Congress Sine Die

[Repaired]

Not completely new, but there is a lot going around now from the basis that since Congress had ended on March 27th 1861 Sine Die, that the United States is "Defacto" instead of "DeJure".

I looked around the site to find an answer to this but I didn't see any. I know this is not true, but I am trying to find some legal opinions that make this baseless. Does anyone have or know of any opinions or can explain this away? I know at the time there were no rules of order at the time and there is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about concluding business for the Congress. But is there any Court opinions that anyone knows?

Thanks in advance!

[notorial dissent]

There is a lot going around, much of which there are shots available for currently.

This has been around for a very long time and is based on the fact that the spreaders have no idea what the term actually means, or more importantly what it means in relationship to the Congress.

Idiots are free to believe whatever nonsense they choose to believe, but that makes it neither true nor based on anything resembling fact.

[Kestrel]

This is yet another fancy-sounding Latin phrase, perpetually misinterpreted by folks whose knowledge of Latin is limited to recognizing that it doesn't look like everyday English.

From the United States Senate website:

adjournment sine die - The end of a legislative session "without day." These adjournments are used to indicate the final adjournment of an annual or the two-year session of a Congress.

It has absolutely nothing to do with distingushing between "defacto" and "dejure."

[notorial dissent]

To get back to where this started, the whole "defacto" and "dejure" fantasy, I refuse to call it an argument since there is no basis in reality for it, is just that a fantasy. The premise upon which it is based, if you can ever pin anyone down long enough to get one is fatally flawed, like the entire concept.

[David Merrill]

Adjourned sine die, before Congress was scheduled to adjourn was considered an extraordinary occasion, by which LINCOLN convened a de facto Congress 90 days later.





Every President since renews his authority to execute Executive Orders in the same fashion. Until 1973, for all effect and purpose the Emergency was that no State of Confederation of States could secede from the Union. Page 1, Page 2. Ever since then, Title 12 U.S.C. §95 provides that the Secretary or the President may initiate another Bankers' Holiday to handle any runs on FRNs - redeeming lawful money.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[.]

The current Congress is the 112th Congress. Which means that exactly 111 previous Congressional bodies have adjourned sine die.

Shocking.

But, there's a not-so-small problem with the original proposition. The 37th Congress wasn't finished on March 27th, 1861. Their final adjournment was on March 4, 1863.

This is Civil War stuff. Fort Sumter was attacked on April 12, 1861. Lincoln called Congress into special session on July 4, 1861.

A bunch of legislation was subsequently passed. The last of it was the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act on March 3, 1863. They adjourned sine die the next day.

I smell a troll.

It's probably beyond dispute that if we could get all Congresses to put an end to their machinations after 3 weeks or so we'd all be better off, but that ain't what happened in 1861.

[fortinbras]

"Adjournment sine die" simply means that a Congress adjourned with no expectation of being back in session until the annual date set forth in the Constitution, Art. 1, sec. 4, clause 2 (which, in odd numbered years, would mean a new Congress). Congress, having adjourned sine die might yet be called back into session by a Presidential order for urgent reasons. Otherwise the Congress adjourns until a specific date, such as during its occasional recesses, under Art. 1, sec. 5, clause 4.

With reference to the secession of the Southern States in 1861, both the House and Senate referred to the Constitution at Art. 1, sec. 5, namely that "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum .... Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings...."

Both the House and Senate, in the immediate aftermath of the secession, determined that, the members from the Southern States having resigned their seats, and none of the Southern States having elected any replacements to the US Congress, the vacated seats were not to be counted in calculating the total membership or a quorum. A quorum was to be calculated only from those members duly elected and so forth, which in this case meant the members from the non-seceded States were regarded as the whole membership of the House and Senate, from which the presence of a quorum was to be calculated.

The instances of this are given in Hind's Precedents, vol. 4, chapter 85 (Quorum), page 59 et seq, especially §§ 2885, 2888, 2891-92. See:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... _lxxxv.pdf

also see: David P. Currie, The Civil War Congress, 73 Univ. of Chicago Law Review (2006) 1131 at pages 1176-77 footnote 231.

Inasmuch as the Constitution makes the Congress its own final authority on its rules, there would not be any direct litigation on this point.

[LPC]

I know this is not true, but I am trying to find some legal opinions that make this baseless.

Forget *legal* opinions. How about just some common sense?

If Congress could adjourn and, through the language it uses in its adjournment, prevent any future Congress from reconvening, then Congress could unilaterally abolish itself, leaving only the President and the judiciary to run the country.

Does that make any sense?

[Repaired]

I smell a trol

A troll would believe that there is no legal congress. I on the other hand, don't believe it tat all.

if Congress could adjourn and, through the language it uses in its adjournment, prevent any future Congress from reconvening, then Congress could unilaterally abolish itself, leaving only the President and the judiciary to run the country.

Yeah! Of course that makes common sense. I mean I put my own common sense in that the Constitution doesn't talk about ending sessions which would foreclose that whole idea anyway. I really was just asking if anyone knew of any Legal opinions. But if not, no problem. Just thought I could toss it in somewhere to make fools, but they do that anyway! Oh well, no biggie.

[Thule]

I mean I put my own common sense in that the Constitution doesn't talk about ending sessions which would foreclose that whole idea anyway. I really was just asking if anyone knew of any Legal opinions. But if not, no problem. Just thought I could toss it in somewhere to make fools, but they do that anyway! Oh well, no biggie.

Problem is, it can be quite hard to make fools admit that they are fools. The courts are part of the de facto government. So if the courts rule that the Sine Die-theory is nonsense, that would just prove that the theory is correct. Isn't conspiracy fun?

Not sure if there are any rulings, but then again, no court have ever felt the need to rule that the sky is blue.

[Brian Rookard]

I took the time once to go look up congressional adjournments prior to the civil war and they adjourned "sine die." So, the poopiness that tax protestors like David Merrill Van Pelt spew forth that this was something horrendously new and sinister is utterly, completely, and fantastically devoid of any merit whatsoever.

For example, on March 6, 1817, the Senate adjourned "sine die" at that time. And again on March 23, 1849. I could go look up more, but you get the drift. It is nothing nefarious. Tax protestors aren't arguing that James Monroe created a de facto government on March 6, 1817 are they? That's because they need to trace it to Lincoln, the civil war, and the 14th amendment so that they can spew their conspiracy theories.

When confronted with the fact that that is how they do things, and had been doing it, the tax protesting loons usually shut up.

[wserra]

Tax protestors aren't arguing that James Monroe created a de facto government on March 6, 1817 are they?

Not up until now.

Hey, Brian, what's up?

[Thule]

Tax protestors aren't arguing that James Monroe created a de facto government on March 6, 1817 are they? That's because they need to trace it to Lincoln, the civil war, and the 14th amendment so that they can spew their conspiracy theories.

I can go one up:) The first congress was adjourned sine die on the third of March, 1791.

Ordered, That a message be sent to the Senate, to inform them that this House, having completed the business before them, are now about to adjourn without day, and that the Clerk of this House do go with the said message.

The Clerk accordingly went with the said message; and being returned,

A message was received from the Senate, by Mr. Otis, their Secretary, notifying that the Senate, having completed the Legislative business before them, are now about to adjourn: Whereupon,

Mr. Speaker adjourned the House sine die.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?h ... mem_p8nJ::

[David Merrill]

I took the time once to go look up congressional adjournments prior to the civil war and they adjourned "sine die." So, the poopiness that tax protestors like David Merrill Van Pelt spew forth that this was something horrendously new and sinister is utterly, completely, and fantastically devoid of any merit whatsoever.

For example, on March 6, 1817, the Senate adjourned "sine die" at that time. And again on March 23, 1849. I could go look up more, but you get the drift. It is nothing nefarious. Tax protestors aren't arguing that James Monroe created a de facto government on March 6, 1817 are they? That's because they need to trace it to Lincoln, the civil war, and the 14th amendment so that they can spew their conspiracy theories.

When confronted with the fact that that is how they do things, and had been doing it, the tax protesting loons usually shut up.

I might have shut up; only because I did not say what you say I said. While holding the old Congressional Globe in my hands, the very first time I found that page, you don't think I looked around for other Congress Sessions that closed - never saying sine die? The mythology you attribute to me was dispelled upon my first verification.

You Qualosers blunder about me and what I think and feel all the time - Nikki. Demosthenes' (JJ MacNAB) new book research has me up to my elbows in work thank you. I might have to ask her to please leave me out of it altogether. You Quatludes are in your conditioned stupor so deep that you never wonder why I keep posting here... [This is being served on the AG at the STATE OF COLORADO CAPITAL FINANCE CORPORATION offices there on the 7th Floor; and Return of Service is being filed in both my evidence repository and the clerk's civil suit too. Purposes. This includes some petty infractions - unsigned Return Receipts and intentionally improperly sealed envelopes from the US clerk of court. In other words, I am crazy because of you foolish enablers... you are next on my To-Do List! JJ; I will have to go public if you release your book with me mentioned in it!!]

What actually happened is what I have shown above. On April 15th, LINCOLN issued an order for the convention of Congress on July 4. He convened Congress under an "extraordinary occasion" that is still in effect today - to some extent. FDR utilized the Emergency to declare a war on the Great Depression - or would have if Congress had not agreed. The Emergency was for the most part ended in 1976 - Page 1, Page 2, Forward 1, Forward 2. But

Sometimes I think Demosthenes and Nikki are bent out of shape because nobody would ever dream of mentioning them. They don't even get falsely labeled into various pigeon-hole Patriot Mythologies!!


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Duke2Earl]

Demo, Demo, Demo.... it is you who has personally driven the Colorado fruitcake crazy. Before you mentioning him he was just fine... an upstanding citizen who faced forward and stood up straight. But now he might have to "go public." I am sure we are trembling with anticipation... or something.

Keep up the good work!

[Brian Rookard]

What actually happened is what I have shown above. On April 15th, LINCOLN issued an order for the convention of Congress on July 4. He convened Congress under an "extraordinary occasion" that is still in effect today - to some extent.

And that special session of congress was also adjourned "without day," or "sine die" if you like. here

So, the special session of congress ended as well. You state (cryptically) that it is "in effect today - to some extent" - meaning you know that it is not in effect today, as you qualify your poopiness with the phrase "to some extent."

David, give up the nonsense.

[Brian Rookard]

Hey, Brian, what's up?

Just being the best bankruptcy attorney I know how to be. That, and enjoying my 5 year old boy. Of course, I had to put dealing with the loons on hiatus after finishing law school and the birth of my son.

Love being a bankruptcy attorney, and its funny how all those years of laying waste to TP arguments has helped my research and argumentation in bankruptcy law. Had some really good wins in court, in no small part to research skills I honed here and in other forums. Who would've thought?

[Thule]

So, the special session of congress ended as well. You state (cryptically) that it is "in effect today - to some extent" - meaning you know that it is not in effect today, as you qualify your poopiness with the phrase "to some extent."

Even if it hadn't been formally ended, every seat would be up for re-election within a few years. So even if Lincoln conferred some secret and sinister power to the members, they would still have to seek a new mandate from the electorate, and step down if required.

[Pottapaug1938]

What actually happened is what I have shown above. On April 15th, LINCOLN issued an order for the convention of Congress on July 4. He convened Congress under an "extraordinary occasion" that is still in effect today - to some extent.

And that special session of congress was also adjourned "without day," or "sine die" if you like. here

So, the special session of congress ended as well. You state (cryptically) that it is "in effect today - to some extent" - meaning you know that it is not in effect today, as you qualify your poopiness with the phrase "to some extent."

David, give up the nonsense.

That's like asking him to give up breathing.

[Brian Rookard]

That's like asking him to give up breathing.

We all expire eventually, just saying. Is it forbidden to ask?