The People's Awareness Coalition Forum
NOTICE: As of 2012 this forum is no longer active
• Visit our new
Open Forum
, please
click here
Page LogOn Time : • Greetings, concerned American. Note most topics reserved for members only. We welcome you to
Register
.
Home
Events
Search
Help
Login
Register
Not My Government | Forum
› Send an alert to Board Moderator about this post
Posting Entry
Send an alert to Board Moderator about this post
(
Please specify issue in your submission
)
Subject:
Name:
Email:
Verification Code is:
Below, type exactly what
text appears in the image.
Case-sensitive.
Verification Code:
Preview:
Live Preview
Live Preview
Message:
You must enable JavaScript to get full functionality for this forum!
For expanded HTML Formatting, Click Here.
Verdana
-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-
Arial
Verdana
MS Sans Serif
Times New Roman
Lucida Sans
Tahoma
Georgia
Courier
11
----
10
11
12
14
[quote author=323F29333F305E0 link=1300219376/8#8 date=1301269328][b][color=#003399][size=14]A simple position/argument why the language that is found in the "Reconstruction Acts" has nothing to do with the "Reconstruction Amendments".[/size][/color][/b] [color=#cc0066][i]Counter-position to Tom Woods' reasoning when he states that Section 2 of the 14th is not used any longer.[/i][/color] [b]A note I sent to someone who fails to understand... [/b] It is my position that the four statutes known as Reconstruction Acts are just fraudulently based political blather meant to confuse the issue. So, aside the mention of the installment of the 14th amendment noted in the Acts, here are just a couple of simple points that destroy any thought that the language in the "Acts" having anything to do with the Reconstruction Amendments... 1) The Act's language in all sections is referencing rebellion against the United States (which has been ruled unconstitutional by the courts [i.e., the states cannot rebel against what they created]; Andrew Johnson's VETO expresses that in so many words). ERGO: The States were not in rebellion against the United States, as a matter of law. Wherefore, understanding the Constitution lacked authority for "rebellion" against the "United States" the SOBs had to fix the problem... But not really... That conversion / usurpation of the political systems of the rightful states was always the goal (of "their" 14th)... 2) The language in these" Acts" pertains to rebellion 'against the' United States, not the individual 'States' as Historical Error encompasses. In example, the language is different in this clause that you appear to be confused by: [list]Chap. CLIII-Sec. 5. "framed by a convention of delegates elected by the male citizens of said State, twenty-one years old and upward, of whatever race, color, or previous condition, who have been resident in said State for one year previous to the day of such election, except such as may be disfranchised for participation in the rebellion or for felony at common law..."[/list]There is a keyword in the Act that YOU appeared to have overlooked: THE in "the rebellion". The 14th Amendment illustrates "The right to vote is denied EXCEPT FOR participation IN rebellion" So: "THE REBELLION" is PAST TENSE (in relation to the delusional "rebellion" against the United States noted in Sec. 5, see grammatical structure therein), and "The right to vote is denied... EXCEPT FOR participation IN rebellion" relates FUTURE TENSE (as used in the 14th). Of course they throw in some more garbage to confuse the issue: [list]Chap. VI-Sec 1. Oath"...that I have not be disfranchised for participation in any rebellion or civil war against the United States [BORK comment: So what, Historical Error shows that the rebellion[s] is against the lawful states, NOT the United States.], nor for felony committed against the laws of any State [BORK comment: Whatever.], or of the United States; that I have never been a member of any State legislature, nor held any executive or judicial office in any State and afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States [BORK comment: Again, so what... Historical Error shows that the rebellion[s] is against the lawful States, NOT the United States.], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof; that I have never taken an oath as a member of Congress of the United States, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, and afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States... [BORK comment: Again, WHATEVER... Historical Error shows that the rebellion[s] is against the lawful States, NOT the United States.]"[/list]In short, that says a lot of nothing... It is just trash language to confuse the issue. All these Acts are about is nonsensical horse hockey to put up a smoke screen to get the 14th Amendment put in place. AGAIN: The 14th Amendment makes the States rebel 'against their' lawful states (govs), not the "United States". Moreover, I had made many other comments in Historical Error to cover any other unfounded ideas you have rolling around in your head that you seem so willing to want to force on me. The most accurate point I make is that the 14th Amendment applies and/or has an affect on all the states, not just the so-called "Rebel States". The Acts should have taken care of the matters therein noted... So why put the same crap in the 14th Amendment? Further, the guys who were so-called "rebels" have been dead for well over 100 years... So why put that same crap of "the time" in the 14th Amendment? Further, all current Constitutional notations established that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment "overwrites the representation" clause in Art. I, Sec. 2 of the Constitution... So why would any "purported relevant outdated" crap be found in the 14th Amendment? Further, the Acts relate that the disenfranchised rebels had gained back their voting rights and representation... So why does the crap in the 14th Amendment establish "that the representation is reduced" in its Sec. 2? One big DUH there!... I mean, is this really hard to figure out? So Jim, some questions for you here: [list]• Do you understand what deception is? • Do you understand what the "Shell Game" is? • Do you understand what "words and phrases" are? • Do you understand grammar in any way, shape, or form? • Do you understand the concept of sequence of events (based on date/time)? • Do you understand someone filled your head with the nonsense you tried to sell me?[/list]I do not know how many times the past ten plus years I have gone over this with people who cannot think. In other words, it is bad to listen to what people say and not think for yourself... But maybe you did come-up with this nonsense that you attempted to push over on me!?! Maybe you got these nonsensical ideas from guys like Thomas Woods. LOL In closing... [list]1) You owe yourself to look at Historical Error, i.e., You should look at what I had written instead of shutting down after the first two paragraphs of a 16 page explanation. 2) Perhaps you owe me an apology.[/list]To quote you on a maxim: Let those who wish to be deceived, be deceived. Or, here is one of my quotes: Alas, my freedom suffers for I am surrounded by dumb people. You see, jealously and false judgment against people can make one blind. Regards, LB [i] [humble Bork reappears] [/i] [hr] [url=http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/secession/reconstruction.html][b]Reconstruction Acts here...[/b][/url] [b]Chap. CLIII-Sec. 5.[/b] Provided, That no person excluded from the privilege of holding office by said proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States, shall be eligible to election as a member of the convention to frame a constitution for any of said rebel States, nor shall any such person vote for members of such convention. [i] [BORK Comment: Right, the real purpose of the 14th Amendment... The ones not willing to rebel against their lawful governments cannot participate ] [/i] _____________ [b]Reconstruction Acts[/b], [i]from Wikipedia [/i] After the end of the Civil War, as part of the on-going process of Reconstruction, the United States Congress passed four statutes known as Reconstruction Acts (March 2, 1867 (39 Cong. Ch. 153; 14 Stat. 428), March 23, 1867 (40 Cong. Ch. 6; 15 Stat. 2), July 19, 1867 (40 Cong. Ch. 30; 15 Stat. 14), March 11, 1868 (ch. 25, 15 Stat. 41)). The acts' main points included: [list]• Creation of five military districts in the seceded states not including Tennessee, which had ratified the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and was readmitted to the Union • Requiring congressional approval for new state constitutions (which were required for Confederate states to rejoin the Union) • Confederate states give voting rights to all men. • All former Confederate states must ratify the 14th Amendment[/list]President Andrew Johnson's vetoes of these measures were overridden by Congress. Later, when the case Ex Parte McCardle came to the Supreme Court, Congress feared that the court may strike the Reconstruction Acts down as unconstitutional, at which point Congress repealed the Habeas Corpus act of 1867 to revoke the Supreme Court's appellate power to hear the case.[/quote]
Max 12000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size:
px
Collapse/Expand additional features, Click Here.
Disable Smilies:
Check this if you'll be adding code (or don't like smilies).
Enable auto-copy Message:
Check this if you want the message auto-copied to your clipboard before Post or Preview.
Forum Jump »
Home
» 25 most recent Posts
» 15 most recent Topics
Visitor Information
- Welcome to the Not My Government Forum
- The Not My Government Polls
- Hello NMG Visitors
PAC Alliance Program
- Welcome to The PAC Alliance Program
- Help the Coalition Heal Our Republics
- Suggestions for PAC Alliance Program
Our Members
PAC Groups Education
- PAC Educational Group
- Events for PAC Groups
State Nationals Society
- State Nationals Introduction
Island Makers Project
- Welcome to Island Makers Project
The Discussion Board
- Members General Discussion
Republic vs. Democracy
- Two Parties with One Face
- Nothing Happens by Accident
- The Conspiracy Corner
Insurgency Agents
- Enemies of The Republic
- Wolves in Sheeps Clothing ««
- People Dividing the Movement
Top of Page
Not My Government | Forum
» Powered by
YaBB 2.4
.
YaBB
© 2000-2011. All Rights Reserved.
Site Born: November 2008
contact
Join PAC Talk
Conference Calls
I need to know more about PAC...
Community
Tour Page
Next Level
I would like to get started with PAC...
Start Now
Enrollment
Assist Us