Isn't this interesting - National Guard asked to stay in DC to Mid-March - What was the original date in the Constitution of the start of the presidents term in office? - The Great Awakening

144

Isn't this interesting - National Guard asked to stay in DC to Mid-March - What was the original date in the Constitution of the start of the presidents term in office?

posted 3 years ago by G45Colt 3 years ago by G45Colt +144 / -0

Makes me think something is happening in early March

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/regime-fears-people-thousands-national-guard-asked-remain-dc-mid-march/

Could we be getting an education?

https://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_term.html

During Washington's first term, the Congress passed a law setting March 4 as the date for future inaugurations. When Washington took his second oath of office, then, it was on March 4, 1793. His first term was almost two months shy of a full four years. Subsequent inaugurations were held on March 4 as a matter of law, until the second inauguration of Thomas Jefferson on March 4, 1805.

Mods - I looked and did not see another post on this - but feel free to delete this if there is one.

15 comments

15 comments share save hide report block hide replies

To The Great Awakening

We are researchers who deal in open-source information, reasoned argument, and dank memes. We do battle in the sphere of ideas and ideas only. We neither need nor condone the use of force in our work here. WE ARE THE PUBLIC FACE OF Q. OUR MISSION IS TO RED-PILL NORMIES.

This is a pro-Q community. Please read and respect our rules below before contributing.

WHY Q?

"Those who cannot understand that we cannot simply start arresting w/o first: ensuring the safety & well-being of the population shifting the narrative removing those in DC through resignation to ensure success defeating ISIS/MS13 to prevent fail-safes freezing assets to remove network-to-network abilities kill off COC to prevent top-down comms/org, etc. etc. should not be participating in discussions." Q

Comments (15)

sorted by:

▲ 3 ▼

– deleted 3 points 3 years ago +4 / -1

▲ 1 ▼

– G45Colt [S] 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0

Do you mean something like this:

10.3.3.1A State’s Own Nationals. In general, a State’s own nationals who are in its hands are not protected persons under the GC.40 This exclusion from the definition of “protected person” in the GC is consistent with a traditional principle of international law—the GC “does not interfere in a State’s relations with its own nationals.”41 However, the GC does limit the arrest, prosecution, conviction, or deportation of nationals of any Occupying Powerwho, before the outbreak of hostilities, have sought refuge in the territory of the occupied State.

permalink parent save report block reply