We have a quite the serious Constitutional quagmire here. 20th Amendment states that:
and the terms of Senators and Representatives [shall end] at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin [...]
Riddle me this....
How are purported House members-elect lawfully participating in House business (election of a Speaker), if they are not actually members of the House until they are sworn in, which according to House rules, cannot happen until the election of a Speaker?
Sounds like the Constitution is long overdue for an amendment to clarify this glaring oversight by the Framers.
Furthermore, if our House has been functioning in such a disfunctional, arguably unconstitutional manner, seemingly since the beginning, have we ever truly had a legitimate Congress?
Time for a new Convention of the States to settle some of these big issues.
All I have to say is.......JANUARY 6th.
Maybe this is the quiet dissolving of the illegitimate corporation known as the "Federal Government" that's been MASQUERADING as the "American Government" since 1871?
Wouldn't that be sumthin?
While I don't find the "1871 incorporation" theory compelling, I do agree that everything seems to be part of a revolutionary great awakening in reforming our federal government.
It really got started after the Civil War fighting had ended ~1865ish. The "Act" in 1871 was just a formality. They actually changed the "Organic Act" several more times in the 1870s anyway. None of it matters. The fact is, the imperialists took full control of the fledgling experiment known as "United States of America" after crushing the resistance in the south.
The earlier retrocession of the part of DC west of the Potomac to Virginia, was unconstitutional and one of many dominoes in a long conspiracy to destroy the USA from within. The act of 1871 ironically ended being a good thing. That's a long discussion to be had...
What if I told you that the "international cabal", whom I term the Agents of Disunion were actually the ones responsible for instigating the rebellion of 1860, which was in fact just the final domino of a plan that had been in the works for over 50 years prior? 😉
I would agree 100% with you. My comment was intended for normies who know not of the $80Million debt owed to the City of London "Agents of Disunion" that came due in 1860 that "honest Abe (The "Attorney/Esquire" - specifically forbidden to hold office as per the original 13th amendment)" tried to get the newly joined southern states to join the "union". This what all the fighting was really about!
Oh lord, not this... I just got done wasting two days dealing with this nonsense in another thread on here. The proposed "titles qnd nobility" amendment was never ratified. Never got the approval from the States required. Granted, it had no deadline so it technically could still be ratified. Would need something like 28 more states though. As I said in that other thread, it was a bad proposal then, and a bad one now. But no, it's not the law. Never been the law. If your implication is that Abraham Lincoln, our nation's greatest president, was illegitimate because he practiced law, then this conversation won't be continuing much longer...
Lost Cause propaganda is a cancerous weapon of Democrats and the Agents of Disunion.
You sure about that? Have you seen the pre-fire ratified amendment? Or only the post-fire propaganda we are asked to believe?
Was the 16th amendment, IRS, ratified? Are you sure about that?
What would have prevented the states from NOT approving such an obvious amendment? Think about what you're saying man! All the states would have wanted British Nobility to hold office in their newly formed union? You're not thinking your argument through very well here.
Really? Are you on the side of the imperialists/globalists? You must be with this kind of illogical commentary. You're not making any sense. The very tyrants we just won our independence from, we now want to become our ostensible rulers? Zero sense. And you want it now? It's a good idea to have Lord Staffordshire as your new Senator? And perhaps you'd be happy if the Earl of Sandwich was your new district Congressman? smh...
I don't think you know what "The Law" is. I can tell you this, it has nothing to do with the LEGAL SYSTEM, statutes, codes, acts, mandates, decrees and executive orders. NONE OF THIS IS THE LAW!!! It's the handiwork of tyrants. Do you understand what I'm saying?
That's almost what I'm saying, but not quite. You clearly don't understand the difference between "The Law" and the "LEGAL SYSTEM". They are far from being one and the same. The Law operates for men and women, living beings. The LEGAL SYSTEM is for the dead, fictional, the talking-corpse (corp-oration) entities. As such, Abe represented the "Land of the dead/fictional" by "practicing" (notice that catchy little word there...he hasn't "mastered" the law yet, he's still "practicing") "Law".
Fine by me. As far as I can tell, you're defending the entrenched establishment system with every one of your comments. We are at odds. You enjoy your involuntary servitude. I, on the other hand, do not. I am not an "artificial person", like you apparently enjoy pretending to be, and thus subjugating yourself to the whims of other men and women who can decide what you can and can't do because they enjoy having power over others.
I don't even know what you meant by this sentence. If you still believe we fought the "Civil War" over slavery, when less than 1% of southerners even owned them, I've got some oceanfront property in Nebraska available at a price you can't pass up!
You are a sovereign individual that hasn't made a single "contract" with any of these LEGAL, LEGISLATIVE, LIEGE LORDS you're presently handing your power over to, willingly and voluntarily, although entirely unwittingly. But they've got you BELIEVING SO, and thus, herein lies the rub.
The cabal in charge has broken every natural, universal law in the books. They are the greatest fraudsters and tricksters this world has ever known. But if you don't realize this, you're going to continue suffering under their thumb of dominion. But hey, the choice is yours to do so. Tally ho!
Again, there was no ratified amendment. It failed to get the necessary minimum of states. Though some journals erroneously mentioned it as having been ratified, but again, it wasn't. 13 states required, only 11 approved. NY, VA, CT and RI rejected.
Unfortunately yes. But if you want to peddle Benson, good luck.
Its ratification would have unnecessarily opened a giant can of worms for potential partisan abuse. The federal government, and Congress, should never have such power to possibly exploit.
Or, they simply realized that protecting citizens from potential abuse from federal government overreach, was wiser than buying into the anglophobia of the Jeffersonian Jacobians?
As far from it as possible.
When did I say I wanted the British Empire to regain rule over us? Again, quite the contrary. The Agents of Disunion cabal included Frenchies and Brits. Check out the Louisiana Purchase sometime.
I do love sammies. But not noblemen.
Far from it. I defend the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the principles of American republicanism.
You ironically seem to enjoy being conned by grifters peddling fake history about what they wrongly allege to be fake history. Both are equally as bad.
Oh I think you know exactly what it means, but unwilling to accept it.
Fireeating slave powers, aided and abetted by Agents of Disunion, who had been planning such a rebellion for over 50 years, tried to steal the election of 1860, failed, then instigated a rebellion as a backup plan. The rebellion was in the name of protecting and expanding slavery. The ordinances of secession, along with endless amounts of writings from the rebel leaders make that quite clear. And these successfully suckered tens of thousands of decent nonslaveowning southerners into supporting their rebellion. Poor dupes dying for such an evil cause.
This is true. But you don't need to perpetuate fake history to prove it.
Answer: House rules do not supersede the Constitution.
Who determines who constitutes the lawful successors? The House. But what House? Prior members, or new members? Some of prior members terms already expired. Technically, only people authorized to conduct any House business right now, are those members whose terms are active.
Seems pretty straight forward to me. The Voters determined (assuming not a rigged election).
Congress recognizes what the States "send" in accordance with, theoretically, who the people chose. But what if the States didn't send lawful winners? Congress swears in new members in the respective houses, so ipso facto, Congress decides who are the lawful "successors"... but the question remains which Congress? 😉
At this point, the corrupt congress, that's all we've had.
Let me remind you that number is EXACTLY 0. House members are up for election every 2 years. Even if someone took a seat after someone died their term would end Jan 3 just like everyone else's (in the House). The Senators are elected for 6 years so only roughly 1/3 are up for election every 2 years.
Correct, though since returning members had previously taken the oath required by the Constitution, arguably they already tick off that requirement to be "seated."
A simple way to remedy this issue would be for the purported new House to meet and the first act of the session be for the Chief Justice to administer the Oath to all, thus seating the new body. And then the members should proceed to vote for Speaker.
Nice idea. I'd be fine with the outgoing speaker (even if they will also be the incoming speaker). It should absolutely be done the day before, or if they make a law like noon on inauguration day they would have the old and new members there so they could swear them in at 1130 or something. Just make them car pool or take the Metro...
The CJOTUS shouldn't be involved in swearing in the Legislative branch - although they are responsible for swearing in members of the Executive branch. Seems messy and against the separation of powers. Of course they could also do a round-robin and have the SCOTUS swear in the Legislative, the Legislative swear in the Executive, and the Executive swear in the Judicial. I wonder if they still teach "3 co-equal branches" anymore or if everyone is done pretending.
Slowly re-read what you just wrote 😉
Constitution already sets up situations for which the Chief Justice presides over Congress, such as impeachment, and as you acknowledged, they issue the oath the POTUS-elect. Given the similar nature of the procedure, having an unelected, theoretically nonpartisan official preside, who already is tasked with issuing oaths in other cases (for POTUS and new Justices) makes sense.
How can a person, not yet officially recognized as being a part of the House, participate in any business of the House? How does allowing nonmembers to participate, make any sense?
Begs an even more important question, who has the authority to confirm the legitimacy of the new members of Congress, the new members themselves? Where is the logic in that? Does the prior Congress "validate" congressional elections and who will be the lawful successors? Does the Constitution authorize them with that power?
Constitution should be amended to clear up these discrepancies and voids.
Delaying the speaker for the Brunson Supreme Court case where most of congress gets GITMO
Imagine if they are stuck in DC because they have to keep going through these votes... coincidence that the Resident is finally going to the Mexican border? At least, that's what we're being told...
J6 PART 2 (((BRUNSON VS ADAMS))) 1/6/23
Delaying, will make it easy to round them up
Nobody is getting arrested
Judiciary is still so rife with corruption, no convictions could occur
Great post. A tiny little detail. It wasn't the framers that screwed it up. They were all dead when the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was enacted into law in 1933.
Emost everything after tenth amendment contradicts the constitution. Work arounds.
I bet you're right.
Remember the congress (both houses) could have written a bill any time after the 20th Amendment that takes care of this exact scenario. In fact you would expect that they absolutely had to since nobody in the House has any authority until the speaker is chosen. Even then, they should've made a law saying incoming leadership already approved before the 3rd has the authority to swear in the new members and conduct business.
Even if they made a law that looks blatantly unconstitutional on it's face, it is the law until the courts smack them down. I don't know if they did make a law but I sincerely hope our "representatives" have at least one brain cell to share between themselves. Besides - if it looked to them like they wouldn't get paid for stuff like this you can bet they codified it at some point. No way they work for free.
What if it doesn't matter because we are under martial law?
They screwed up by not accounting for these matters of details from the beginning. Which is not do dump on the Framers... they were creating a brand new experiment in government. Can't always foresee every issue. But improvement is the task of future generations.
They are still batting at least .800 or .900 200 plus years later.
One of the things the Founders definitely got right was the ability to Amend the Constitution. However, as the 20th demonstrates, not all amendments are wise or good. The 25th could be used nefarious as well to remove presidents.
It may be a "careful what you wish for" exercise if we seek any amendments today. In my personal opinion, I trust the Founders more than any politician today. I can't imagine any politician having the guts, wisdom, and fortitude of the Founders to create or amend a system of government that would work today. I can only imagine the perverse influence that would be involved today, that was not as prevalent then.
Part of me wonders if we may need to start from scratch one of these days, and frankly, that freaks me out a bit. We simply do not have a Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Monroe, Adams, Madison, or any of the rest. The one caveat might be Trump himself. He has given up many of his comforts to take on the evil that is Washington DC and this world.
God save us all if we have to save ourselves.
Luckily, that's why Amendments still require ratification by the states, by the people. We are the defense against poorly written or unwise amendments. But the Framers were brilliant enough to allow for and anticipated amendments to be made.
The states can always convene on their own, and do what is necessary, sidestepping Congressional lunacy.
Think they would use voting machines for that?
Sadly, probably. And likely mail in bullshit balloting too 🙄
All good points. Thank you u/MAGAdeburger 👈🏻
Our circumstance leaves us starting from scratch. We are so broken that we will have to tear it down to the foundation and start over. Thankfully our constitution is the foundation.
Constitution does not protect us, that's why some of us swear an oath to protect it. The failure is in the hearts of those who took the oath amd did not stand on it.
Politicians, judges, cops and military people.
I know Some who want to scrap it and start over. I don't agree. Of we enforce laws against treason we get rid of the treasonous and we make it too risky for most to try.
I agree with you u/VetforTrump 👈🏻
I would much rather stand up for the Constitution, keep it, and hold the treasonous bastards accountable than start all over.
We The People must rise up and do so Peacefully and Patriotically.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11595929/In-1923-Speaker-House-election-took-9-rounds-1856-Congress-shut-2-months.html research this..The last speaker election to go beyond the first ballot was in 1923, when members took nine tries to name Frederick Gillett (R-Mass.) to the position. The all-time record for duration of a speaker vote was in the mid-1850s — when lawmakers took almost two months and 133 ballots before picking Nathaniel Banks, also of Massachusetts.
In the House’s 234-year history, 14 speaker votes have required multiple ballots according to the Washington Post. With the rise of the two-party system, only two have come after 1856.
Just how the Uniparty wants it 😉
100 years later !
They’re functioning at 2/3 the capacity but they are still equally useless.
FUCK NO!
You want George Soros' people running THAT?
Fuck off with that nonsense.
That wasn't a very respectful reply.
You want George Soros' people (and all of the Uniparty) to continue running the swamp that is our federal government?
We don't want them running the swamp AND re-writing the Constitution.
Why do you assume "they" would even be involved? Delegates to a convention of the States would need to be elected by the states for that purpose, meaning it wouldn't be decided by those already elected to the federal government.
I don't want to rewrite the Constitution either. But it does have a lot of room for improvement.
No it doesn't. Get rid of the 14th would be a good start.
So, you think that getting rid of the 14th would be an improvement? But you just said it doesn't need any improvements. Why the contradiction? Oh, and to get rid of the 14th, that would require... an... AMENDMENT.
In all seriousness, are you trying to forum slide, or really just have absolutely no clue what you're talking about?
Military control. Look at the videos on their websites for promo. It’s budgeted the same it looks like.
It’s all a show
Riddle me this.
When's the last time you saw someone who took the oath to defend the Constitution, actually defend the Constitution?
That's a good question. Sadly, the answer is almost nobody, ever 🤷🏻
So...
I would dearly love for their to be a convention of the states.
We need to clear out all entrenched RINOs first before I would trust this process. Look at how deceitful all the RINOs were in all the battleground states when it came to investigating election fraud. They were all in on it.
That would be a cluster
HORRIBLE FUCKING IDEA.
You think MAGA would run that shitshow?
Goodbye to ALL your rights.
They better never do that before the voting/elections are fixed. A convention of the states can go out of control and suddenly we would have no guns, and a king.
Their terms start at noon on January 3. Swearing into office is a formality. Their own rules dictate how their business is conducted, and it seems that most of their business is contingent upon the election of a Speaker.
Wrong. It's a requirement of the Constitution before legally being allowed to hold the office.
Correct, but their rules must follow the Constitution.
The election of the Speaker is House business, conducted by members of the House, to which one cannot be a member unless they've taken the oath required by the Constitution.
Legal procedures matter.
The election of the Speaker is carried out by the previous members of the House, with the members-elect casting the ballots.
Aren't members. Members are members. Just like POTUS-elect isn't POTUS, until he takes the oath and is inaugurated POTUS. Imagine if a POTUS-elect tried to make treaties, issue pardons, or order the military into combat in December, before lawfully being seated to the actual office...