It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 5
83
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 



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.


Everyone I knew who lost their house in a major highway project locally, was only given about 65-75% of what the market value was at the time. By the time the project was finished, that figure had diminished to less than half. All of this in a county that now asesses properties to be anywhere from 50 to a hundred percent ABOVE current market values. We're talking maybe ten to fifteen years later now I guess.




posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
This post in response to member post in another thread...
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
reply to post by jackinthebox
 

First, before we continue into this, I want to know exactly how many people showed up and what percent they were of the remaining states. If it was 50% or more of the states still in the union at the time, it would constitute a quorum...


What "remaining states?" All of the states were still in the Union according to the Federal government. So unless they were willing to accept the withdrawl of the Southern delegations, then those delegations were still required to achieve the quorum.

Besides that, the withdrawl of New Jersey broke the quorum as well.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Everyone I knew who lost their house in a major highway project locally, was only given about 65-75% of what the market value was at the time. By the time the project was finished, that figure had diminished to less than half. All of this in a county that now asesses properties to be anywhere from 50 to a hundred percent ABOVE current market values. We're talking maybe ten to fifteen years later now I guess.


I'm sorry, but there is no way this happened. Someone lied to you. The law requires anyone whose property is taken by eminent domain receive at least the fair market value. It could be that people do not want to believe their property is worth less than it really is, but there is no way they could have gotten paid 65-75% of the actual fair market (appraised) value. As they receive the appraised value before the eminent domain project occurs, it doesn't matter what happens afterward - obviously, a highway decreases land value.

In eminent domain proceedings, the law allows the property owner to contest the appraised value and get their own third party appraisal. If the property appraises for a materially higher value, they not only get the higher value but the government pays for the appraisal costs and even pays damages in some cases.

In fact, there is a phenomena known as "friendly condemnation" where the government colludes with the property owner to assess the property way above fair market value to placate the citizen and essentially give them more money than their property is worth.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 



The law requires anyone whose property is taken by eminent domain receive at least the fair market value.


Well, the fair market value was depressed by the public knowledge that the two lane road was going to be expanded into a six lane highway. So while everyone elses property values were climbing around the county, theirs was falling. This did also include houses that were not knocked down in the end. The value of those homes that were spared ended up exploding once the highway was completed.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


The problem is that the government makes a fair market value assessment before it releases information about the eminent domain project. Each state statute outlays the procedures, but I've read almost all of them after doing that thesis and not 1 ever stated that any appraisal made AFTER the eminent domain project become public knowledge would be valid. Any assessment afterward must be made retroactively (ie, only using data from before the eminent domain project was announced).



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


OK, this is just going to go around in circles. The purpose of requiring a quorum is so that a certain threshold of people are there to represent the views of the majority in the names of their constituents. If members of the body have declared they are no longer part of the government, regardless or not of the federal governments opinion, then they are no longer part of the quorum because they no longer have any vested interest in representing the views of their constituents because they see the government as false.

If the number of states in the union - those who had withdrawn or signaled they were going to withdraw no matter what divided by 2 was greater than the number of people at that session of Congress, there was an effective quorum. Of course again, this does not matter because (1) The provision for a quorum applies when Congress meets of its own accord and does not apply to the President's emergency power and (2) In any case there is no effective change in how the country operates today.

However, this is just going go round and round and round, so we can just agree to disagree.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 



The problem is that the government makes a fair market value assessment before it releases information about the eminent domain project.


Okay. That certainly plays into how things may have played out then, with this highway project. You're looking at a window of at least five years then between the time that the project became known publicly, and the time the people had to move out. A big increase in local property values happened during that time, so it cost those people a fortune. So much that they had to leave the county. One of them happened to be fifth generation in the house, and was even trying to get the house registered as historic to save it.

I really can't say that I am an expert on eminent domain, only that I have seen the damage that it causes. In this case, all so a bunch of yuppies can get home ten minutes faster.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


The period of time between the assessment and the move out is meaningless because the property loses its effective utility - the government will control it so its value to someone else becomes moot. However, given the current legal status of eminent domain, I would bet you could go in and get even more money for it if went up. Governments are truly terrified of eminent domain cases.

If the opposite happened, you wouldn't want people to be paid less because property values went DOWN. Which they would with the placement of most eminent domain projects, since they are usually NIMBY (not in my backyard) items.

I am not a supporter of eminent domain, but I have learned that it has a lot more built in protections than people think. In many places, it makes people rich because the law is so in their favor.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 



If members of the body have declared they are no longer part of the government, regardless or not of the federal governments opinion, then they are no longer part of the quorum because they no longer have any vested interest in representing the views of their constituents because they see the government as false.


You can't have it both ways. Either the Southern states were still a part of the Union, and therefore required to be represented in the US Congress, or they were a legitimate independent Confederacy. Not to mention the defiling of the Constitution by Congress during Reconstruction, and the re-admittance of Southern states.



(1) The provision for a quorum applies when Congress meets of its own accord and does not apply to the President's emergency power...


I saw nothing specifying "of their own accord." Nor did I see anything specifying that the President had any power other than to compel Congress to convene. There is nothing that says he has the power to override the required quorum. If that were the case, then as I said earlier, he could have simply told a single member, or even two members of each house to convene and hash out new laws.



(2) In any case there is no effective change in how the country operates today.


Well there certainly could be though. Liberty and sovereignty would be restored, along with our Constitution. It could have a profound impact actually.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 



In many places, it makes people rich because the law is so in their favor.

As it should. There are some things that money can't buy. To some people, losing their house it worse than losing a child. Especially if they did happen to lose a child in that house.

But in the end, this is not what happened to the people I knew who lived along this corridor. It resulted in poverty, despair, suicide, you name it. Only one of the families fared well in the long run, out of those that I knew. And that was because they also happened to other key advantages locally.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Since all we're going to do is go around in circles on this, I have one question:


Originally posted by jackinthebox
Well there certainly could be though. Liberty and sovereignty would be restored, along with our Constitution. It could have a profound impact actually.


If no one acts or believes that this "conspiracy" occurred, and everyone acts as if the constitution and liberty and sovereignty is in full effect, how exactly would this change anything? What would be the the material difference in how we live our lives today? How would anything be different? Give an example.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
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.

This is true...But in the Constitution, the government's purposes for acquiring the land are expressly limited:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

But also (besides the bolded text) notice that such acquisitions must be Lawfully purchased and approved by both Congress & the State in which the land in question is located.

But when you look at Bush's "self-declared authority" to name any individual citizen as an "enemy combatant" as he alone sees fit, he can skirt around Amendments 4 & 5 that requires the Due Process of Law to confiscate any land, even if such confiscation does not include the Lawfully-reserved purpose for the land. This is merely a modern-day example of how Bush can violate the limits on Executive Authority by usurping Congressional Powers & Judicial Powers through the use of his "Signing Statements." Remember that Lawful land-acquisition must be approved by Congress (The quoted Constitutional Clause is organized under the Powers of Congress) & therefore it should be Congress who decides the purpose for the land, even including the interpretation of "needful" buildings...Not "Bush the Decider," who also happens to be the Commander in Chief of the military. Rule by Tyranny, instead of Rule by Law.


Originally posted by jackinthebox
I saw nothing specifying "of their own accord." Nor did I see anything specifying that the President had any power other than to compel Congress to convene. There is nothing that says he has the power to override the required quorum. If that were the case, then as I said earlier, he could have simply told a single member, or even two members of each house to convene and hash out new laws.

In the scholarship of the Constitution & the general "rule of thumb" posed by those very same people who established & ratified the Constitution, was that "The inclusion of one also presumes the exclusion of others." Simply put, if any Power was Granted to any Branch, then it was also assigned with specific limitations to that Power. Also, if any certain Power was not specifically delegated, then no Branch could exercise the Power at all...Whereby, we come to the 10th Amendment:

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.

...So any Power not specifically delegated to the Federal Government is a Power they are not allowed to use. Yet, the defined context of the 10th Amendment specifies that the States & the People would have more authority than the Federal Government in any Power not granted specifically to the Federal Government!


Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
If no one acts or believes that this "conspiracy" occurred, and everyone acts as if the constitution and liberty and sovereignty is in full effect, how exactly would this change anything? What would be the the material difference in how we live our lives today? How would anything be different? Give an example.

How much more "material difference" would you have in your personal possession if not for the illegality of the Federal Reserve Bank being established?



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 

Your question doesn't make any sense.


If no one acts or believes that this "conspiracy" occurred, and everyone acts as if the constitution and liberty and sovereignty is in full effect, how exactly would this change anything?


It doesn't, obviously. Take a look around.

For change to occur, this information would have to be brought out to everyone. Then the people would have to decide how best to correct the situation so that we may once again enjoy the fruits of liberty.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 


That is not the authorizing part of the constitution that allows for eminent domain, nor has it ever been. Its orginal and only intention was for the Congress to be able to have authority over pieces of land it purchased, for certain purposes. Congress was never able to use that to seize property, and never has.

The constitution was amended and the power of eminent domain given through amendment 5 only:



..nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Nothing Bush - or any other President, for that matter - has ever done has usurped this. Mainly because an executive order must be in compliance with some sort of authorizing legislation unless it is only compelling a executive branch office or officer to do something, and no authorizing legislation has been issued to subvert amendment 5.

Lawful land acquisition has not and never has had to be approved by Congress, except for the specific purposes noted in the section you quoted. All other acquisitions fall under amendment 5.

You should probably also know that the overwhelming majority of eminent domain use never occurs at the federal government level. Most of it occurs at the state and local government level, where amendment 5 is used and further restrictions refined depending on the state and the local government's status as a home rule or Dillion's rule jurisdiction.

As for the federal reserve - as the federal reserve is constitutional, there would be no material difference if the constitution was really "in effect." Of course I argue it is and all evidence says it is, but in the event that I'm wrong - there is no material difference about how the knowledge would change my or anyone else's life if somehow this were true. As no one believes in this conspiracy no policy has been made on it being in effect, and no one has been denied anything because of it.

[edit on 18-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


I think you're missing one of the major points in this & many other similar threads...The point is that, the more often the government violates the Constitution & the further they get from living up to their legally-binding Oaths of Office to it, the worse this whole nation gets. And with the modern technologies now available, this negative effect is spreading throughout the whole world, making bigger messes in even the nations that were already in messes to begin with..



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 


That would be just it, no one has offered proof that the government has violated the constitution. I see lots of hysteria, hand wringing, and self-righteousness but no evidence. Nor has anyone shown how anyone has gotten away from their "oath." The fact remains we can weave elaborate conspiracies all day, but the impact of this particular one is pointless. Even if it is true - and all evidence I have seen says it is not - then it matters little because no one is operating as if it were.

There are real, tangible, problems with government that I see everyday. Those who go hunting for conspiracies to blame on the government always miss them. You need not create a conspiracy to find problems with the government - it creates plenty of them while following the law.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


Not conspiracies, but as Chomsky says "an institutional analysis". The South walked out of Congress, the government shut down, is there a different version of events you'd like to share, for conspiracies sake?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 



That would be just it, no one has offered proof that the government has violated the constitution.


I just have, but then you just turn around and say it's pointless anyway in the same paragraph. Not very logical.



The fact remains we can weave elaborate conspiracies all day, but the impact of this particular one is pointless.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Its the concept of mootness. Something can be perfectly valid, and have no impact. In this case, since everyone acts as if this never happened (if it did, I still believe it did not as you have portrayed the events), its effect is moot.

By the way, as an academic this is not "institutional analysis." It is in fact the exact opposite. Institutional analysis requires the reasonable examination of how institutions change and impact the public. It requires using peer reviewed and statistical evidence to examine trends, neither of which has happened here. I do institutional analysis everyday, and if Chomsky ever stated this was the equivalent please cite it so I can add to the academic deluge already disproving him.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


So you want some "evidence" that has (somehow) escaped your notice?


Bush's Signing Statements: Nothing more than violations of previous Court citations that uphold Human & Citizens' Rights (approval of torture, including on American Citizens, for one) & usurping the Power of Legislation from Congress.

Bush's "self-imposed authority" to name anyone, American Citizen or not as an enemy combatant, usurping the Due Process of Law from the Courts.

Just these two counts alone constitute a massive violation of the Constitution's checks & balances system...In essence setting himself up with dictatorial power. All against his legally-binding Oath of Office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I daresay that every action he's taken since he first took the Oath has been in violation of the very same Oath...And even getting the Legislative & Judiciary Branches to allow him to do most of it, without much opposition & even against their own Oaths of Office (Article 6, Clause 3).

The establishment of the Fed Res was against the Constitution as well...They're a cartel of privately owned & operated international (mostly foreign-originated) banking institutions that have never been audited...Even though Article 1, Section 8 Clause 5 clearly states that any National Bank in America must be under the control of Congress. After all, that's what Executive Order 11110 (by JFK) was all about, was to weed out the Fed Res & put the economy back in government control.

Need any more evidence? Just open your eyes & start looking at what you see, both in current times & through historical research. There's plenty of evidence in plain view...At least, to people who don't wear blinders.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]




top topics



 
83
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join