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.
Originally posted by jackinthebox
Just because it was declared un-Constitutional, does not mean that it was rescinded. Only the President can do that, Lincoln was shot before he could do that, and no President since then has rescinded Executive Order 1, nor has Congress convened Constitutionally since the Executive Order was issued.
It has been insisted at the bar, that, as the original grant of jurisdiction to the Supreme and inferior courts is general, and the clause assigning original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court contains no negative or restrictive words, the power remains to the Legislature to assign original jurisdiction to that Court in other cases than those specified in the article which has been recited, provided those cases belong to the judicial power of the United States.
If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the construction. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance.
A law declared unconstitutional is no longer in effect, which is why martial law is no longer in effect.
Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
Why is it you can win a court case based on the constitution, or stop the government from doing something due to the constitution?
There is no quorum required, as the President used his constitutionally granted authority to call the Congress.
Originally posted by jackinthebox
You can't. You can only sue for consideration of your civil rights, which is not the same thing actually.
Originally posted by jackinthebox
Without the quorum, democracy and the Republic cease to exist. And again, we are left with rule by decree and martial law. Furthermore, the quorum is indeed required by law anyway.
Originally posted by pluckynoonez
If we are no longer under martial law, then why is there so many executive orders? Answer me that!
(I love this discussion by the way, everyone is bringing their "A" game.)
Lincoln called the Congress in line with his constitutional authority, they convened, and have since that time been meeting legally.