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.

 

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

page: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 



The constitution does not say a quorum is required.


I suggest you read Article One of the US Constitution. There you will find the quorum requirements.

Every convention of Congress since then has been under Executive authority, as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Lieber Code was subsequently adopted by the states, making them Federal franchises, starting with New York and California in 1872. The Code was subsequently used to bring the US into the Brussels Conference in 1874, as well as the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.



Any thing "illegal" that Lincoln would have done (so far I have not seen any evidence of it, but I'm just going along with it for the sake of argument) is no longer in effect.


It's not really that Lincoln did anything illegal by calling on Congress to reconvene, it's just that Congress had no power to do anything when they did meet, as the quorum did not exist. Without a Presidential order for sovereign state elections, not as Federal franchises, and a Constitutional convention of Congress, the Consitution will remain dormant.



Congress has closed and re-opened just 1 time between now and then, your point is moot if you have the evidence for it. They've opened and closed hundreds if not thousands of times since then...just a brief look through the congressional record confirms it.


Sure, hundreds of times, as an instrument of Executive authority, as opposed to sovereign state delegations vested with Constitutional authority.

This is why the post Civil War elections were a farce, not to mention every election since then as well.




posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


I have to admit jack, you have really made me think hard about this and I def. need to look into it further. There are some people out there that think we still are under martial law (from articles I have read on the internet), although these people don't seem to be experts on the subject. Now if I was to believe your side and say we are still under martial law ,i would have to ask myself why. Was it just an oversite and everyone forgot to end it? Peace eventually ensued and the miliatary was taken off the streets, order was restored, all courts were reopened. Does that in itself end martial law? Or has the government kept us under martial law so they could cover their asses if they take away peoples constitutional rights. They could take away your rights and say, we are under martial law. Then when it is argued that martial law was never declared, they can come back and state we have been under martial law since 1863. I find that hard to believe for a couple reasons. 1. What would be the point. The president or congress can declare martial law if he deems it necessary. 2. They have been many court cases since then where people have used their constitutional rights in court and have won because of it. 3. There are not any military personnel policing our streets arresting american citizens. 4. Martial law has since been declared four other times since 1863, what would be the purpose of declaring martial law if we were currently already under it? I believe the fact that martial law is illegal during times of peace means we are no longer under it and havent been for some time. BTW, when I made the prediction I was thinking more of the lines of.. We will not see the military policing our streets, rounding up citizens. We will not see GWB delaying the elections so he can stay in office. Maybe I should of stated that there will be no martial rule during the presidents final six months in office. That he will go quietly and it will be like just any other election year. I still stick to my statment that we are not currently under martial law, however I also admit I can see where you are coming from. I will be looking deeper into this tomorrow and maybe I can get some expert's opionion on the whole matter. I will send out some emails and see if i can get some answers. But for now I need to go to bed. Thanks for the good debate.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 



However just because he is making it easier for the president to declare does not mean he will actually declare it or that we are currently under it.


That's a little naive don't you think, given the history of the world? Tell me when power has ever been taken that was not eventually used in the history of civiliazation?



I don't think there is anything sinister about it, besides trying to protect America.


From what? I have a better chance of being struck by lightning and winning the lotto than I do of being killed in a terrorist attack. No thanks, you can keep your false sense of security, I'll have my rights back now thankyouverymuch. The only thing that scares me is how easily American have already given up. I guess the terrorists really did win on 9/11.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 



Everyone keeps claiming their freedoms are being taken away, yet I do not know one person who has been effected by the patriot act or any of the executive orders this president or any other president before has issued.


I have been directly and personally affected in a number of ways. And there are threads where others have posted how these laws have affected them as well. You are suffering boiling frog syndrome.



Martial law is declared illegal in time of peace.


So? Who says we are in a time of peace anyway? You are aware that the Civil War never ended, for starters? Not to mention the subsequent emergencies and war powers invoked by the Executive.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 



I have to admit jack, you have really made me think hard about this and I def. need to look into it further.


Well I thank you for the change in tone. I can't say that I am certainly right, but from the research I have done, I stand by my statements for the time-being. I keep an open mind, and always look forward to new information to consider.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   
[edit on 16-7-2008 by tide88]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


the end of the Civil War has generally been given as the date of the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox on April 9, 1865. This, according to proponents, marks the end of any possibility of a "win" on the Southern side. Using this logic, the date November 25, 1863 should be the end of the war. That was the day Ulysses S. Grant, William Tecumseh Sherman, Joseph Hooker and George Thomas broke out of Chattanooga, which is probably the last chance the South had for a peaceful settlement to the war.

After careful research we settled on May 10, 1865 for a number of reasons. Jefferson Davis had been captured, the surrender of all effective fighting forces east of the Mississippi was complete, and President Andrew Johnson declared an end to the armed resistance. The last significant action took place two days later, but this is expected in any war.

blueandgraytrail.com...



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 

Yes you definatly have opened my mind to the possibility. I will look further into it tomorrow. Until then, have a good night.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


We are not under martial law. Anyway you look it. You can try your hardest to claim that we are, but we are not. I understand that you cannot stand to be proven wrong. But you. That is all.


We aren't? This was the first executive order in 1863. How do you think Bush can write executive orders like this?

www.whitehouse.gov...



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 



Now if I was to believe your side and say we are still under martial law ,i would have to ask myself why. Was it just an oversite and everyone forgot to end it?


No, I believe it was intentional. Whoever was truly behind Lincoln's asassination orchestrated the whole thing, including the Civil War itself. Lincoln was deeply troubled by his predicament, and probably knew that he was being used. I say it was the international bankers, the "moneychangers" all along. The hidden elite. The puppetmasters.



Peace eventually ensued and the miliatary was taken off the streets, order was restored, all courts were reopened. Does that in itself end martial law?


Not if the courts are operating under military authority, as denoted by the gold-fringed flag you see displayed in our courts. Such a banner falls under Army regulation, not mere decoration.

Order being restored is quite subjective really. In the end though, consider that there was plenty of territory under martial law that went about daily routine in an orderly fashion. There weren't battles and violence everywhere at the same time. There were also plenty of teritirry that fell under the jursdiction of the military even if they weren't literally on those particular streets.

From the Lieber Code...


The presence of a hostile army proclaims its martial law.


There is a hostile Army present. The Federal Army. There is also the matter of what were once sovereign state militias, beholden only to their own sovereign states. (Like Lee's Army of Northern Virginia.) They have now been reorganized and incorporated into the Federal Army.

More to come...



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 



1. What would be the point. The president or congress can declare martial law if he deems it necessary.


To keep the people blisfully unaware you might say. To induce the boiling frog syndrome.

Let's say that even today, in this modern age, we still retained all of the rights and freedoms that we had at the time of the Civil War. Do you think that you, or I, or anyone else would stand for it if the President or the Federal government suddenly enacted every law all at once that have come about since the start of the Civil War? Would we have tolerated it if the Federal government suddenly usurped such enormous power all once? I think not. All it took was the Federal government butting into state business, where it had no Constitutional authority, to start a Civil War back then.

Instead, they have slowly taken away our rights. Generation by generation. Until we are left not even knowing what freedom actually means. Heck, most people today actually believe the Supreme Court when they "interpret" the Constitution to mean the exact opposite of what it actually says. They can only get away with that, because they can say anything they want about a document that has no longer has any binding authority.

But then we are told the bullpoop excuse, "well, it's a living document, it needs to be adapted to modern times." So is freedom not meant to be a part of modern times then? Because the Constitution is the very definition of freedom. This, what we have today, is not freedom.

This has all been put into play to send a freedom loving people into bondage, without them ever knowing about it. They have done a good job too.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 



2. They have been many court cases since then where people have used their constitutional rights in court and have won because of it.


Not because of it, in spite of it. If you go into court and try to defend yourself on the grounds of your Constitutional rights, your case will be thrown out as frivelous, because our courts have no authority to hear such a case. You will then be sanctioned, as the signatory of your own corporate identity which they DO have authority over.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There's a sneaky yet profound difference between having civil rights as a citizen, and the Constitutional rights of a sovereign. They are often worded exactly the same even. But whereas your civil rights can be extended, revoked, modified, and generally tinkered with at the discretion of our police and court officials, "in the interests of justice," your Constitutional rights cannot.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 



3. There are not any military personnel policing our streets arresting american citizens.


They don't have to. They can be called in at any time. They are "present" even if not on our streets. Furthermore, there are cases now where military personnel have seized US nationals. They were taken from their homes, in the middle of the night, to be held indefinately without due process.

Secondly, every police officer on the street today is a Federal authority by proxy. Every state and local jursdiction today operates under Federal authority, military authority, as a Federal franchise. Therefore, the agents of those franchises are also the agents of martial law.

Where once a Civil War was fought when the Federal government tried to butt into state business, today we sit and do nothing when we are hauled off to jail for not having a building permit to put a railing on our front porch.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 



4. Martial law has since been declared four other times since 1863, what would be the purpose of declaring martial law if we were currently already under it?


Because the people expected it in those cases, or had to be told for various reasons. Take Katrina for example. Declaring martial law there was big political points first of all. Second of all, if it hadn't been declared, people would have thought that the crisis was not being taken seriously enough. But flip that coin over, and you also have a run-up of things to come. To test the waters so to speak. Basically though, they "declared" martial law to keep people thinking that when it happens it is something announced from loudpeakers, and posted in spotlights. It's a game of perception.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 



We will not see GWB delaying the elections so he can stay in office.


Possible I say, but not necessary for those really in power to continue their agenda. Dubya didn't put the Patriot Act in place so that he could use it. He was told to do it, so that someone else can use it. One of his successors. The Antichrist perhaps? Who knows, but it ain't lookin' good from here on out I can tell you that.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 



But for now I need to go to bed. Thanks for the good debate.


Glad we were able to take the conversation into fruitful territory instead of letting it turn into a pissing contest.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Lincoln had to keep the country running, and died trying. When the United States became the UNITED STATES, a corporation, it was an attempt to keep the country running...under martial law. Tis like the matrix, everyone thinks there's this real world operation, a fantasy, and it is quite the opposite. We are living in a perverted facsimile of what once was.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


But as you can see, there is no official end to the war, or the Confederacy. There is only military defeat. The Confederacy was completely within their rights to secede at the time the Civil War began. Therefore, they have been occupied by the usurpers ever since.

Think back in history to the conquerers who were eventually turned on their tales. European countries who fell under the Nazi jackboot, or behind the red Iron curtain. Colonies of Kings around the globe.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


If you respond to me and want me to respond to you, please do it all in 1 post unless you reach the character limit - all of these little small posts one after the other get confusing.

In the section of the constitution I just quoted it does not state that when the President calls congress during an emergency, that quorum is required.

I really don't know where you get this stuff. Its not in the law. I just spent quite some time looking through FindLaw and LexusNexus looking for absolutely anything to confirm what you said. I could find nothing. Every meeting in the congress since then has been a normal, congressional meeting.

Action 1: Lincoln orders Congress to meet, using his constitutional authority.
Action 2: Congress meets, as ordered.
Action 3: Congress closes session.
---- And here ends the reign of Congress under executive order.
Action 4: Congress starts next session.

Also, it really isn't clear whether a quorum existed or not since states who took themselves out of the union would no longer have representation at Congress. It could very well be that there was a quorum among remaining states which would be the only thing you need since the other states were no longer under the influence of the constitution - even though I still maintain it would not matter.

Congress formally opens and closes every session, they at most last a few months and were even shorter during those days. Not only was the meeting completely constitutional, but as the closing of the meeting things resumed as normal.

The Lieber code was guidance issued by Lincoln on military conduct during the civil war. It was not any sort of binding action after the war ended. In the event that you want to claim otherwise, it doesn't really have any impact because it provides guidance to armies during combat. It does not start martial law, or anything else for that matter.

As Lincoln used his powers to summon Congress, which did not require a quorum since he was exercising a specific power, they had the ability to do whatever they needed to do. Congress has not now or ever been dormant. Martial law is not reigning. The constitution is and has been in full effect.

In reality, most of this is moot. Even if Congress was somehow "dormant" they still meet, if every "election" is a farce someone is still elected. Nothing would change if somehow legal scholars came out and proclaimed you right. There would be no material difference in how anything operates today, because everyone is acting as if what you claim happened never occurred.

[edit on 17-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   
I find it interesting that the participants in this thread have chosen only to discuss the first prediction made in the original post, but the rest have received little comment for some time now.

I suppose we are not under Martial Law as I previously stated, however we are clearly not under normal Constitutional law either. If you disagree with that, I suggest that you go get yourself arrested and then, at trial, demand that the judge explain why a flag other than the American Flag hangs in his court room and ask him to take it down.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join