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: 9
83
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


No, I'm talking about you answering the question. You must have me confused with some other conversation on another discussion board.




posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 

Okay so the session ended on March 28,1861. He called the special session unders his executive orders on july 4th 1861. It was adjourned sine die aug 6th 1861. They then reconvened dec 2, 1861 pursuant of the constitution. Lincoln had to order them to reconvene because they were not supposed to reconvene until december of that year. If he didnt order them to reconvene they would have still reconvened when they were supposed to, which was dec 2, 1861. You do realize that the constitution specifically states that congress has to meet twice a year.


[edit on 21-7-2008 by tide88]



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


But why had the session ended? I could be mistaken, I don't have my materials with me today, but wasn't it because they did not have the required quorum to conduct any further business?



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by tide88
 


But why had the session ended? I could be mistaken, I don't have my materials with me today, but wasn't it because they did not have the required quorum to conduct any further business?


They thought that they didnt not have the quorum on the day of the 27th. That is why they did not adjourn sine die that day. Because without the required quorum they would not be able to according to the constitution. So they recessed or adjourned for the day. (there was actually a senator that was so adament about not adjourning sine die that day he was willing to spend the night there. They of course said they were not adjourning sine die and were just in recess till the next day. On the next day ,the 28th ,they had the required quorum to adjourn.
And they did adjourn sine die that day. Look at the post you said was long winded. Those are the actual documents from those days. Those are the records of what was exactly said and done that day. If you read you would see how much those people respected the constitution. They held it alot higher then those in the seats today.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


Okay, I'll have a look when I get to someplace where I can concentrate on the subject.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by tide88
 


Okay, I'll have a look when I get to someplace where I can concentrate on the subject.


Sounds good it is really interesting. Although the print is real small. Anyway until tomorrow....



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 

Also posted this on another thread but just want to post it to reiterate my proof that indeed a quorum was present.:

March 27 1861

Mr Bayard "you cannot tell if there is a quorum until you have a vote upon it. If there appears to be no quorum, then I agree we cannot adjour sine die.

Mr Truble "the fact has been that there is no quorum; an until there is ascertained that there is a quorum,i raise the point in order that it is not competent for any person, any more it would be to introduce a bill or any other project.....

Mr. Breckenridge " It is true the senators point is well taken; but if nobody had raise it, we might have adjourned sine die."

The Constitution specifies that a majority of members constitutes a quorum to do business in each house. The rules of each house provide that a quorum is assumed to be present unless a quorum call demonstrates the contrary. Representatives and senators rarely force the presence of a quorum by demanding quorum calls; thus, in most cases, debates continue even if a majority is not present.
en.wikipedia.org...

PAGE 1519

Mr Breckenridge "As some preceedings have taken place since the vote which disclosed the want of a quorum, and it may be very possible that there is a quorum now in the chamber, and it will be assumed so,unless some question be raised....."

They want on to call a recess until the next day at 1 pm. The next day there was no quorum call, therefor it is assumed, by law, that a quorum was indeed present. if there is no quorum call there is a quorum
And that day they adjourned sine die

Need to add that there were actually 36 senators present on the next day so there was infact indeed a quorum. Seeing they only need 32 to consititute a quorum.





[edit on 22-7-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 22-7-2008 by tide88]



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
S&F~! However, this issue goes way back and why people don't do something?

Answer: when was the ever a time that you remember having been taught in ANY public schools from KG-12 the details the US Constitution? Start right there my friend and you'll have your answer.. they saw this coming LONG LONG time ago!!

I don't remember being tested throughly for standard principles of the US Constitution! EVER!

Oh, but you can get a degree in it at a University! ($40K+/yr)



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


I remember being taught about it in US History in grammer school and highschool. My 8th grade trip was to DC and and basically revolved around the constitution. BTW I lived in NJ at that time and the trip was a weekend trip.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by Komodo
 


I remember being taught about it in US History in grammer school and highschool. My 8th grade trip was to DC and and basically revolved around the constitution. BTW I lived in NJ at that time and the trip was a weekend trip.


Yes, but US History is a 'general' topic... since the US Constitution is the highest law in the US, there should be whole courses devoted to this one subject IF it is something to really die for; starting from K-12 and beyond.

Why?

Simple, to avoid what we have right now .. when EVERYONE, from the time of about 5 yrs old till death knows, understands, and can the recite the entire Constitution & Bill of Rights by memory, there never will be a dictator/Imperialism..etc .

Can i recite the entire US Constitution & Bill of Rights by memory? I'm not even close, which is truely to my shame. However, was I ever instructed/tested to memorize the Constitution & Bill of Rights by memory at ALL... at any time in my school years? NO. Do they do that now? NO. My daughters can't recite them either.

David, in scripture said.." Your word (instruction) have I hid (memorized) in my heart (mind, will & emotions) that I might not sin (miss out on my blessing(s) by ignorance/disobedience) against you."

Take that same concept, and use it for Constitution & Bill of Rights and I'll bet the US would have EVER been is this position as it is in today. After reading the Constitution first paragraph(?), it was evident that .. there isn't another free country to start over in .. otherwise... I'd go and start over.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 

Thats great and all but impossible. All clases k-12 are general education. Maybe there should be a class but in order to understand the constitution you first need to learn about US history. The cirriculum is very generalized in k-12. You learn about the bill of rights and the constitution. Now in college you can take a specific course just on the constitution. To think that there is some consiracy because there is no class that specifically teaches everything there is to know about the constitution and the need to memorize it is a far leap. Name one topic that is specifically taught in k-12. And even if there was a course and every person had memorized the constitution I am not sure how today would be any different. And we spent quite a bit of time on the Constitution in US history. Every year from 1-6 grade you are taught about the constitution. And every history class you take after that spends some time on it.


[edit on 23-7-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 23-7-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 23-7-2008 by tide88]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by citizen truth
 


If you are interested in a really fun and extremely enlightening read, may I suggest: "A People's History of the United States 1492-PRESENT" by Howard Zinn. While it doesn't specifically talk about the issues Jackinthebox has presented here, I think you will find it an excellent supplement and very informative. Definitely not the material you got in your text books from school...this is the stuff that they for the most part, left out!

I got the book at an independent bookstore (though I saw it on the shelf recently at a major chain store) and it was recommended to me by the store owner when I asked him for an in-depth and comprehensive book on our history. I am almost done with it now, and I recently emailed this book store owner and thanked him for his fabulous recommendation. It's by far one of the best books I have ever read. I’m glad I got it in paper back for about twenty bucks rather than several hundred for a more rifled university text on history that I almost was going to purchase to add to my library.

Anyway Nice thread...this is why I love browsing ATS!!! We may not all agree politically on the variety of issues, but I think we can sit around the same fire when it comes to the idea that we have been sold a pack of lies and are really under the control of a power obsessed elite it would seem... if anyone else likes this book, or if you buy it and read it, I would love to hear your comments…

star/flag!



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by skyshow
 




[edit on 23-7-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 23-7-2008 by tide88]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Tide88, I apologize that I have not yet had the time to thoroughly review the material that you provided.

For the moment, in the interests of moving the debate forward, I am willing to concede as irrelevent wether or not a quorum existed at the point that they ended their last session before being called to reconvene under order of President Lincoln.

The real question is wether or not a quorum existed when they did in fact reconvene under Executive Order 1. I say that it could not have existed, without the prescence of the southern delegations, unless the remaining Congress recognized the dissolution of the seats of the seceded states, as declared.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


They relinquished their seats therefor they are not part of the quorum. A quorum consists of a majority of the actual membership. Those members withdrew from congress so they were no longer members therefor do not count towards the quorum. Vacant seats do not get a vote, therefor they do not count towards a quorum. They actually debated this. Here is an article that talks about it. NY TIMES Go towards the bottom and they talk about it. The Constitution provides that a majority of the House constitutes a quorum to do business. Under the rules and customs of the House, a quorum is always assumed to be present unless a quorum call explicitly demonstrates otherwise. So even if in fact there was no quorum since no one asked for a quorum call it is automatically assumed there is one. So any angle you take there was a quorum. And congress did its business legally. Also one more thing. Now an absent member still counts towards a quorum however a vacant seat does not. Those members vacated their seats.


[edit on 23-7-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 23-7-2008 by tide88]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 



Those members withdrew from congress so they were no longer members therefor do not count towards the quorum.


Not quite. They did not withdraw of their own accord, they were recalled and their positions dissolved by their respective states.



The Constitution provides that a majority of the House constitutes a quorum to do business.


But really two-thirds to actually do anything effectively.



Under the rules and customs of the House, a quorum is always assumed to be present unless a quorum call explicitly demonstrates otherwise.


Date and citation please for verification.



Now an absent member still counts towards a quorum however a vacant seat does not.


No, they declared those seats dissolved, by their respective constituents.

OFF TOPIC: I may be gone for a few days, and look forward to continuing on this debate when I return.





[edit on 7/23/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   


No, they declared those seats dissolved, by their respective constituents.


They did not have the power to dissolve those seats. And congress and the president considered those seats only to be vacant.

quorum - The number of Senators that must be present for the Senate to do business. The Constitution requires a majority of Senators (51) for a quorum. Often, fewer Senators are actually present on the floor, but the Senate presumes that a quorum is present unless the contrary is shown by a roll call vote or quorum call. www.senate.gov...
Didnt see that you asked for a date. Here is the actual congressional document on the day in question march 27 when they talk about not having a quorum. They mention that if one does not ask for a quorum call then a quorum is assumed to be present. I dont know if you have had a chance to read it but they seem to take the constitution very seriously. You can read the whole debate about the quorum argument on the link above.






[edit on 23-7-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 23-7-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 23-7-2008 by tide88]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by Komodo
 

Thats great and all but impossible. All clases k-12 are general education. Maybe there should be a class but in order to understand the constitution you first need to learn about US history. The cirriculum is very generalized in k-12. You learn about the bill of rights and the constitution. Now in college you can take a specific course just on the constitution. To think that there is some consiracy because there is no class that specifically teaches everything there is to know about the constitution and the need to memorize it is a far leap. Name one topic that is specifically taught in k-12. And even if there was a course and every person had memorized the constitution I am not sure how today would be any different. And we spent quite a bit of time on the Constitution in US history. Every year from 1-6 grade you are taught about the constitution. And every history class you take after that spends some time on it.


I dont know but I dont think it is a coincidence that education here in the states is going down the tubes. I think you summed it up in saying that high school is generalized. I feel that is how it should be for some subjects but something as important as our history and our rights under the constitution should be right up there at the top. More so than some calculus equations or some advanced math classes. Im not against math but 90% of the people out there NEVER use that information as adults only the people who go into a field of work that requires that stuff where as our rights covers EVERYONE and our history involves everyone so it should be taught in more detail. Our education blows and I feel the government wants us to be stupid.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


I always thought that some of those math classes were rediculous too. I mean who uses geometry (besides the basics) or algebra or higher classes. However I have since learned that math isnt about learning those equations. It is an exercise in problem solving. I also dont think it is really the cirriculum that has gone down as much as the students willing to put forth the effort to learn. There are still many immigrants that have come here and taken full advantage of our eduction system. Heck I was one of the ones that hardly put forth an effort in HS. I thought it was pointless back then. You remember when you were young and those older told you to always pay attention in school. I used to say whatever. Now I wish I would of payed attention. I dont think it is the cirriculum I think it is the typical lazy student who thinks it is basically a waste of time. Like why am I learning all this math when I will never use it. I highly doubt there is a conspiracy behind it. They dont need one when the students themselves dont care about learning. And the parents at home also dont care. Although I do agree that they should have a whole course on the constitution. However I think school is more designed to get you ready to find a job then it is to educate you on history. Guess that is sad. But again I think the individual has to take some blame. I wonder how many other countries focus on their. LOL just found this. Looks like the government is making it an issue after all www.usconstitution.net... Maybe they will actually make it a class eventually. If anything this goes to show that the government doesnt have some conspiracy that they do not want people to know the consitution. And it was even passed under president bush's term.



[edit on 24-7-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 24-7-2008 by tide88]



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 



They did not have the power to dissolve those seats.


Sure they did. That's the point, they seceded. The people are in charge, not the President or Congress. For the people and by the people.



And congress and the president considered those seats only to be vacant.


Of course they did, because they refused to recognize the secession. It doesn't matter what they "considered" the seats to be. They had been told. The letter was accepted, and no objection raised.


The Speaker laid before the House on the 24th, a letter signed by Messrs. M'Queen, Bonham, Boyce, and Ashmore, of South Carolina, as follows:

SIR,- We avail ourselves of the earliest opportunity since the official communication of the intelligence, of making known to your honorable body that the people of the State of South Carolina, in their sovereign capacity, have resumed the powers heretofore delegated by them to the Federal Government of the United States, and have thereby dissolved our connection with the House of Representatives. In taking leave of those with whom we have been associated in a common agency, we, as well as the people of our Commonwealth, desire to do so with a feeling of mutual regard and respect for each other- cherishing the hope that, in our future relations, we may better enjoy that peace and harmony essential to the happiness of a free and enlightened people.



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join