyway.

reply to post by jackinthebox

LOL

Yet you use wiki six times as a source in your own OP. Guess it just is accurate when it agrees with your argument. And you also use many pro succession blogs to back up your opinion.
however you can do a google search and find many other sources that back wiki claim.
CSA never recognized by other countries
Of course if you can site a legitamant source that says the were recognized... Feel Free to do so.


[edit on 27-7-2008 by tide88]

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by tide88

 

There was a time that the U.S. was not recognized by other countries, don't forget that. We needed a big win before France would come in on our side, and they hated the Brits.

Well morocco did recognize the USA in 1777. Less than one year after the declaration of independence. The CSA lasted four years and was never recognized.

reply to post by tide88

Guess it just is accurate when it agrees with your argument.

Yup, and when it has been independently verified.

And you also use many pro succession blogs to back up your opinion.

The word is actually, "secession."

And again, the point is to show a reference, but to have several others corroborating. For every link that I included in the OP, I have many others stored with similar information, point by point.

Of course if you can site a legitamant source that says the were recognized... Feel Free to do so.

And with that you have obviously missed the entire point of what I was actually saying, or are you just being facetious?

reply to post by jackinthebox

This is obviously going no where fast. I was warned that something like this would happen and it was a waste of my time debating you. So I will leave it up to the intelligent people on this board to come to their own conclusions. Been fun. Goodbye. 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.


[edit on 27-7-2008 by tide88]

reply to post by tide88


So is it your argument then that the CSA was not a legitimate government because it was never recognized by other nations? But that the US was because it was recognized by Morrocco?

If that is the case then I humbly suggest that you do some research on how nations come to be recognized. Did you know that the US doesn't even recognize much of the territorry claimed by Israel, for example? Or that the US does not recognize North Korea as a nuclear power? And what about recognition between Taiwan and China?