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.
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.