In principle this is correct; in practice, however, tyrants such as any politician in the Demwit Party will try their damnedest to bypass the Constitution. Also, I see that this was written the year after the Civil War ended, and I suppose it was in response to Pres. Lincoln having suspended habeas corpus during the War. Anyway, it takes a strong will and courage to enforce this provision... so who is going to enforce it against the current crop of anti-American, anti-Constitution clowns in DC? Maybe... just MAYBE..."the military is the only way."
I bet you're real fun at parties too.
I was not being lazy, I was stating facts.
Not once did I say that the law didn't exist. What I stated (for the third time) is in 1866, there were ONLY 25 STATES and not 50 like the screen grab says.
I will repeat it one more time for you just so you know the facts. IN 1866, THERE WERE ONLY 25 STATES AND NOT 50 LIKE THE PICTURE SAYS!!!!!
First off, your numbers are wrong. By 1864, there were 36 states, not 25 according to the link above . That means only an additional 14 states were not part of the laws at the time....so well more that half of The states existed at the time of the supreme ruling. .........Secondly,
By joining the union , I’d think they would
Have to abide by all previous laws and rulings. Thirdly, it was a Supreme Court ruling that is apparently still on the books as of this very day. Fourth, even if you doubt the original pic, the other two articles seem to corroborate it all.
On top of all that , Georgia , Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, the heavily contested 2020 election states , were all states by 1866. Therefore they certainly would have to abide by this ruling by the 1866 Supreme Court ruling
71 US 2. Link https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/2/
One part says “ states . “. I take to mean applicable to all states. When they entered would not seem to matter.
Laws on the books federally would seem to indicate all states b4 1866, or after would have to follow the ruling as I see it. I’m not a lawyer, but this seems obvious to me. You seem to be questioning that any states that came afterwards wouldn’t have to follow any of the laws created before they came in to CONUS. That would be not just this law but all other laws, and that just sounds like it can’t be
Small little issue with your state logic is that when states succeed or were part of the Confederate, they are not counted as part of the UNITED STATES of America. Your data includes them.
This law did not go into effect in those withdrawn states.
Judges have overruled Governors diktats in 3 States. And? Crickets.
Some Sheriffs have stood up, refused to enforce the unconstitutional decrees. How’s that working out?
Fact is, ‘The Corporation’ is the Enforcer. The largest employer in every State is Walmart or a University Health System. They set policy.
If we sue, here’s good precedent: gay wedding cakes.
If there’s no legitimate law supporting mask policy, corporations are just practicing their own morality - like not wanting to bake gay wedding cakes. And refusing service to non-maskers is discrimination.
The prisoner argued that the military commission (commission) did not have jurisdiction to try him. It was also argued that the Indiana circuit court did not have authority to certify questions and that the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine them. The Court held that the circuit court had jurisdiction to entertain the prisoner's application for writ of habeas corpus and to hear and determine it. The judges of the circuit court also had the duty to certify the questions on which they could not agreed to the Court for final decision. After reviewing the Constitution, the Court determined that the commission was not a court vested with judicial power by Congress, and therefore the prisoner's rights were infringed upon when he was tried by the commission. The prisoner's rights were further infringed upon when he was denied a trial by jury. Thus, the Court held that the appropriate remedy was to issue the writ of habeas corpus. Moreover, because the military trial of the prisoner was contrary to law, on the facts stated in his petition, the prisoner should have been released from custody.
Outcome
The Court held that the proper orders were entered in the last term, and, accordingly, a writ of habeas corpus should be issued and that the prisoner should be released from custody. Further the Court held that the commission did not have jurisdiction to try and sentence the prisoner because Congress did not sanction the commission.
"US Citizens" are not a party to the Constitution. This is the trick. See the 14th amendment and how this fraudulent semantic deceit turned the vast majority of "American State Citizens/Nationals" into "US Citizens", leaving them subject to the private association/club known as the "Legal Society" legal-creations masquerading as "LAWs" known as "Public Policy", statutes, codes, ordinances, rules & regulations, etc.
"Justice David Davis, who delivered the majority opinion, stated that "martial rule can never exist when the courts are open" and confined martial law to areas of "military operations, where war really prevails", and when it was a necessity to provide a substitute for a civil authority that had been overthrown"
This is an interesting and thought-provoking quote from the article.
In principle this is correct; in practice, however, tyrants such as any politician in the Demwit Party will try their damnedest to bypass the Constitution. Also, I see that this was written the year after the Civil War ended, and I suppose it was in response to Pres. Lincoln having suspended habeas corpus during the War. Anyway, it takes a strong will and courage to enforce this provision... so who is going to enforce it against the current crop of anti-American, anti-Constitution clowns in DC? Maybe... just MAYBE..."the military is the only way."
Or “ we the ppl” need to stand up
there was only 25 states in the Union in 1866, yet this says 50. ?
I think it would be applicable to all 50. They can’t or shouldn’t be negated simply because they cam later
my point was simple. If this screen grab was legit and not someone's opinion, then it would have referenced 25 states and not 50.
I bet you're real fun at parties too. I was not being lazy, I was stating facts.
Not once did I say that the law didn't exist. What I stated (for the third time) is in 1866, there were ONLY 25 STATES and not 50 like the screen grab says.
I will repeat it one more time for you just so you know the facts. IN 1866, THERE WERE ONLY 25 STATES AND NOT 50 LIKE THE PICTURE SAYS!!!!!
See, I can type just as much stupid shit as you.
I’ll second you on this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_date_of_admission_to_the_Union
First off, your numbers are wrong. By 1864, there were 36 states, not 25 according to the link above . That means only an additional 14 states were not part of the laws at the time....so well more that half of The states existed at the time of the supreme ruling. .........Secondly, By joining the union , I’d think they would Have to abide by all previous laws and rulings. Thirdly, it was a Supreme Court ruling that is apparently still on the books as of this very day. Fourth, even if you doubt the original pic, the other two articles seem to corroborate it all.
On top of all that , Georgia , Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, the heavily contested 2020 election states , were all states by 1866. Therefore they certainly would have to abide by this ruling by the 1866 Supreme Court ruling
71 US 2. Link https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/2/ One part says “ states . “. I take to mean applicable to all states. When they entered would not seem to matter. Laws on the books federally would seem to indicate all states b4 1866, or after would have to follow the ruling as I see it. I’m not a lawyer, but this seems obvious to me. You seem to be questioning that any states that came afterwards wouldn’t have to follow any of the laws created before they came in to CONUS. That would be not just this law but all other laws, and that just sounds like it can’t be
Small little issue with your state logic is that when states succeed or were part of the Confederate, they are not counted as part of the UNITED STATES of America. Your data includes them. This law did not go into effect in those withdrawn states.
Thank you !
Imh(non-lawyer)o - this is a modern graphic summary of an ancient precedent ruled on by the Supreme Court.
They may not have mentioned numbers at all. Simply mentioned States.
Idk, but this is where my mind drifted when I saw this pic. It is not "sauce" but a meme-ish condensed representation of the sauce
2nd article : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan 3rd article : https://www.johnnymelton.com/2020/04/23/ex-parte-milligan-71-u-s-2-1866/ This still stands today
Thank you for that!!!
Violation of constitutional rights under color of law is ILLEGAL
Agreed ? %
enforcement of the law has always been the issue.
Woah, this is good. I think lawsuits are in order for people who had their businesses shut down.
Judges have overruled Governors diktats in 3 States. And? Crickets.
Some Sheriffs have stood up, refused to enforce the unconstitutional decrees. How’s that working out?
Fact is, ‘The Corporation’ is the Enforcer. The largest employer in every State is Walmart or a University Health System. They set policy.
If we sue, here’s good precedent: gay wedding cakes.
If there’s no legitimate law supporting mask policy, corporations are just practicing their own morality - like not wanting to bake gay wedding cakes. And refusing service to non-maskers is discrimination.
People in these states need to ban together and forcibly remove these tyrants. It is protected by the constitution you know
The prisoner argued that the military commission (commission) did not have jurisdiction to try him. It was also argued that the Indiana circuit court did not have authority to certify questions and that the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine them. The Court held that the circuit court had jurisdiction to entertain the prisoner's application for writ of habeas corpus and to hear and determine it. The judges of the circuit court also had the duty to certify the questions on which they could not agreed to the Court for final decision. After reviewing the Constitution, the Court determined that the commission was not a court vested with judicial power by Congress, and therefore the prisoner's rights were infringed upon when he was tried by the commission. The prisoner's rights were further infringed upon when he was denied a trial by jury. Thus, the Court held that the appropriate remedy was to issue the writ of habeas corpus. Moreover, because the military trial of the prisoner was contrary to law, on the facts stated in his petition, the prisoner should have been released from custody.
Outcome
The Court held that the proper orders were entered in the last term, and, accordingly, a writ of habeas corpus should be issued and that the prisoner should be released from custody. Further the Court held that the commission did not have jurisdiction to try and sentence the prisoner because Congress did not sanction the commission.
"US Citizens" are not a party to the Constitution. This is the trick. See the 14th amendment and how this fraudulent semantic deceit turned the vast majority of "American State Citizens/Nationals" into "US Citizens", leaving them subject to the private association/club known as the "Legal Society" legal-creations masquerading as "LAWs" known as "Public Policy", statutes, codes, ordinances, rules & regulations, etc.
Correct your political status.
"Justice David Davis, who delivered the majority opinion, stated that "martial rule can never exist when the courts are open" and confined martial law to areas of "military operations, where war really prevails", and when it was a necessity to provide a substitute for a civil authority that had been overthrown"
This is an interesting and thought-provoking quote from the article.
Maybe this is why the courts failed?