It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 12:18 PM
reply to post by jackinthebox

I am not sure the exact date that rule went into effect but they specifically talk about it on the 27th. So I assume it was well before the day in question.

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

I think there is some confusion here. The 2/3 sometimes is not the amount of members in congress to conduct business. The 2/3 is the actual number in the quorum needed to pass some legislation. i.e. Lets use my example of 35 that constituted a quorum back then. Well there were 36 senators voting. They would need 2/3 of the 36 to pass that legislation or bill. 2/3 would have been 24 votes. Now there is also situations that require 2/3 of the entire senate. Which is the following
to expel a Senator;
to override a presidential vote;
to propose a constitutional amendment;
to convict upon impeachment;
to give the Senate's advice and consent to ratification of a treaty.

You actually only need 2/3 for a very limited amount of things. None of which was discussed on the 28th.

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.

Not necessarily. They saw it as the southern senators resigned from their positions. Which anyone can do at anytime. If there was no one to fill that position it didnt count towards the quorum. But as you can see most of the business at hand only required 1/2 +1 not 2/3. As the 2/3 is for only a very limited amount of business.

posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 12:40 PM
reply to post by tide88

Would 2/3 be required to go to war?

EDIT to add: If there was indeed the required quorum, why did they adjourn without day?

Was there a quorum when they reconvened under Executive Order?

[edit on 7/28/0808 by jackinthebox]

posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 02:47 PM
For some reason I got logged off and my email sucks so it takes me awhile to get new password.(forgot my old) Anyway 2/3 is required to declare war but since they viewed it as a rebellion and never declared war a vote was not needed. When they reconvened under his proclaimation there were 40 senators present. July 4, 1861 It lists all senators present in the second column in the above mentioned link. Adjouring without day really has no sinister meaning. They do it all the time. It only means there was no specific date set. As long as they reconvened before dec 3 1861 it is following the guidelines set forth in the constitution. adjournment sine die - The end of a legislative session "without day." These adjournments are used to indicate the final adjournment of an annual or the two-year session of a Congress.
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 ""

posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 07:49 PM
reply to post by tide88

Outstanding debate, compliments to both you and Jack!

I think the 2/3 refers to a super majority of the entire sitting members required to do, as you point out, a limited number of functions and the half+1 is a simple majority of those present to conduct most business. But I am no expert, you guys have done an incredible amount of research, and are way beyond me on this. I have learned much from this thread and hope to learn more. As both of you present some very well researched arguments, I can't say who I THINK is correct, but this I will say: the importance of the topic cannot be overstated - our liberties as Americans are obviously in question. I can only hope for the best, but I surely fear the worst is yet to come.

posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 09:05 AM
I ran across some documentation for an on-going court battle that, while it does not directly pertain to this thread, nevertheless contains some historical information linking the government's Constitutional violations with the lead-up to the Civil War.
The full PDF document can be found here but only the passage I quote below (from page 31) has significance to this thread.

Until 1830, it was unthinkable for Government at any level in America not to respond to Petitions for Redress of Grievances, for fear of the Right of the People to enforce their Rights by withdrawing their allegiance and financial support. Even U.S. Congressmen submitted all Petitions for Redress of Grievances to a Committee for consideration and response. Every Wednesday Congress considered the Petitions for Redress.

In 1830, Southern Congressmen, frustrated by the flood of Petitions from People Grieving the issue of the Rights of slaves, managed to pass a procedural rule in Congress that permanently tabled any additional Petitions on the subject of slavery.(6)

It took John Quincy Adams five years to repeal the rule, but the precedent was established. That precedent became the basis of another and so forth, until the full contours of the meaning of the Right to Petition had become all but forgotten -- until 1985.

The Supreme Court had only to mention the Right to Petition in 1985 to wake up the scholars.(7) Following MacDonald v Smith, ten law review articles on the subject of the Right to Petition were published. None had ever been published before 1986. Included were extraordinary works on the history, meaning, effect and significance of the Right to Petition, especially those by Prof. Gregory Mark at Rutgers and Prof. Akil Amar at Yale.

(6) It might not have taken 35 years and a civil war to end slavery in America had the Government, for the first time in American history, not failed to respond to the People’s Petitions for Redress.
(7) In MacDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (1985) the Supreme Court held that just as the Right of Free Speech is not absolute (one can’t yell “fire” in a dark crowded theater, the Right to Petition for Redress is not absolute (one can’t libel or defame another).

The significance of the portion of text that footnote 6 links with may have a bearing on where the government first started to "set the precedence" of ignoring (& attempting to coerce against) the Will of the People who exercise the Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances. If nothing else, this may be one of the actions during this time frame that contributed to the start of "illegitimate government."

[edit on 30-7-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 09:22 AM
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

Great post. This issue is now starting to be raised heavily and rightfully so because I feel it is just as important as the second amendment as far as keeping our government in check. Nice find.

posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 03:08 AM
I've found some more info about how the Civil War was really about centralizing the government:

...The book The Real Lincoln (c) 2002 shows how Lincoln's Civil War was not necessarily about freeing the slaves. Remember, the winners of a war rewrite the history books.

While Jefferson and Madison opposed centralized government, it says Lincoln and the Republican Party used the slavery issue brilliantly to advance their real objective: establishing a consolidated federal government. It was the financial leverage which forced states to convert to full United Nations regionalism...

...Lincoln also confiscated firearms in violation of the Second Amendment and he effectively gutted the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution which reserved powers to the states and to the people and were placed on the list of "rights" to safeguard personal liberties and to diffuse the power of a centralized government...

...Lincoln cracked down on the opposition by suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus and he imprisoned newspaper editors, who dared criticize his actions for deciding to invade the South without the consent of Congress. One of those imprisoned was Francis Key Howard of Baltimore, the grandson of Francis Scott Key...

So it seems to me that Jack is, generally speaking, more right that wrong, regardless of the actual state of "martial law" or not. Either way, the increasing danger of "centralized government" is much more apparent today, as we see entire sovereign nations being "unified" into large regions (Note the European Union & the upcoming NAU), to be further unified into NWO.

Originally posted by mybigunit
...I feel it is just as important as the second amendment as far as keeping our government in check.

Actually, the Right to Petition is intended as our peaceful means to keep the government in line...The 2nd Amendment being the means of "last resort."

[edit on 1-8-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 03:16 AM
A good indication was the G~D Dam~ piece of paper remark

But I Agree JackintheBox has proven it beyond all doubt.

posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 03:20 PM
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

No offense but citing a book written about the lincoln from the opinions of another hardly proves anything. I could sit here all day and cite hundreds of other books that disagree with what your so called "source" says. However I never gave my opinion on the subject as a whole. And the OP whole post was backed up by facts. The fact of the matter is most if not all the facts he presented have been proven to be false. We have not been living under martial law since the civil war and congress has not been meeting under the president executive orders since then so when "solo" says he has proven it beyond a shadow of doubt, how is that? What has he proven. He whole post was backed by false information. Although I understand people on this site believe whatever they want no matter what information is presented. Hell for all I know the NWO could just be some nickname come up for people who want to spread democracy thoughout the world. They might not even be an organized group. Maybe there is nothing sinister about them. I dont know one way or the other but I will look at both sides. Unlike many of you on this site. Oh and to the moderators I had to set up a new account because after a week of trying to get my password on my old one, I give up. I emailed you guys 5 times and you will not send me a password. I Wonder Why?

posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 11:55 PM
For the time being I'm going to have to let this debate rest in the hands and minds of fellow members. I have become quite ill with a disease that effects my concentration and thought processing, among other things. In such a condition, I am unable to apply the time and energy required to advance the debate further.

You will proabably still see me popping around ATS though while I weather the affliction. I also hope that the first round of treatment has me back in good running order shortly. Stay tuned...

posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 12:19 PM
reply to post by jackinthebox


I am sorry to hear that. I hope you get better. I just want to say that I respect your views and even though I disagree with you OP your have made me a more educated person. I am not an extremely religious person but I will pray that you get better. Good Luck with everything.

[edit on 3-8-2008 by tide8888]

posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 01:01 AM
Well, I've recently found some other evidence that jackinthebox is right in that we've been in a period of war since the Civil War. It has to do with the commonly-seen version of the American Flag in that our original Republic had two distinct flags: One to denote a Civil Jurisdiction & the other to denote a Wartime Status.

Source: Citizens For Better Government. The hyperlinks inserted into the External Source below are my additions...To help confirm their veracity. However, I couldn't find the actual text of the history book online, I provided a link where you could still find it (assuming that you can't find it in your local library first: I did).

The people of the United States actually have two national flags: one for our military government and another for the civil. Each one has fifty stars in its canton and thirteen red and white stripes, but there are several important differences.

Although most Americans think of the Stars and Stripes (above left) as their only flag, it is actually for military affairs only. The other one, meant by its makers for wider use (peacetime), has vertical stripes with blue stars on a white field (above right). You can see this design, which bears civil jurisdiction, in the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs flags, but their service insignias replace the fifty stars.

I first learned of the separate, civil flag when I was reading Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, published in 1850. The introduction, titled "The Custom House," includes this description:

From the loftiest point of its roof, during precisely three and a half hours of each forenoon, floats or droops, in breeze or calm, the banner of the republic; but with the thirteen stripes turned vertically, instead of horizontally, and thus indicating that a civil, and not a military post of Uncle Sam's government, is here established.

It took me two years of digging before I found a picture that matched what he was describing: my second clue was an original Illuminated History of North America (1860). If this runs against your beliefs, look up those two references.

History book publishers contribute to the public's miseducation by always picturing the flag in military settings, creating the impression that the one with horizontal stripes is the only one there is. They don't actually lie; they just tell half the truth. For example, the "first American flag" they show Betsy Ross sewing at George Washington's request, was for the Revolution - of course it was military.

The U.S. government hasn't flown the civil flag since the Civil War, as that war is still going on. Peace has never been declared, nor have hostilities against the people ended. The government is still operating under quasi-military rule.

More at the Source

So according to actual documented history, the USA is still at war with itself.

posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 06:33 PM
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

Good try but that is completly false. And citing the scarlet letter which is a book of fiction doens't help you case at all. FLAG OF FICTION The OP already tried this route with the gold fringed flag which was also proven to be false. People ofter get that flag confused with UNITED STATES REVENUE MARINE Nice try though, but you are way to smart to believe that crap.

posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:07 PM
I did some more digging...Flag history is not something I'm used to & it took some time to gather a few more pieces.

I admit...My bad. Even though I was already aware that Hawthorne's story was fiction, I originally meant the "truth" was in the history book. However, more digging got me this:

Hawthorne was referring to the flag of the Customs House in his time...He worked for a Customs House at one time & that flag was later adopted by the Coast Guard (I'm not certain if they modified it before using it though).

So that also puts the lie to the "Illuminated History" book mentioned above...
Hey, in order to "Deny Ignorance" we must also learn to admit when we're wrong, huh?

posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 05:16 PM

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Hey, in order to "Deny Ignorance" we must also learn to admit when we're wrong, huh?

Your right there. I have to say I seriously admire you for that too. Think it might be a first for this board.

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 01:41 AM
reply to post by tide88

The OP already tried this route with the gold fringed flag which was also proven to be false.

Actually, you only posted some counter-material, but you did not "prove" anything one way or the other regarding the gold-fringed flag. I think that the fact that the only regulations on it can be found in military documents speaks volumes.

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:37 PM

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by tide88

The OP already tried this route with the gold fringed flag which was also proven to be false.

Actually, you only posted some counter-material, but you did not "prove" anything one way or the other regarding the gold-fringed flag. I think that the fact that the only regulations on it can be found in military documents speaks volumes.

Hey, welcome back. How is everything going. Are you feeling better? Anyway back to the Golden Fringed Flag:

Traditionally, the flag may be decorated with golden fringe surrounding the perimeter of the flag as long as it does not deface the flag proper. Ceremonial displays of the flag, such as those in parades or on indoor posts, often use fringe to enhance the beauty of the flag. The first recorded use of fringe on a flag dates from 1835, and the Army used it officially in 1895. No specific law governs the legality of fringe, but a 1925 opinion of the attorney general addresses the use of fringe (and the number of stars) " at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy..." as quoted from footnote in previous volumes of Title 4 of the United States Code law books and is a source for claims that such a flag is a military ensign not civilian. However, according to the Army Institute of Heraldry, which has official custody of the flag designs and makes any change ordered, there are no implications of symbolism in the use of fringe.[12] Several federal courts have upheld this conclusion.[13] source

Sorry for decoration purpose only. Unless you can cite an example where it officially was used otherwise in a civilian court to override ones constitutional rights. Otherwise it is just speculation.

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 04:32 PM
reply to post by tide88

Hey, welcome back. How is everything going. Are you feeling better?

Thanks, but no my condition is deteriorating actually.

Back on topic:

I have already shown several military regulations denoting the gold-fringe as military authority. Therefore, the onus is on you to show where an exemption to these regulations has been entered into statutes of Constitutional authority.

Army Regulation 840-10, 2.3:

b. National flags listed below are for indoor displays and for use in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes the United States flag will be rayon banner cloth, trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe, 2 1/2 inches wide.

c. Authorization for indoor display. The flag of the United States is authorized for indoor display for:

(1) each office, headquarters, and organization authorized a positional color, distinguishing flag, or organizational color;
(2) each organization of battalion size or larger, temporary or permanent, not otherwise authorized a flag of the United States;
(3) each military installation not otherwise authorized an indoor flag of the United States, for the purpose of administering oaths of office;
(4) each military courtroom;
(5) each US Army element of joint commands, military groups, and missions. One flag is authorized for any one headquarters operating in a dual capacity;
(6) each subordinate element of the US Army Recruiting Command;
(7) each ROTC unit, including those at satellited schools;
(8) each reception station.

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 05:58 PM
reply to post by jackinthebox

Gold fringe is used on the National flag as an honorable enrichment only. It is not regarded as an integral part of the flag and its use does not constitute an unauthorized addition to the design prescribed by statutes.

Records of the Department of the Army indicate that fringe was used on the National flag as early as 1835 and its official use by the Army dates from 1895. There is no record of an Act of Congress or Executive Order which either prescribes or prohibits the addition of fringe, nor is there any indication that any symbolism was ever associated with it. The use of fringe is optional with the person or organization displaying the flag.

A 1925 Attorney General’s Opinion (34 Op. Atty. Gen 483) states:

"The fringe does not appear to be regarded as an integral part of the flag, and its presence cannot be said to constitute an unauthorized additional to the design prescribed by statute. An external fringe is to be distinguished from letters, words, or emblematic designs printed or superimposed upon the body of the flag itself. Under the law, such additions might be open to objection as unauthorized; but the same is not necessarily true of the fringe."

It is customary to place gold fringe on silken (rayon-silk-nylon) National flags that are carried in parades, used in official ceremonies, and displayed in offices, merely to enhance the beauty of the flag. The use of fringe is not restricted to the Federal Government. Such flags are used and displayed by our Armed Forces, veterans, civic and civilian organizations, and private individuals. However, it is the custom not to use fringe on flags displayed from stationary flagpoles and, traditionally, fringe has not been used on internment flags

See it is used for many different things. If I go buy a golden fringed flag and put it in my room it doesnt mean the US army has jurisdiction over me. It is a decoration. And that is why it is used in courtrooms. BTW just called my friend who is a lawyer and his father is the Chief Justice of the county I live in. He says the golden fringe has no meaning what so ever and that is just an old urban legend.

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 06:45 PM
Actually, I've found a forum where, as much as ATS Members research in conspriacy theories, they focus on the America Flag! From what indications they've researched, I've also coupled that with what I've researched in law for the past several months. My conclusion is that the gold fringe is just a decoration & carries no special symbolism...At least not to be mistaken for any indication of jurisdiction. It's the law that establishes jurisdiction, not the way the flag looks. The Constitution does establish 3 different venues of jurisdiction & military is one of them. As such, if a courtroom decides to display a flag without gold fringe, it still can enforce a military venue for jurisdiction.

You can check up with the combined efforts of the research on this in the forum that I've mentioned just a moment ago...American Flags Forum. The research results cited there discusses the precise issue as to the "meaning" of the gold fringe.

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in