Bush Will Not Declare Martial Law, The USA Economy Will Not Completly Collapse

reply to post by ALightinDarkness

If this guy doesn't have the qualifications to answer this, who does?

No one without proof. I don't care what someone's qualifications are. He may actually be correct, but I have to see the facts for myself. If I am wrong, show me the proof. Just because someone with a PhD says I'm wrong, doesn't make it the truth.



[edit on 7/18/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


Jack - he cannot offer evidence against a negative statement. That is just the way logic works. I cannot prove a negative. I cannot prove to you that the sky is not filled with purple unicorns. Why can he not do this? Because if something did not happen, there is no proof that it did not happen. It simply never happened.

reply to post by tide88

The guy replied. He actually says jack is a nut. His exact words, and that I was right.

Name calling is the weakest of arguments, and being dismissive in such a way actually shows me that this expert really has no ground left to stand on in this debate.

This ends this debate for me. It is another expert on the subject replying that you are complete wrong in every way.

It is no surprise that you could find an expert or two that would say that I am wrong. In fact, most of the experts will say that I am wrong. No surprise there. Would it make any difference to you if I said that I hold a PhD, and have been published? Probably not. So then, their expertise is actually irrelevant. You are only taking their word because it supports your own opinion, without actually being able to refute the facts that I have posted and the conclusions which I have drawn from them.

You go ahead and believe what you are told, and keep on living on a flat Earth that the universe revolves around.

And with that, we can part agreeing to disagree, until next time.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Would it make any difference to you if I said that I hold a PhD, and have been published? Probably not. So then, their expertise is actually irrelevant.

You weren't asking me, but it would make all the difference in the world for me. You wouldn't have to have a PhD, but if ANY of this was EVER confirmed by a mid-tier or top-tier peer reviewed journal I'd be willing to believe the evidence was in your favor.

I spent about an hour going through peer reviewed journal data bases to see if anyone had ever done anything before that could support you and didn't find anything. If you do, let me know. I'd be genuinely interested in reading it.

[edit on 18-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

reply to post by ALightinDarkness

Oh, but it did happen, as I have shown. Now if there is something inaccurate about my facts, then I am willing to alter my conclusions accordingly. Or if there are some facts which have not yet been presented. But thus far I have seen nothing that explicitly shows the restoration of the Constitution.

[edit on 7/18/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


Your facts are inaccurate. We've been through this. Lincoln's power to call congress did not require a quorum. The section requiring Congress to have a quorum does not apply when the President uses his power because each Article's requirements apply exclusively to the branch to which they refer. The Supreme Court struck down Lincoln's use of martial law, ending it. You have completely dismissed all of this.

All of these things have been showing either in the historical record, or by experts. They cannot prove a negative, because it didn't happen, they only offer evidence against your version of events.

reply to post by ALightinDarkness

To be honest, I am more skeptical of accredited experts than those who are self-taught outside of the system. After all, these are the people who are building the illusion, and keeping it alive. They are the gatekeepers of the Matrix so to speak.

This bit popped into my head as soon as I read your post...

The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

-Morpheus

reply to post by ALightinDarkness

Lincoln's power to call congress did not require a quorum.

You're right. Lincoln's power to call Congress had nothing to do with a quorum whatsoever. But for Congress to act once they have convened, by Presidential order or not, they still need a quorum. There is no exemption from that, espicially considering what you yourself have stated...

...because each Article's requirements apply exclusively to the branch to which they refer.

EDIT to add:

The Supreme Court struck down Lincoln's use of martial law, ending it.

Under martial law, the Supreme Court has no such authority to do so. Only the Executive branch has that authority, and no President has ever repealed.

[edit on 7/18/0808 by jackinthebox]

We can go round in circles on this. I have previously shown, which was confirmed by a constitutional lawyer, that Lincoln's convening of Congress was legal and their actions legal even if it doesn't fit a quorum number that you want them to have. You can dismiss it, but I have seen no facts to the contrary.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Under martial law, the Supreme Court has no such authority to do so. Only the Executive branch has that authority, and no President has ever repealed.

What exactly do you think declaring unconstitutional means? I have previously shown that the Supreme Court can declare any government action unconstitutional because of judicial review and its original jurisdiction. When something is declared unconstitutional, it means there is no legal basis for the law to be in existence as it goes against the spirit or the letter of the constitution, and thus its effects are retroactively nullified. This is why you can sue for damages a law caused you which is later declared unconstitutional. When something is nullified on the basis that it is unconstitutional, it is repealed and nullified regardless of what the law says.

This would be why Congress has never attempted, although it has often threatened, to pass a law that says the Supreme Court cannot declare X unconstitutional. They could do it, and even though the law specifically says X cannot be declared unconstitutional, the nature of something being unconstitutional is that YOU CANNOT ENFORCE THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE. The government cannot stop the Supreme Court from ruling anything unconstitutional.

As such, the Supreme Court can and has in fact struck down martial law, which was nullified, and it had every authority to do so. The constitution has been in full effect ever since.

[edit on 18-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

reply to post by jackinthebox


The constitution is the highest law in the land. The Constitution does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review; nevertheless, the power of the Supreme Court to overturn laws and executive actions it deems unlawful or unconstitutional is a well-established precedent. Many of the Founding Fathers accepted the notion of judicial review; in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton writes: "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. So if they feel that martial law was unconstitutional they have the right to end it. Which they did. The President isnt above the constitution. and it is the supreme courts job to interpret the consitition. They did this and deemed his declaration unconstitutional. Your whole argument is based on that martial law was legally declared and never rescinded. However it was declared unconstitutional. Show me where the Supreme Court has no power during martial law. Here is a nifty diagram for you.

bensguide.gpo.gov... See each of the three governments are seperate from each other.

The powers of the supreme court

Determines which laws apply to any given case
Determines whether a law is unconstitutional
Has sole power to interpret the law and to apply it to particular disputes
May nullify laws that conflict with a more important law or constitution
Determines the disposition of prisoners
Has power to compel testimony and the production of evidence
Enforces uniform policies in a top-down fashion via the appeals process, but gives discretion in individual cases to low-level judges. (The amount of discretion depends upon the standard of review, determined by the type of case in question.)
Polices its own members
Is frequently immune to arbitrary dismissal by other branches

They were well in their right to declare MARTIAL LAW unconstitutional. And seeing that the consitution is the highest law in the land it nullified MARTIAL LAW that was declared by lincoln.



[edit on 18-7-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 18-7-2008 by tide88]

reply to post by ALightinDarkness

I have previously shown, which was confirmed by a constitutional lawyer, that Lincoln's convening of Congress was legal and their actions legal even if it doesn't fit a quorum number that you want them to have.

It's not what I "want," it's what the Constitution says. Ignore it if you like, but it doesn't change the fact that a quorum is required.

By the way, was that lawyer you found a member of the BAR?

What exactly do you think declaring unconstitutional means?

The Supreme Court can declare it un-constitutional all they want, but without the Constitution being in force legally in the first place, it doesn't make any difference.

As such, the Supreme Court can and has in fact struck down martial law, which was nullified, and it had every authority to do so. The constitution has been in full effect ever since.

Well if this were true, then the Confederacy could have sued for relief of the un-Constitutional acts against them. Especially considering that secession was not illegal at the time of the Federals moved against them.

Your own words...

This is why you can sue for damages a law caused you which is later declared unconstitutional.

reply to post by tide88

Show me where the Supreme Court has no power during martial law.

I have showed you already, but here it is again...

3. Martial law in a hostile country consists in the suspension by the occupying military authority of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court cannot end martial law because...

2. Martial law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation, ordered by the commander-in-chief, or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war, when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace as one of the conditions of the same.

[edit on 7/19/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


What you have done is created a perfect logical fallacy so that you can never be disproven, even though all evidence says you are incorrect. It is a perfect and almost textbook example of the begging the question fallacy.

You have given incredible power to the concept of martial law which does not exist, presume it is true without evidence, and then use that presumption to deflect absolutely all evidence and expert opinion. Just because someone can sue for damages does not mean they will. Any amount of brief political science analysis of the situation would show you the obvious reason why the confederacy would never do such a thing: they were attempting to make the government look illegitimate, by bringing suit they would be giving an air of legitimacy to the union.

I also noticed you don't seem to understand there are three types of law: civil law, criminal law, and constitutional law. Marital law suspends the first two but not the third, which is the power the US Supreme Court uses to nullify martial law - which it did.

This has reached the point of utter absurdity.



[edit on 19-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

reply to post by ALightinDarkness

Any amount of brief political science analysis of the situation would show you the obvious reason why the confederacy would never do such a thing: they were attempting to make the government look illegitimate, by bringing suit they would be giving an air of legitimacy to the union.

You can't be serious. The legitimacy of the Union was never in question. In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite of what you have just stated. The South would have jumped at the chance to have the Supreme Court rule in their favor, and be free of the martial law of Union forces.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Wow. Absolutely amazing. As the south was attempting to start their own government, using the Union's procedures and institutions to resolve a dispute would give an air of legitimacy to a government which they just declared was illegitimate (thus the reason for their withdrawl).

In any case, this has turned into one giant begging the question fallacy.

reply to post by jackinthebox

You ever hear of presidential proclaimation No. 153. well here it is along with a few others:
On April 2, 1866, President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation that,

"the insurrection which heretofore existed in the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi and Florida is at an end, and is henceforth to be so regarded."29

On August 20, 1866, President Andrew Johnson issued another proclamation30 pointing out the fact that the House of Representatives and Senate had adopted identical Resolutions on July 22nd31 and July 26th, 1861,32 that the Civil War forced by disunionists of the Southern States, was not waged for the purpose of conquest or to overthrow the rights and established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union with all equality and rights of the several states unimpaired, and that as soon as these objects were accomplished, the war ought to cease. The President’s proclamation on June 13, 1866, declared the insurrection in the State of Tennessee had been suppressed.33 The President’s proclamation on April 2, 1866,34 declared the insurrection in the other Southern States, except Texas, no longer existed. On August 20, 1866,35 the President proclaimed that the insurrection in the State of Texas had been completely ended; and his proclamation continued:

"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.

"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."

CIVIL AUTHORITY NOW EXISTS. That statement and the above ended martial law.

reply to post by ALightinDarkness

...air of legitimacy to a government which they just declared was illegitimate (thus the reason for their withdrawl).

They never declared the United States illigitimate. I suggest you study up some on the Civil War, because it was the other way around, as I have already stated.

reply to post by tide88

Now that is the best counter-evidence posted so far, I'll give you that. The only problem is, that this was not the case. Military authority was still in force throughout Reconstruction. Which is why their properly elected Congressional delegations were turned away from Congress, and the southern states were not re-admitted to the Union until much later.

Here is an excerpt from the Reconstruction Acts...

And be it further enacted, That the commander of any district named in said act shall have power, subject to the disapproval of the General of the army of the United States, and to have effect till disapproved, whenever in the opinion of such commander the proper administration of said act shall require it, to suspend or remove from office, or from the performance of official duties and the exercise of official powers, any officer or person holding or exercising, or professing to hold or exercise, any civil or military office or duty in such district under any power, election, appointment or authority derived from, or granted by, or claimed under, any so-called State or the government thereof, or any municipal or other division thereof, and upon such suspension or removal such commander, subject to the disapproval of the General as aforesaid, shall have power to provide from time to time for the performance of the said duties of such officer or person so suspended or removed, by the detail of some competent officer or soldier of the army, or by the appointment of some other person, to perform the same, and to fill vacancies occasioned by death, resignation, or otherwise.

reply to post by jackinthebox


yes but it is The Reconstuction Acts established military rule only during the reconstruction of the southern states UNTIL new governments were formed and they accepted the 14th amendment. These government were formed and accepted the 14th, and in doing so would end the military rule. Also reconstuction was just in the southern states. And only the states of the confederacy were placed under this martial rule. Here is another part of the reconstruction act:

And be it further enacted, That when the people of any one of said rebel States shall have formed a constitution of government in conformity with the Constitution of the United States in all respects, framed by a convention of delegates elected by the male citizens of said State, twenty-one years old and upward, of whatever race, color, or previous condition, who have been resident in said State for one year previous to the day of such election, except such as may be disfranchised for participation in the rebellion or for felony at common law, and when such constitution shall provide that the elective franchise shall be enjoyed by all such persons as have the qualifications herein stated for electors of delegates, and when such constitution shall be ratified by a majority of the persons voting on the question of ratification who are qualified as electors for delegates, and when such constitution shall have been submitted to Congress for examination and approval, and Congress shall have approved the same, and when said State, by a vote of its legislature elected under said constitution, shall have adopted the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and known as article fourteen, and when such article shall have become a part of the Constitution of the United States, said State shall be declared entitled to representation in Congress, and senators and representatives shall be admitted therefrom on their taking the oath prescribed by law, and then and thereafter the preceding sections of this act shall be inoperative in said State Provided

[edit on 19-7-2008 by tide88]

reply to post by jackinthebox


Gee, I guess that college class in the politics of the civil war and that whole degree in political science, and I just have no idea what I'm talking about..nor that masters degree...nor the Ph.D. I am working on in government I really dislike bringing up credentials because they mean nothing when both sides are presenting evidence and logic for their arguments, but it gets to the point with you to where you simply dismiss everything as being wrong without evidence. If your going to do that, I don't know what else we can rely on except credentials. I hope you have some impressive credentials we have not seen. Otherwise, you dismissing them simply because you proclaim them wrong won't hold much weight.

Anyways, as this has now turned into 1 huge circular argument with you relying on the begging the question fallacy, I'll step out of this until you offer any actual new evidence.

Best luck to you on this, tide88, a true show on your part to deny ignorance.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]