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: 6
83
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 


Your personal legal opinion isn't really evidence to me. I'm sure that might have "escaped" you. Unless you have a JD from a top ranked school or serve as a judge, that is. Which if you do, I'm all ears. As far as I can tell, you have a very severe case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Bush's signing statements are fully open to legal challenge by anyone, but as they don't really have the force of law, it would be hard to challenge them as they are unlikely to affect you.

Bush does not have the ability to name anyone a combatant. In the event that he names someone as one, the Supreme Court has just ruled even enemy combatants receive full due process rights (there goes that theory).

The federal reserve is a quasi public institution with its board of directors directly appointed by the government. You should be happy about it, you seriously do not want the evil government you spin so many conspiracies about having absolute control of the money? Or perhaps you want another Zimbabwe, where political leaders influence monetary policy for political gain and ruin the country?

You have shown no evidence, you have shown a deep desire to want to believe in these conspiracies. I understand. We live in a world that is complex, and is hard to comprehend. You have decided to craft conspiracies to simplify your worldview. I will remain on the side of the facts and evidence. The government does plenty of bad things without having to rely on a conspiracy. There is plenty of evil in this world, to those who would prefer to look at the facts rather than use conspiracy blinders. The government is sitting in the room doing all sorts of bad things, and your sitting in the dark corner trying to come up with conspiracies instead of looking at whats going on in front of your face.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]




posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


Spoken like a true disinfo agent.


Let's try to stick to the subject shall we? Instead of just trying to paint CT's as wackos "sitting in a dark corner."



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


I'd say your post makes you look like the disinfo agent, distracting us with very well weaved conspiracies while the government does bad right in front of our face


In any case, were just going to have to agree to disagree because this will simply go around in circles as it has been for some time.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 

Well, at least we have common ground in that the government is indeed doing bad right in our faces.

Cheers.



[edit on 7/20/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Me and jack have been arguing his position that we are in fact still under martial law today and have been since 1863. His whole argument is based on this and without us being under martial law from that year, till this day, his whole theory falls apart and is wrong. I am posting my reason(facts) why today we are not under martial law from that day. I believe this is proof that he is in fact completely wrong. Here is the info I have:

President Andrew Johnson stated in presidential proclaimation no 153 that "
"the insurrection which heretofore existed in the State of Texas is at an end, and is to be henceforth so regarded in that State, as in the other States before named in which the said insurrection was proclaimed to be at an end by the aforesaid proclamation of the second day of April, one thousand, eight hundred and sixty-six. (the before named states were all the states in the confederation.)

"And I do further proclaim that the said INSURRECTION IS AT AN END, AND THAT PEACE, ORDER, TRANQUILITY, AND CIVIL AUTHORITY NOW EXIST, IN AND THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."

Matial Law cannot exist where there is civil authoriy or at times of peace. This ends the presidents martial law. Now during the reconstuction acts congress did authorize martial law, however it was just for the confederate states during reconstution. President Johnson was against this and actually vetoed the bill www.digitalhistory.uh.edu... however congress voted and overturned his veto establishing the martial rule in those states.
"The Joint Committee then formulated the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in order to get around the apparent unconstitutionality of the Civil Rights Bill. It passed Congress on the 13th of June and was submitted to the states for ratification. The Amendment defined American citizenship and included Afro-Americans. It provided Federal protection to freedmen whose rights could not now be limited by state governments. Ratification was denied by most of the southern states but was made a requirement for readmission into the Union. Tennessee accepted the amendment but the other southern states awaited the upcoming congressional elections and possibly a more sympathetic congress.


Johnson’s republicans captured a two-thirds majority in both houses, giving the Republican Radicals control over Reconstruction. This was Johnson’s party, but these radicals were much more antagonistic towards the South than he. On March 2, 1867, Congress passed the First Reconstruction Act over Johnson’s veto. Martial law was declared over the former confederate states, which were divided into five regions.


The new requirements for states to be re-admitted to the Union were ratification of the 14th amendment and universal suffrage guaranteeing that Afro-Americans would be given the right and opportunity to vote. In the Omnibus Act, June 22-25, 1868, seven states met the requirements and were readmitted to the Union. These were Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina and South Carolina. Georgia soon returned to military rule when all of the Afro-American representatives were dismissed from the state legislature. It was allowed to return to self-rule only when the state ratified the Fifteenth Amendment, guaranteeing equality for the freed slaves, and allowed the Afro-Americans to return to the house.

All the states signed the fourteenth amenment and were reinstated to the Union, which ended the martial rule they were under per congress statement. Another way to further prove matial law was no longer is in the above statement "Georgia soon returned to military rule when all of the Afro-American representatives were dismissed from the state legislature. See this statement alone proves matial law was ended in those states previously mentioned (the confederate states) Because it clearly states that Georgia RETURNED TO MARTIAL LAW. You can not return to something if it already exists or has left. You wouldnt return to it if you are already there. And again it doesnt matter how they were formed. They were formed. And any argument that have been made about the 14th amendement have been shot down by the supreme court. And seeing the Supreme Court is in charge of interpreting the highest power in the land "the constitution" it was all considered constitutional. www.splcenter.org... So for the people who dont like it, it is just too bad. Regarless how much you dislike how it happened it happened. And it happened legally. Now you can argue how you think it was unconstitutional or whatever ,however as far as I know you are not a Supreme Court member. And the fact of the matter is your whole argument( and signiture thread) is based on the fact that we are under Martial law and have been ever since 1863. I know how hard it is to change ones mind, especially when they were positive they were right, as you said before " If one cannot change their opinion based on new information, then they are truly lost in that quest." Well the ball is in your court. Because the info I have provided clearly states that martial law was ended, first by the president who by declaring peace and the restoration of civil authority. Then after martial law was declared for reconstruction for the confederate states it was ended when those confederate states we readmitted to the union which gave them back self-rule.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 



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


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

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



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by tide88
 



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


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

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



Except for expulsions of southerners loyal to the Confederacy during the Civil War, Congress has rarely used its powerful authority to remove a legislator from office for misconduct. The first expulsion occurred in 1797, when the Senate ousted William Blount of Tennessee for inciting members of two Indian tribes to attack Spanish Florida and Louisiana. The expulsion followed a House vote to impeach Blount—the only time the House, which originates all impeachment proceedings, has ever voted to impeach a senator or representative. The Senate headed off the impeachment proceedings by voting to expel Blount, something the House had no authority to do.

During the Civil War fourteen senators and three representatives were expelled. On a single day, July 11, 1861, the Senate expelled ten southerners for failure to appear in their seats and for participation in secession from the Union. One of the ten expulsions was rescinded after the expelled member's death.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 



Except for expulsions of southerners loyal to the Confederacy during the Civil War, Congress has rarely used its powerful authority to remove a legislator from office for misconduct.


Okay, and?



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 

Who says they convened unconstitutionally? You? The Supreme Court didnt deem it unconsitutional. And they are the final judge whether or not something is constitutional. Like the 14th amendment, which I am assuming you claim is unconstitutional. The fact that the United States Supreme Court has soundly rejected attacks on the Fourteenth Amendment for more than a century adds to the Amendment's legitimacy. They deemed it constitutional. End of story. They decide what is constitutional, not you. And the constitution specifically states that. And in the end this all does not matter. Because the President has no power over the supreme court, and therefor even if he declares Martial Law it only suspends crimial and civil courts. Not the FEDERAL Supreme Court. It is called Checks and Balances. Not one party has power over the other. No matter what! AGAIN In 1866, after the end of the Civil War, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus throughout the nation and declared military trials illegal in areas where civilian courts were again able to function. Again show me where Martial Law suspends the power of the Supreme Court.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


There is a fallacy in your argument. The president does have power over the Supreme Court by appointing judges. John Roberts spent zero time a Supreme Court Justice...he was appointed Chief Justice. But overall, you are saying that checks and balances right the system, yet, what about executive orders? How can the president write so many that contradict the constitution of US CORP?



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by pluckynoonez
 



Yes the president has some power over the supreme court. They appoint candidate, however congress need to confirm it. Anyway how does that give power over its members. Not one of the branches of government have total power over the other. That is why the system was divided into three seperate entities. Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The Supreme Court decides whether the rules of the Constitution are broken. Which they did in Ex parte Milligan.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by pluckynoonez
 

After doing all this research I want you to know I do believe that the President has way to much power. And some of these executive orders are not helping. However we have not been living under martial law since 1863. Sure the president has made it easier to declare it. Maybe too easy. First off, If we were under martial law now, all these executive orders would be unnecessary. Second, Just because the president has made it easier to declare martial law, does not mean he is going to.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 



Who says they convened unconstitutionally? You?


Yes, me, the OP.



They decide what is constitutional, not you. And the constitution specifically states that.


And in that belief system is why your argument fails. The Supreme Court is not the great decider, the people are...


We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that amongst these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter, or abolish it.




It is called Checks and Balances. Not one party has power over the other. No matter what!


In case you missed it, that is the whole point of my thread. Checks and balances collapsed, power was usurped and never restored, sovereign states were invaded by the usurper.

No matter what? That's just childish.

[edit on 7/20/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by tide88
 



Except for expulsions of southerners loyal to the Confederacy during the Civil War, Congress has rarely used its powerful authority to remove a legislator from office for misconduct.


Okay, and?



Those members were expelled. This was so congrss could go on with business. It is rediculous to think that congress could not do official business because those states couldnt get representation. The constitution isnt Black or White. There is a grey area. That is why there is the Supreme Court. They didnt see congress conveneing at this time as unconstitutional. In certain cases there has to be some leaneancy. Regardless things got better after the Civil War. If anything people received more freedoms. I am sure there is not one African American who would rather go back to the times before the civil war. There was no malicious intent back then. They were just trying to restore the Union. There is obviously nothing I can say that will change your opinion, but that is all it is, an opinion. It is your intepretation of the events. I have had expert opinions and you just claim tham as propaganda, even though they would have no reason to spread propaganda as it relates to this discussion.
You have made your case, I have made mine, now it is up to the individual to decide who is right.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


How is "no matter what" childish. No matter what. No matter the circumstance. One does not have power over the other. That is a childish statement? How? BTW the south attacked first. I am officially done with this argument. I can see your point even though I believe it to be wrong. All in all it has been a good discussion. Those events shaped our country into what it is today. Now I guess you are very unhappy with it. I personally am not. Maybe you wish there was still slavery today. Or that the USA was split in two. The fact of the matter is that we were still a very young country back then. We were still learning and adapting as a country. Those past events made us into the most successful country ever.(even if you believe we arent now, we were at one time). The only thing I dont understand is that if you actually believe that why not move to another country. If you really believe all that you claim to be true, why on earth would you stay here. As I said before, i am done. Anyone who reads this thread can come to their own conclusions. See ya around.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 20-7-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 20-7-2008 by tide88]


[edit on 20-7-2008 by tide88]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


The King of England once thought the Colonies were his, no matter what.

How do you think dicators come to power? Because people blindly believe that their Constitution is safe, no matter what.

If not childish, then blindly "patriotic" of you. Tell all the people who have shed blood for the Constitution, that it was always safe, no matter what.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by tide88
 


The King of England once thought the Colonies were his, no matter what.

How do you think dicators come to power? Because people blindly believe that their Constitution is safe, no matter what.

If not childish, then blindly "patriotic" of you. Tell all the people who have shed blood for the Constitution, that it was always safe, no matter what.


It has been 145 years since then and there has been no dictator yet. I am willing to bet the USA will never be under the rule of one.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by tide88
 


The King of England once thought the Colonies were his, no matter what.

How do you think dicators come to power? Because people blindly believe that their Constitution is safe, no matter what.

If not childish, then blindly "patriotic" of you. Tell all the people who have shed blood for the Constitution, that it was always safe, no matter what. You are trying to twist my words.


You tell all the people that have and are shedding blood for the constitution that they are doing it for no reason. Since the constitution is no longer legitimate. Also was mearly stating the martial law does not suspend the judicial branch of the government. No matter what. That means no matter what the president declared (martial Law) it still doesnt suspend the supreme court.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 20-7-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 20-7-2008 by tide88]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 



Those members were expelled. This was so congrss could go on with business. It is rediculous to think that congress could not do official business because those states couldnt get representation.


Is it your argument then that the Constitution and Democracy are "ridiculous?" That even at their expense, the show must go on so to speak?

If Congress were to legally act, they needed to have the quorum required by the Constitution, OR let the southern states secede so that the qurom required fewer delgates.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 



Regardless things got better after the Civil War. If anything people received more freedoms.


That is your opinion then. If you think it is better to be the subject of Federal conquerers, than a sovereign person born of a sovereign state, you are entitled to it.



I am sure there is not one African American who would rather go back to the times before the civil war.


Blacks were freed from the ownership of private persons, only to become subjects of the Federal corporation. Today, we are all slaves. Privately owned by the Federal Reserve Bank as collateral on the Federal bankruptcy.

Also keep in mind that "freedom" for blacks meant they had to wait another century for their Civil Rights.



There was no malicious intent back then.


And you know this how? Because the Federal government is so righteous? Because bad people could never do such a thing?



They were just trying to restore the Union.


Okay. It was all just like we were taught in first grade.




I have had expert opinions and you just claim tham as propaganda, even though they would have no reason to spread propaganda as it relates to this discussion.


They have every reason to. They are the authors of the propoganda. And even if they aren't aware of it, they find shelter and comfort in the idea that history is exactly what we have all been taught, by the victors.

I think you, and your experts are too emotionally attached to the status quo.



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join