Illegitimate Federal Government and the Rule of Martial Law in the United States, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 83 times

reply posted on 25-6-2008 @ 04:00 PM by birchtree

reply to post by pstrron

pstrron post
"Though a poster did bring up 1933 as a defense against the OP's posting, it would seem that he over looked the point regarding the bankruptcy of the US. The bankruptcy was the coup de' grace of any hope of peaceful restoration. When you declare bankruptcy it is the courts and banks that make the laws or rules of the insolvent. The question is who's courts and which banks? The creditors of course. Therefore the creditors own all our assets along with our blessed Constitution which they did not reinstate.
So far no president has come forth with an executive order resending Lincoln's and they are not about to do so. The next point of contention is; the reinstatement of the Constitution to its proper place. "

I like the fact you sighted my post but obviously did not read that the 1861 was rescended and is no longer in effect, while at the same time saying that i must not have realized this.

Also there is no evidence since then that any bankruptcy coup de gras caused any insolvency of our laws, read the Emergency Powers Act. Your next point is there is no reason to reinstate something that by Law can not be rescended, it is illegal and so therefore is in effect, It is in action everyday you can read Supreme Court Decisions since 1861 where decisions were based upon the Constitution. You can see Governors and Legislature being prosecuted under gross violations of the Constitution and for goodness sake the President is under investigation and has been filed on by a watch dog group about his alleged violations against the Constitution under the Patriot Act...Is all that an illusion for the people....BS......The real argument here by Jack in the Box is that it is just an illusion....I dont see Martial Law, look around, if you see it then you don't know what Martial Law is because we sure are not in it, if there were martial law there would be no reason to pretend or make light to the World little alone the people of this Country that it was happening....it would be open revolt.

The other thing is and although I do not dislike or have contempt for JITB he will disavow any thing you bring to the table including documents from the Government, which there would be no reason for writing and presenting if we were in Martial Law, but JITB expects me to lend credance to his proof, which is mostly just conjecture from what Ive seen.

I was a little disappointed theat you brought up the 1933 EPACT but failed to apparently read anything else. I have read all these documents and keep myself appraised of sits going down in DC and Supreme Court IMO the only illusion is that JITB and others believe we are under an institutionalised Martial Law. LOOK AROUND AND GO TAKE A WALK AFTER MIDNIGHT, GO TO CHURCH EVEN IF YOU DONT BELIEVE, TALK ABOUT POLITICS IN PUBLIC, TALK ABOUT RELIGION IN PUBLIC, GO BY AN EXCESS OF FOOD AND BONDS, GO BUY SOME GUNS AND AMMO, TAKE A FLIGHT WHERE YOU WANT. I'M SORRY WE ARE NOT IN MARTIAL LAW.

[edit on 25-6-2008 by birchtree]

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 01:12 AM by jackinthebox

reply to post by birchtree

I would like to start my rebuttal here by thanking you for participating in the thread, and providing material in which discussion and debate will bring about a greater understanding for the readers.

...that if the constitution and bill were circumvented sometime ago, the gov would not be jumping through all the loopholes of a process just to front it to a public.

Why wouldn't they? The old "frog in the pot on the stove" is the overall strategy here. Furthermore, there is resistance. There are those in government who are not tyrants, and who very much believe in the ideals set forth by the Founders. Lastly, there are many more in government who are not even aware of the reality of the situtation. Even the lawyers and judges, for the most part, aren't really aware of any of this themselves I don't think. So the illusion is not perpetutated against the common citizen alone, but even against the very people who are working to perpetutate it.

Are you saying we are living in a defunct society and we can do nothing about it? Do you want civil war? Do you think there should be some kind of public uprising to demand redress? or are you just saying it is hopeless and we are already slaves and there is nothing we can do?

It is not up to me to decide how people should use this information, or what it should mean to them in their lives. I have no solutions to offer at this time. Should that mean that I be silenced from providing the information?

...but I do not see us being there yet, because it will be a hell of a lot worse and there would be no reason for them to even bother creating an illusion for us. It does not make sense.

Just because it is not "worse" for you yet, does not change the facts. The reason is control. Divide and conquer. The illusion facilitates that. The illusion keeps the people building up their own prison walls, and working to enslave themselves. The illusion keeps the people blind, and ignorant to the realities of situations that so many of our fellow countrymen now find themselves in today.

There will be open bloodshed in the street, people will be controlled, even to the point of buying groceries and selling personal items, the idea of personal property will not even exist as an illusion, people will be rounded up in large scales. This is not happening and when they do declare martial law, which is what the above describes there will be no illusions about it, it will be in your face and I am sorry I am not seeing it.

Allow me to show you then.

There is open bloodshed in the streets already. Every night and day, in every city. Do you really deny that reality? Not only are the people killing eachother, but the police are murdering civilians as well. Take the Sean Bell case for example, or the many victims of no-knock warrants being executed at the wrong address.

Buying groceries and selling personal items. Commerce is not controlled? What about taxation on almost anything that you can buy? Even in a personal transaction between two citizens. If I sell you a used car, that I already paid tax on when I bought it, you will pay tax on that car again when you go to register it. Do you own a barcoded card issued by your local supermaket? This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you really want to understand how your groceries are being controlled, I suggest you look into Monsanto, and Codex Alimentarius.

Codex Alimentarius (Mandate That Will Starve 3 Billion People to be In Place by 12/31/09)

"Let them eat cake!"

The "right" of personal property is an illusion. Ask any of the people that I have known who have lost their homes to the "good of the community" when a new highway came through, or the old lady who cannot pass on the home that has been in the family for generations because she fell behind on her taxes while trying to survive on a fixed income.

The people are being rounded up. Despite the fact that China has a billion more people than the US, we have better than a half-million more people in living in prison here today. We can't build the prisons fast enough, literally.

Proportionately, Communist China doesn't even compare to the US...

To be continued...

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 01:32 AM by jackinthebox

...contiuned...

reply to post by birchtree

As far as providing proof I gave what you claimed was a lameduck statement from the EPACT that you said did not matter, Why should your evidence matter to me.

Because my evidence is precisely what invalidates what you claim to be proof. If that does not matter to you, then there is nothing I can do to change that. But the facts stand, wether or not you choose to accept them.

I will give you three documents that do matter, The Constitution, The Declaration and The Bill you can say they are useless and dont matter anymore but the truth is just the opposite, because without those documents you wouldnt even have a point to make here...

I am not saying that they are useless and do not matter. To the contrary, they matter very much, and that is why it is so important to me that people realize we have been going along without them for far too long now.

...and although groups may try to circumvent these documents when it comes down to, it is not legal for them to do so, So They Are Still Valid. Period.

It is perfectly legal for them to do so, under the current system, but that does not make it Constitutional however. When the Supreme Court "interprets" the Constitution to mean just the opposite of what is stated, the invalidity is apparent.

Try to go into court and fight for any of your Constitutional rights. Your suit will be thrown out as frivelous, or worse, you will be found to be in contempt of court. As a citizen under the 14th Amendment you are extended civil "rights" as a privilege, which are not Constitutional rights at all.

[edit on 6/26/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 03:28 AM by MidnightDStroyer

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Try to go into court and fight for any of your Constitutional rights. Your suit will be thrown out as frivelous, or worse, you will be found to be in contempt of court. As a citizen under the 14th Amendment you are extended civil "rights" as a privilege, which are not Constitutional rights at all.

What most people don't realize (& no one sitting at the judge's bench will reveal either, unless you cite court-case precedents first) is that the 14th Amendment does not supersede or modify any of the relevant Constitutional Clauses...It merely clarifies them. The 14th Amendment was written to grant citizenship (& protection under all Rights) to the newly-freed slaves who were not already citizens at that time.

Since people who already were citizens at that time cannot be granted something they already possessed, the 14th Amendment was useless to them...But it's been misused ever since.

Two of the Bill of Rights that have not been "incorporated" are the Second Amendment and the Fifth. The Supreme Court has avoided taking any cases that would require it to rule on the right to keep and bear arms or assemble as an independent militia.

Here are some sources:
Intent of the 14th Amendment: Includes the text of the "external source" above.
Wikipedia: 14th Amendment.
HarpWeek. Includes Biographies & Sources.
14th Amendment. Includes some interpretations & explains how the "anchor baby policy" is invalid.
Plenty more out on the 'Net, but this is enough to get the point across.

However, I think the biggest problem is how the Supreme Court has been "interpreting" the Constitution according to dominant political agendas instead of strictly in accordance with other Constitutional & Natural Laws.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:38 PM by birchtree

reply to post by jackinthebox

Your rebuttal is appreciated and was given in a most respectful manner; to that I appreciate

The frog in the pot analogy I do agree with and I feel we are on the same side of the coin, I am just not in total agreement with you about where we are in the progression of the plan.

I still hold our RIGHTS, which is what they are, are self evident; meaning Prima Facie they are there without a determination by the government, because those rights are in the peoples hand.

I do believe there are illusions that are being made to the people to mask things that are occuring, I would agree also that not everyone at every level of government is aware of it, or that it in fact is a government plan, but I do know there is a plan and people do know about it and that it is world encompassing, but that it has not enveloped us to the extent you feel it has. I agree that there is a push to bring us there, but once again I cannot agree with you as to the level at which that plan has been implemented. I think it will be a lot worse and it is not coming directly from our in place government but outside the box and up the chain.

IMO we are not in what I would consider or hold to be martial law but I will say this Jack about the people you are trying to inform or that i and others have tried to make aware of our situation.
Truth is always with us sometimes we are the missing party, it will take an awakening to see how far we have been alienated from and realize just how far we are from the truth. The honest message from ourselves may be painful but when we recontact with the truth it helps us see where we are and what we need to do to make a reconnect

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:52 PM by jackinthebox

reply to post by birchtree

I still hold our RIGHTS, which is what they are, are self evident; meaning Prima Facie they are there without a determination by the government, because those rights are in the peoples hand.

This much is true. Wether or not they are recognized by the government in place, our rights certainly remain relevant to the people.

This does not mean however, that people will not suffer under tyranny and die trying to exercise their "self-evident" rights under the current state of martial law. The government no longer recognizes our rights. The same way that all the people of the world have certain Human Rights recognized by the UN, but which are violated and superseded by tyrants. We may have to use force to gain official recognition once again, of our Constitutional rights here in the United States.

EDIT to add:

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

[edit on 6/26/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 04:21 PM by jackinthebox

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

...no one sitting at the judge's bench will reveal either, unless you cite court-case precedents first...

Since Erie vs. Thompkins 1938, there is no mixing of the old law with the new. Case-law prior to 1938 cannot be cited without judicial recognition, which lawyers and judges are sworn not to grant as agents of the BAR Asssociation. Laws today are decided as a matter of corporate public policy, not Constitutional authority.

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 10:50 PM by jackinthebox

reply to post by birchtree

Please don't be offended that I am going to offer some information here regarding your reply to another member, but they have not yet responded to you and I feel there are some valid points which I can make here.

...the 1861 was rescended and is no longer in effect, while at the same time saying that i must not have realized this...

Congress has no authority to rescind the actions of Lincoln. Congress operates as an agent of the Executive, by decree, not through the democratic will of the people. This has never changed. Only the Executive can rescind this order, and no President ever has.

...I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress.

-Lincoln, Executive Order 1.

It is in action everyday you can read Supreme Court Decisions since 1861 where decisions were based upon the Constitution.

Only as a point of reference, not as a binding force of law. This is how the Supreme Court gets away with "interpretations" that actually deny us our Constitutionally protected liberties. The right to keep and bear arms for example. When they said, "shall not be infringed," they meant it quite literally. And the Fourth Amendment. The founders would never have allowed its violation in the name of "security" against some threat of terrorism, they would have seen the violation itself as an act of terrorism.

You can see Governors and Legislature being prosecuted under gross violations of the Constitution and for goodness sake the President is under investigation and has been filed on by a watch dog group about his alleged violations against the Constitution under the Patriot Act

I have never heard of anyone ever being prosecuted for violations of the Constitution. And that is exactly why any investigation by any watchdog group will go nowhere, because the Constitution is no longer in force as a practical instrument of law.

I dont see Martial Law, look around, if you see it then you don't know what Martial Law is because we sure are not in it...

What exactly do you think martial law actually is? What would you expect to see?

if there were martial law there would be no reason to pretend or make light to the World little alone the people of this Country that it was happening....it would be open revolt.

You seem to have answered your own question. The need to "pretend" helps to prevent "open revolt" until it is too late, when all of our guns are taken and the exterminations begin.

...but JITB expects me to lend credance to his proof, which is mostly just conjecture from what Ive seen.

I have done little more than present the facts. The wording of those documents is quite clear, and leaves little room for any "conjecture." Are you trying to argue that Executive Order 1 and General Orders 100 are somehow matters of opinion?

LOOK AROUND AND GO TAKE A WALK AFTER MIDNIGHT, GO TO CHURCH EVEN IF YOU DONT BELIEVE, TALK ABOUT POLITICS IN PUBLIC, TALK ABOUT RELIGION IN PUBLIC, GO BY AN EXCESS OF FOOD AND BONDS, GO BUY SOME GUNS AND AMMO, TAKE A FLIGHT WHERE YOU WANT.

What you are talking about here are specific regulations, that can be implemented at any time. When Union troops occupied Southern territory, martial law existed wether or not a General ordered a nightime curfew or restricted trade. I doubt that any Union commander forbade talk of religion, and yet martial law certainly did exist in those occupied territories, as it still does in America today.

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 12:37 AM by MidnightDStroyer

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Since Erie vs. Thompkins 1938, there is no mixing of the old law with the new. Case-law prior to 1938 cannot be cited without judicial recognition, which lawyers and judges are sworn not to grant as agents of the BAR Asssociation. Laws today are decided as a matter of corporate public policy, not Constitutional authority.

And this is precisely why the government is dangerous to the People...They refuse to recognize where the ultimate authority truly exists--In the People & their Constitution. You can still refuse any BAR-passed legal representation & insist upon either a Common (Constitutional) Lawyer or declare your own sovereignty & claim that an Unconstitutional Court has no jurisdiction over a sovereign citizen who does not represent either a "corporate entity" or "military person" under the UCC or Admiralty Court. Whatever you choose to do is your own choice & the choices are still extant. Make sure you're thoroughly prepared for whatever choice you make because the exercise of your Rights still does include the personal responsibility manifested within each one of those Rights. One of those preparations may be to submit one or more affidavits to back up each & every one of your Rights...Which will take a lot of research & well-thought preperation. This thread may give you some good leads on how to start preparing.

Even so, there's still the chance that they'll try to "make an example of you" in order to put more fear of them into the minds of the general public, just to keep them in line. However, the more publicity you can generate on the course for your (& everyone elses' defense!), the more likely you can eventually succeed...Even more, the publicity may even help the People attain more awareness of how bad the government's gotten & actually do something about it. In other words, the harder you have to fight, the more likely you'll gain allies that you may have never even heard of...ACLU may even wind up on your side. You may even help everyone achieve True Unity in the face of Tyranny!

After all, there are was to still invoke the Constitution against them, for as long as they still wish to maintain the facade of Constitutional authority. This is still a good defense for all citizens, not just you...I kept mentioning "you" specifically," but was actually referring to every Citizen of the States United, on the whole.

If these kinds of "defenses" still fail to work...Well, there's still the 2nd Amendment to exercise our Right to "alter or abolish."

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 12:54 AM by jackinthebox

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

I remember reading that Wesley Snipes was "made an example" of along the lines of what you are talking about here. Of course, his case revolved around taxes and the IRS specifically though, and I heard that his lawyer hung him out to dry.

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 01:16 AM by MidnightDStroyer

Originally posted by jackinthebox
I remember reading that Wesley Snipes was "made an example" of along the lines of what you are talking about here.

Yeah, the bigger your name is, the more they need to "make an example." Snipes probably didn't know how to defend his Rights & let himself get tangled up in the Unconstitutional law structure--If he'd done so from the start, then his "big name" would've generated more PR (& public awareness). People like you & me who don't really have a big name to start with are less likely to get "hung out to dry" by a lawyer of the BAR who supports the UCC & Admiralty Court instead of supporting the Supreme Law.

The main point of my previous post (& this one too) is that, the more people who can be made aware of how illegitimate the government actually is, the more people that are likely to stand against it. The biggest hurdle is to make the truth seen by many rather than depend on the media-indoctrinated sheeple to actually seek the truth.

If Lincoln had indeed stepped beyond his Constitutionally-delegated Powers in the first place, then that means that everything the government has done since then was equally illegitimate & must be held accountable.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 09:10 PM by Mailman

Stellar post.

Kindof creepy that Bush's most admirable President was lincoln.
Probably was admired by most presidents, But this seems to shed a whole new outlook.
Im kindof worried what our next one will do.

reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 12:38 AM by pstrron

It is regrettable that I have not been able to add to the post again sooner. Being a day ahead and up to 12 hours offset does pose a time lag in responding. However lets continue.

Earlier I had posted in regards to the bankruptcy of the United States as declared by F.D.R. in 1933 and that it was relevant to the thread.

The reconvening of Congress by Lincoln was by executive order thus anything Congress has done since then is outside their area of operation and thus unlawful. However, with the declaration of bankruptcy by F.D.R.(as expressed in Roosevelt's Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260, House Joint Resolution 192 (Public Law 73-10) of June 5, 1933 (31 U.S.C. 463) confirmed in "Perry v. U.S. (1935) 294 U.S. 330-381, 79 LEd 912, as well as 31 United States Code (USC) 5112, 5119, Senate Report 93-549, and 12 USC 95a.) changed the playing field. One other fact needs to be noted to shed light on how a bankruptcy could be placed upon the individual States as well. This was done through the rewriting of the Articles of Confederation into the present Constitution and the scraping of the ratified original 13th amendment. This brought all the States under the Federal Gov. in D.C.. Declare Federal bankruptcy and you declare bankruptcy for all.

You now need a court case to shore everything up and the first is Erie RR v. Thompkins decision in 1938, since then the courts have operating under Public Policy, in the interest of the "nations creditors", instead of Public Law in accord with the Constitution.

The judges are not allowed to consider any case law prior to 1938! BUT, there is one case, Clearfield Trust, et al v. US, 318 US 363 (1943). All courts are Administrative Tribunals, operating under a Colorable Admiralty Jurisdiction called Statutory Jurisdiction and all judges are Administrators, and all Lawyers are officers of the colorable courts. The whole judiciary is administering the Bankruptcy of the US, declared by Roosevelt in 1933.

Furthermore, "The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873). Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship."--Jones v. Temmer, 829 Fed. Supp. 1226 (1993). So where is your Bill of Rights?

With the Federal Courts declaring that an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution will no longer be determined by the Courts to have been adopted in accordance to the U.S. Constitution as required by the Act of Congress of April 20th, 1818 and by 1 USC 106b, the people of the United States of America are now left without recourse.

The law governing the US is not the Constitution but the UCC (adopted by all States). In the Erie Railroad case, the supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law(Constitution) at the federal level. All our courts since 1938 are Merchant Law courts and not Common Law courts.

How could all of this happen to the American public when we had a Constitution and a Bill of Rights? Please refer back to Lincoln's reconvening of Congress by executive order and the declaration of bankruptcy by F.D.R.. Everything since then is nothing more than smoke and mirrors with plays on words to make us feel that we still have what our founding fathers gave us.

Personally I feel that Lincoln would have repealed everything at the end of the Civil War and put us back on the proper track. John Wilkes Booth however made sure that wasn't going to happen and the rest is history.

[edit on 7/2/2008 by pstrron]

[edit on 7/2/2008 by pstrron]

reply posted on 3-7-2008 @ 09:37 AM by DisgustedOne

reply to post by pstrron

Well done research, sir. Since the every-day mundane business of life (job, mortgage, kids, time sucking mindless internet activities, etc...) hinders me from confirming your research, I will take it on faith that what you say is correct. In view of that, what recourse short of another bloody revolution do we as Americans have for restoring things back to original intent? Certainly not the courts, as they are an instrument of our very enemies. Are we all doomed to slavery to the system? And that being said and the sad thing is, my life ain't so bad. Today.

Best regards to you, sir and to the OP.

reply posted on 3-7-2008 @ 10:13 AM by Anonymous ATS

Anyone with basic math skills and eyes to see will quickly realize that the 3% who own this country and the 30% who are their Minions (local, state, and federal government employees, including the military) have a strangle hold upon this country and the American people that they are tightening as they gut our Constitution, inact more laws, build more prisions and recruit more solders. Soon they will represent 40% of our population, leaving 60% and of those 20% are the scum who by various means are also parasites feeding at the publich trough. That leaves 40% of us and of those, many are not even true Americans; they are just visiting but, for the sake of the numbers/calculation, let us say that they are 10% of our population. That leaves 30% and of those, at least 10% are Know Nothing Dweebs and City-Urbanite Clerks, leaving only 20% of us who could actually fight, let alone be capable of rebuilding a new nation from the mess that would follow.

Sorry but that is not a fight that can be won. Maybe God or mother nature will help us...it appears to be trying.

reply posted on 3-7-2008 @ 12:27 PM by jackinthebox

reply to post by DisgustedOne

And that being said and the sad thing is, my life ain't so bad.

Enjoy it, seriously.

Because I believe we are on the downslope of what has become a cyclical trend within civilization and democracy.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these
nations always progressed through the following sequence

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage "

-Alexander Tyler, University of Edinburgh, 1787

“Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

-John Adams, April 15, 1814

[edit on 7/3/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply posted on 4-7-2008 @ 07:42 AM by DisgustedOne

reply to post by jackinthebox

At the risk of a one liner, I completely agree with you. However, I am not sure a revolution and restoration isn't at least remotely possible. When I was growing up, we never dreamed there would come a day when the Russians would no longer be communist (yes, I know what they have now isn't much better). The point there is like the old saying "The most dangerous man is the one who has nothing to lose." When the people of this nation wake up and realize everything has been taken away from them and they have nothing to lose, then maybe, just maybe, the revolution will begin. I have known for some time now that we are in the complacency phase. I sense now that we may be at a crossroad and I don't think this nation can continue its present course, "business as usual". SOMETHING is going to change, it just may be an ugly process.

reply posted on 16-7-2008 @ 01:35 PM by tide88

On September 15, 1863, Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized martial law. The authorizing act allowed the President to suspend habeas corpus throughout the entire United States. Lincoln imposed the suspension on "prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy," as well as on other classes of people, such as draft dodgers. The President's proclamation was challenged in ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's imposition of martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional.

so that would of ended the martial law part of the lieber code, aka general order 100. Seeing that it was april 24, 1863 and on sept the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.

reply posted on 16-7-2008 @ 02:01 PM by jackinthebox

reply to post by tide88

If you had read through the material I provided, you would see that your point has already been rendered irrelevant.

See Executive Order 1.

reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 04:53 PM by ALightinDarkness

Originally posted by jackinthebox
The "right" of personal property is an illusion. Ask any of the people that I have known who have lost their homes to the "good of the community" when a new highway came through,

I spent about a year writing a master's thesis on eminent domain - which is the legal mechanism by which the things you cited happened - , and I have to say the evidence completely disagrees with you on this point. The government is absolutely terrified of using eminent domain because of the political circus it starts, which is why governments tend to offer to buy the property for something far beyond fair market value and use an array of alternate strategies before even considering eminent domain use.

Eminent domain requires that property be taken for the public use where the government must demonstrate a compelling government purpose for the land which could not be used in any other way. Its a extremely high bar of proof, which is why there are so many cases over it - the government usually loses them. In the event that the government can demonstrate a compelling government purpose and public use for the land, then they must still pay the property owner fair market value.

I personally don't like the law, there are a number of problems with it about externalities for third party property owners, the inability of cash transfers to fully compensate for immaterial value of some property, etc. But it certainly is NOT a free for all where we can just decide to take everyone's home because I want to put a highway through it.