The Unlawful Government
 

I am just copying and pasting from someone else. I do this because i am being lazy and don't want to type it out. But this summarizes the facts adequately.

Here you go, NLine.




On March 28, 1861 the United States Congress adjourned sine die (without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing, for an indefinite period to adjourn an assembly sine die). In other words Congress went home at the start of the Civil War with no intention on returning. To call the Congress back into session De jure (concerning law and principal) would have required the Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate to set the date at a later time.

This never ever happened. Let me repeat there has been no legally sat Congress or Senate per the United States Constitution since March 28, 1861.

The Congress was called back into session de facto (concerning fact and in practice) by President Abraham Lincoln who had not the Constitutional Authority or Power to do so.

Legally, technically and factually the Constitutional Government of the United States ceased to exist forever March 28, 1861. It became a de facto War Time Emergency Government a CORPORATE Government operating under Contract Law because at that point the United States Constitution became desuetude (an outdated doctrine that causes statutes and similar legislation to become unenforceable by a habit of non-enforcement or lapse of time.)

Legal doctrine says that when something falls into desuetude and continued non-use that it is rendered invalid.

Not only did Lincoln not have the legal authority to call Congress into session under the Constitution, the Congress being illegally sat, lacked a quorum (In law a minimum number of members of a deliberative body necessary to conduct business of that group). A legislative body not meeting a quorum can not vote. The seceding States were only seceding over an unlawful attempt to infringe upon the Constitution and over an attempt to amend it illegally without a quorum and that is what caused the legal Congress to convene sine die. Lincoln’s illegal and dictatorial actions in decreeing Congress in session de facto while in sine die prevented the real Congress from ever reaching a Constitutionally legal agreement to call it back into session de jure by the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader in the Senate. Thus the Constitution was violated at its core and fell into desuetude.

Who ever wrote this is proclaiming all most total bullsh--.

Art I Section 4 Paragraph 2
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

It doesn't matter it they adjourned or not. The Constitution says that they MUST assemble once a year on the first Monday in December. This was modified later by the 20th Amendment to be Jan 3rd. And as provided by that amendment they moved it to the the next day should it fall on a Sunday.

So if they fail to assign the next session they must assemble again on the first Monday of December and not before, except:

And the President CAN call Congress into session.

Art II. 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.

I'd call a civil war an extraordinary occasion but it can be anything as this is not defined.

Who ever you quoted from is an idiot at least on those two points. He has merit on lack of a quorum but only if they claim that the states were still members of the union. If they claim to have quorum then they must be recognizing the right to succeed thus changing the number of states in the Union, thus changing the number of members of Congress and thus reducing the number needed for quorum. So in otherwords for the Congress to have assembled with that is the legal recognition that the CSA states were indeed now separated from the Union.

Which doesn't make the USA government desuetude. It simply means that the southern states left the Union and the Union attacked and forced the surrender of the southern states and they were readmitted to the Union. If they never legally left then would not need to be readmitted. Yet each State and the Congress passed acts of readmission for each state.

Here is the act for Texas: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ssc/pr..._the_Union.pdf

None of that could be done if as asserted by Lincoln to the press that the states never left the union. They frequently said that in public yet LEGALLY they took the steps to function as if they had left and then returned. Now you can question weather it is legal to force a state back into the union at gunpoint. Which is what Reconstruction did. Federal troops only stopped occupying states until after they were readmitted. and it took years for that to occur. All the states were readmitted by 1870 but troops were not pulled out fully until 1877.

i will get back with you on this. too much to think about right now. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/smile.png

BTW, i am trying to put ubuntu on my desktop. it keeps failing the install. but i will try again tomorrow.

OK, i am still looking when i have time. There was a NY times article from the early 1860's, discussing how Lincoln had jumped the gun by not providing for the issue to resolve. The article represents a large movement at the time because of what he did.

I realize that this is from a "constitutional purist" point of view.

I think reconstruction is a whole 'nuther topic.

But, i will ask you: if Lincoln calling Congress to meet De Facto was ok, then what happened with the original 13th Amendment? Why did they delete it, pretending it never existed?

Link? What are you referring to here? Much Lincoln did was questionable and was debated at the time.
I realize that this is from a "constitutional purist" point of view.

I think reconstruction is a whole 'nuther topic.

But, i will ask you: if Lincoln calling Congress to meet De Facto was ok, then what happened with the original 13th Amendment? Why did they delete it, pretending it never existed? Non Sequitur. WTF does the President's ability to call Congress into session, which is clearly set out in the duties and powers of the President have to do with an Amendment that failed to get enough states to pass it. (I assume you are referring to the No American can have a title of Nobilty amdendment?) Virgina may have passed it but if they failed to properly communicate that to the State Department that means they didn't pass it. I don't call it deleted. I call it mishandled. Remember that back in the early 19th century Politicians were part timers. The state or federal governments only met a few weeks out of the year. You had people that otherwise had real jobs stopping to do the work of government. They f'd up. It happens. Besides it's a pointless amendment. Who cares if a private citizen wants to become a Knight or some such thing. If they run for office the people upon finding that out can choose to not elect them. And once in office it is prohibited anyway. So I don't see the point.