It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by titorite
reply to post by Mak Manto
Again all I see from you is Theory ...conjecture.
Originally posted by whaaa
. . .
The states are so inextricably linked financially
No state could actually stand alone.
. . .deny ignorance.
Originally posted by uaocteaou
Daydreams, that's all it is, but it won't ever happen because Texas can't take care of itself, all by itself. Truth hurts, but it's still the truth.
The way things are going, it's easy to foresee a Western US and an Eastern US in the future.
Split at the Mississippi River would work ok.
Um... Maybe you are a socialist but Texas is not...
I always question things like this so I appreciate you looking into the matter. It does seem to be rather on the fringe of things. I would like it however, if you would look at the page. The particular post is on a blog and is the 6th from the top. The post was done by the screen name protoplasmic traveler. The link is below:
Please let me know what you think of this and if there is any prudence to any of his claims.
On Sep 19, 2009 9:38am, "Hayes, Benjamin" wrote:
> Mr. ********,
> The President's power to convene Congress is the central point to this question, not a minor point.
> Since he has the power, the laws that might have been passed by the special session of Congress would be valid. You can send me the link if you wish, but I wouldn't give too much weight to what it says.
> Mr. Hayes
> Sent using BlackBerry
> From: *****************************>
> To: Hayes, Benjamin; ******************
> Sent: Fri Sep 18 21:49:20 2009
> Subject: Re: Office of the Historian
> Dear Mr. Hayes,
> Thank you for your quick response. First, I did not know that, it has been a long time since I have read the constitution. Second, ignoring that one minor detail, can you respond to the other parts of the question? The reason I am asking is b/c I have found a disturbing website that is claiming that no laws since 1861 have been constitutional b/c of the adjournment of the Congress and the way they were reconvened. It has to do specifically with the 3 latin terms(De Facto, De Jure, and Sine Die). If you like I can provide you a link to the website and the loooong description of the claim that I am referring to.
> Thank You,
> **** ******
> On Sep 18, 2009 4:38pm, "Hayes, Benjamin" Benjamin.Hayes@mail.house.gov> wrote:
> > Mr. *******,
> > Thank you for your request. To clarify, what do you mean when you say that President Lincoln “called congress back into session De Facto, which of course is beyond his authority.” Article 2, Sec. 3 of the Constitution states that the President “ may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them.” If this is what he did, then it is perfectly within his power to do so.
> > Sincerely,
> > Benjamin Hayes
> > Researcher
> > Office of the Historian
> > U.S. House of Representatives
> > B-56 Cannon House Office Building
> > Washington, D.C. 20515
> > Ph.(202) 226-5525
> > Fx. (202) 226-2931
Originally posted by uaocteaou
Why do I feel like I'm arguing with a 14 year old..?
It's a silly premise, and I would ask you how, not if you can, but how would you buy anything when your money is no good anywhere else?.. what would you base your currency on..? Dirt?... Bibles..? Chuck Norris' whiskers.?