Meaning of "State" is Irrelevant

[ShadesOfKnight]

[LPC as Moderator Note: I split this off from another thread so that it would be easier to follow.]

The whole state-not state argument... and I find myself going back to 1861 for a solution.

The distinction between State and Non-State was blasted into non-existence when Congress adjourned sine die and forcibly re-convened by Executive Order. At that point, any real question of "state" versus "federal possession" was pretty well settled.

They're ALL federal possessions.

[LPC]

The whole state-not state argument... and I find myself going back to 1861 for a solution.

The distinction between State and Non-State was blasted into non-existence when Congress adjourned sine die and forcibly re-convened by Executive Order. At that point, any real question of "state" versus "federal possession" was pretty well settled.

They're ALL federal possessions.

The Constitution states that the President "may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses..." Article II, Section 3. That's what Lincoln did in 1861, and I don't think that there is any question but that the secession of the southern states was an "extraordinary Occasion."

I have seen nothing to indicate that any member of Congress was carried to the Capital by force, so the word "forcibly" is wrong.

And what does any of this have to do with the meaning of "state" in the IRC? It sounds more like irrational paranoia than any kind of legal or historical argument.

[ShadesOfKnight]

The Constitution states that the President "may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses..." Article II, Section 3. That's what Lincoln did in 1861, and I don't think that there is any question but that the secession of the southern states was an "extraordinary Occasion."

Perhaps. But if so, it (the Executive Order) should not have had force beyond the end of the Civil War... right?

I have seen nothing to indicate that any member of Congress was carried to the Capital by force, so the word "forcibly" is wrong.

Perhaps. But then again, since those who didn't show up (the Southern states, and some few members of the North) were simply removed from the roster and/or replaced, it seems that the Congress was not so much "convened" as replaced. While the Constitution gives the President Authority to convene the Congress, it doesn't give him the authority to pick and choose who is and who is not a member of the Congress... that is left to the States to decide. A Congress convened without all of its members cannot be Congress, can it?

And what does any of this have to do with the meaning of "state" in the IRC? It sounds more like irrational paranoia than any kind of legal or historical argument.

The point is, the State-versus-non state argument is pointless since there's no distinction there to make. And that's how it relates to the IRC... there isn't a distinction, despite the words used.... IMO.

[LPC]

The Constitution states that the President "may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses..." Article II, Section 3. That's what Lincoln did in 1861, and I don't think that there is any question but that the secession of the southern states was an "extraordinary Occasion."

Perhaps. But if so, it (the Executive Order) should not have had force beyond the end of the Civil War... right?

And it didn't, so everyone is happy.

I have seen nothing to indicate that any member of Congress was carried to the Capital by force, so the word "forcibly" is wrong.

Perhaps.

What kind of BS is that? Do you or do you not have any historical evidence that any force, or any threat of force, was used against any member of Congress to obtain their attendance when Congress reconvene?

But then again, since those who didn't show up (the Southern states, and some few members of the North) were simply removed from the roster and/or replaced, it seems that the Congress was not so much "convened" as replaced. While the Constitution gives the President Authority to convene the Congress, it doesn't give him the authority to pick and choose who is and who is not a member of the Congress... that is left to the States to decide. A Congress convened without all of its members cannot be Congress, can it?

You seem to think that Lincoln somehow caused members of Congress to be expelled or replaced, but you haven't explained why you think that. It certainly has nothing to do with the April 15 executive order, which simply asked Congress to reconvene.

And what does any of this have to do with the meaning of "state" in the IRC? It sounds more like irrational paranoia than any kind of legal or historical argument.

The point is, the State-versus-non state argument is pointless since there's no distinction there to make.

So how many Representatives and Senators are Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam currently sending to Congress?

[David Merrill]

And it didn't, so everyone is happy.

But it did. Fiat currency is only allowed in America during times of emergency. It can easily be argued that when it came time for Abraham Lincoln to end the emergency, he was shot.

The better evidence is right there in your post:

...with the April 15 executive order, which simply asked Congress to reconvene.

Funny how that would be on the tax year. I would like to look into that. Please tell me the Page you are talking about.

It was not until July 4, 1861 that Lincoln convened Congress under the "extraordinary occasion" clause.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Florida]

The Constitution states that the President "may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses..." Article II, Section 3. That's what Lincoln did in 1861, and I don't think that there is any question but that the secession of the southern states was an "extraordinary Occasion."

Perhaps. But if so, it (the Executive Order) should not have had force beyond the end of the Civil War... right?

And it didn't, so everyone is happy.

I have seen nothing to indicate that any member of Congress was carried to the Capital by force, so the word "forcibly" is wrong.

Perhaps.

What kind of BS is that? Do you or do you not have any historical evidence that any force, or any threat of force, was used against any member of Congress to obtain their attendance when Congress reconvene?

But then again, since those who didn't show up (the Southern states, and some few members of the North) were simply removed from the roster and/or replaced, it seems that the Congress was not so much "convened" as replaced. While the Constitution gives the President Authority to convene the Congress, it doesn't give him the authority to pick and choose who is and who is not a member of the Congress... that is left to the States to decide. A Congress convened without all of its members cannot be Congress, can it?

You seem to think that Lincoln somehow caused members of Congress to be expelled or replaced, but you haven't explained why you think that. It certainly has nothing to do with the April 15 executive order, which simply asked Congress to reconvene.

And what does any of this have to do with the meaning of "state" in the IRC? It sounds more like irrational paranoia than any kind of legal or historical argument.

The point is, the State-versus-non state argument is pointless since there's no distinction there to make.

So how many Representatives and Senators are Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam currently sending to Congress?

For some reason Shade is having a hard time answering that question.

[David Merrill]

For some reason Shade is having a hard time answering that question.

It is a faulty mathematical substitution. You are saying that because a State has Congresspeople that proves it is not a federal subject State.

You may recall the President sending troops to undeclared wars. Even in 1933 FDR declared a war against the Great Depression and only suggested he might like to have Congress approve that. In fact he basically made a suggestion that if Congress did not like it, he would be doing it under War and Emergency Powers - then only hours later declared war against the US citizens via the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917!

Since 1861 there has been no Congress except under the special provisions of emergency - the extraordinary occasion that the Southern States have every right to secede but to this day cannot exercise it.

I will prove every word of it through the Congressional Record if you would like. Interestingly I should point out that a related thread starts with an opinion about the Shroeders but the author failed to link the case and opinion for us.

viewtopic.php?t=462&start=15

That would very likely be Eugene and his father Darrell. They wrote the book, War and Emergency Powers and testified over a decade ago at a national common law jury/assembly in Wichita. And the opinion relies heavily if not solely on the post-1861 ratification for Oklahama to be a State.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... m_Ring.jpg



Regards,

David Merrill.

[jg]

I will prove every word of it through the Congressional Record if you would like. Interestingly I should point out that a related thread starts with an opinion about the Shroeders but the author failed to link the case and opinion for us.
viewtopic.php?t=462&start=15

You mean this thread with the link included?

Just one example of the improper use of "includes":
From http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/protcase/albers.htm

The Schroeders also contend that they are non-resident aliens to the United States, seeming to interpret "United States" to mean only where the seat of its government is located, the District of Columbia. In their capacity as non-resident aliens, they assert they can have no tax liability to the United States. This position is wholly without merit.

The term "United States" is properly used to "designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends." Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 671- 72 (1945), overruled on other grounds sub nom. Limbach v. Hooven & Allison Co., 466 U.S. 353 (1984). The sovereignty of the United States extends to all the states comprising it. The United States was not created as a separate state, but as a union of other states, of which each state is a part. Thus, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, the "United States" referred to those states which had adopted the Constitution. Since that time, the United States has come to comprise the fifty states. Furthermore, when the United States came into being it was not limited to the territory of the District of Columbia, which did not yet even exist. Instead, the authority of the United States under the Constitution was understood to extend to the area bounded by the "several states."<snip for brevity>

[Brian Rookard]

... and testified over a decade ago at a national common law jury/assembly in Wichita.

Translation: A bunch of Konstitooshunalists got together at the local Waffle House, they picked a "common law" jury and had other misfits "testify" to the conspiracy.

Real persuasive David.

[David Merrill]

You mean this thread with the link included?

I am presuming these are the same Schroeders in the case but do not recall any news about Eugene and/or Darrell getting involved with that argument. So my presumption based on the unusual spelling of Shroder may be incorrect.

Brian is absurd, thinking the thousands of people who attended in the city's main auditorium could somehow be related to the Preamble Union of People. It is good to convince him so easily.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Nikki]

... and testified over a decade ago at a national common law jury/assembly in Wichita.

Translation: A bunch of Konstitooshunalists got together at the local Waffle House, they picked a "common law" jury and had other misfits "testify" to the conspiracy.

Real persuasive David.

David Merrill lies again. He wasn't there. However, someone named David Van Pelt signed the document at http://www.icresource.com/public_html/C ... chita.html

[The Observer]

David Merrill lies again. He wasn't there. However, someone named David Van Pelt signed the document at http://www.icresource.com/public_html/C ... chita.html

Very interesting. Why would this David Merrill try to pass himself off as David Van Pelt?

I am working on a theory that the real David Merrill was shot dead fairly early in the tax protestor movement. The person here claiming to be David Merrill may have had something to do with it, if my theory proves out.

[David Merrill]

... and testified over a decade ago at a national common law jury/assembly in Wichita.

Translation: A bunch of Konstitooshunalists got together at the local Waffle House, they picked a "common law" jury and had other misfits "testify" to the conspiracy.

Real persuasive David. :roll:

David Merrill lies again. He wasn't there. However, someone named David Van Pelt signed the document at http://www.icresource.com/public_html/C ... chita.html

Edifying link Nikki. There is a lot of history in that finding of fact. Thank you.

Your inherent Quatloser dissociation from reality of course fails to recognize that my name has been David Merrill since my parents named me that.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Imalawman]

Your inherent Quatloser dissociation from reality of course fails to recognize that my name has been David Merrill since my parents named me that.

Then why did you sign your name David Van Pelt? Are you saying that you weren't there and didn't participate and someone else signed the document as David Van Pelt?

[David Merrill]

Your inherent Quatloser dissociation from reality of course fails to recognize that my name has been David Merrill since my parents named me that.

Then why did you sign your name David Van Pelt? Are you saying that you weren't there and didn't participate and someone else signed the document as David Van Pelt?

I am saying thank you for bringing us that Petition by link. It is right on topic. You already know my name.

Are you trying to distract people with your pseudonomania?


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Disilloosianed]

Brian Rookard wrote:

Translation: A bunch of Konstitooshunalists got together at the local Waffle House

Such an absolutely perfect visual.....I am betting they milked the coffee refills for all they were worth, too.

[The Observer]

Your inherent Quatloser dissociation from reality of course fails to recognize that my name has been David Merrill since my parents named me that.

Then why did you sign your name David Van Pelt? Are you saying that you weren't there and didn't participate and someone else signed the document as David Van Pelt?

I am saying thank you for bringing us that Petition by link. It is right on topic. You already know my name.

Are you trying to distract people with your pseudonomania?

No, he is attracting interest to another situation where you stuck your foot in your mouth again. Either you lied about being at the "national common law jury" or you have signed a document admitting your name is David Van Pelt. So which is it?

[David Merrill]

There are nine Posters so far of 250 Views so that leaves a lot of people who can see who is attempting to distract Readers from the point of the thread. We can pretty well guess why too - knowing The Observer.

Back on Point;

The States were basically reduced to State Districts subordinate to the District of Columbia in 1861.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... 44_969.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... 44_970.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... 44_971.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... 44_972.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... 44_973.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/F ... 44_974.jpg

Notice carefully the Thirteenth Amendment in 1861 for the Territory of Colorado compared to the subsequent Slavery Amendment and the US Civil Rights Amendments for the federal States.

http://car2.elpasoco.com/rcdquery.asp

Then get a better look at the indexing:

Plug in Book "6744"
and Page "969" - then search...

COLORADO TERRITORY OF

Then take in a good look by Searching for Reception Number 207015932. Look at the Grantee/Grantor...

NO GRANTOR/NO GRANTEE

So you can see why the craven sticking to the Party Line of the Bank and Fund would want to divert your attention to pseudonomania.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Dezcad]

Back on Point;


Regards,

David Merrill.

That's the funniest and most ironic thing I've read in a while.

[Demosthenes]

Back on Point;


Regards,

David Merrill.

That's the funniest and most ironic thing I've read in a while.

Welcome to our neighborhood word salad king.