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.
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.
I've seen several copies of it. Doesn't take much research to find these. But that's all fake, right? Because the grifters and liars say so? I mean, like 70% of people in Washington D.C. have LEGAL DEGREES just by coincidence, right?
You do understand that 'Esquire" is a "Title of Nobility", right?
What is this "abuse" you speak of? As if we couldn't be abused by our former tyrants? Please make sense of this statement for me. WIth all the ABUSE we received from our former masters that we fled from, it's now ABUSIVE to prevent these same people from holding offices of leadership over us? You're making zero sense man. I don't think you can justify this remark.
Ah, your true colors finally shine. You're a Hamiltonian Federalist at heart!!! aka, a GLOBALIST then. Seeing as how this was the great rift of that time. You're either one or other, right?
As soon as you said the original 13th was a STOOPID idea. That was the whole point of it. Are we even speaking the same language here?
No they don't. Hundreds of thousands of "ESQUIRES** infest the district. That's a "Title" my man. A step above Gentleman and below Knight.
Well you love your esquires. Let me ask, are you one of them?
And you defend attorneys/esquires holding positions of authority over you. And look what a fine job they've done all these years. Endless deception has ensued.
So lemme get this straight. You're accepting your servitude and your masters version of history. Do I have that right?
Nope, I quite literally have no idea what you were trying to say. It made no sense.
You're taking the current tyrants word for it. There's literally no evidence two-thirds of the states ratified the 16th. You can't find it anywhere other than somebody "saying so".
That's a cool story bro, but you forgot the part about how the union was in hock to the tune of $90Million to the Crown Corporation (City of London), aka your "agents of disunion", and the bill came do 70 years after the Constittion was signed with the original debt of $6Million (Livre). Them's the international banking laws. Our "Federal government", at the time, a "company" ran in the red and just ran up the bill then, just like they do now. The "Civil War" was all about money, as all wars really are. War is commerce and commerce is war. There's nothing new under the sun. None of it had to do with slavery, only a tiny parasitic class could tolerate such an inhuman act in the first place.
So you believe conventional establishment history IS TRUE? Do I have this right? The very people that have lied to us about everything under the sun that we can't easily verify for ourselves haven't lied about our history? You're on the GA board taking this stance? Are you kidding me?
Do you know how many things I've discovered are lies these past 15 years? When I only mention a few things to people, it makes their heads spin. They run for cover because they can't handle even a whiff of what I'm suggesting. And history is about the easiest thing to lie about of them all. That's rookie-level deception.
They've managed to deceive us on dozens upon dozens of far more complex and difficult ruses to pull off. You can take that to the bank. Look what they did with Covid. Not only did they make trillions on one hand, but also reduced some of their liabilities on the other. And to think viruses don't even exist!!! But 99% of the population out there still believes in these boogeymen. And it's a slick deception. Far more complicated to pull off than changing the story around some historical events.
Now, I certainly can't argue that the "conventional historians" BELIEVE in aggregate that the original 13th was NOT ratified and the 16th was. I mean, duhhh, here we are. But I don't happen to agree with this group of brainwashees, unbeknownst to them. Instead, I look at the logic, rationale and reason around why or why not these would have been ratified or not. And I've never seen a compelling argument for the "why not" of the 13th, nor the "why" of the 16th. No conventional explanation makes even a lick of sense!
Not that the 16th matters to me. I'm not a "U.S. Citizen", nor a "taxpayer", those slick LEGALESE words brought to us by the Temple Bar in Westminster, City of London at the Inns of the Court (aka the "Legal System").
Maxim of Law - Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
If you don't know what's going on, then that's your choice. What I can tell you with absolute certainty is that the "American Government" was supplanted by the "Federal Government" (Federal = contract = corporation) after the Civil War coup.
A few years later the "corporation" was invented. And a few years later the "American Bar Association" was formed (1878(. And the rest has been downhill from there. Now, everything our "Contract Government" has done since then has been "LEGAL", although now LAWFUL. Inventing the bogus "U.S. Citizen" status with the 14th amendment got the ball rolling. Then they formed the "Department of InJustice" in the mid 1870s. Then they formed the FBI in 1908. Then came the Federal Reserve in 1913. Then they invented the birth certificate in the 1920s. Then the "Republic" suffered it's 2nd international bankruptcy in 1929 (70 years from 1859) Then FDR declared all "U.S. Citizens" (not men and women) "enemies of the state" in 1933 and collateralized our blood, sweat and tears to appease the creditors. Then they merged REAL common law and equity law in 1938 eliminating any chance of LAWFUL remedy.
The list is a mile long. None of the above is "Constitutional" and I don't think I need to spell out for you why that is as you seem to be knowledgeable enough. They've just walked right over it without a care in the world. To claim "defense of the Constitution" at this stage is really pointless. The Constitution holds no power with these tyrants.
They do and have done whatever they wanted to sidestep it. That a few people can still own guns today is hardly a testament to it. It's all a facade. At the rate they're going, they can hold a vote and just abolish the thing in its entirety and there's nothing anybody could do about it. Seeing as how they can rig elections, open borders, print fake fiat currency at will, and whatever else they please. Sometimes I hope they do it as at least things would be honest at that point. Maybe this will be the "precipice" everybody is looking for. All I can say for sure is they don't care about it and do whatever they please, and have been doing so since 1865. Granted, they've cleverly encroached over long timelines, boiling the ignorant frogs along the way.
Summing up, conventional history is almost all lies, regardless of whether the 99% believe in it or not. If that's your standard for truth, "belief", then there's nothing to argue about. I agree, nearly everybody believes what you're saying. But that doesn't make it the truth.