Mollie

This is not an opinion

"This was the ruling of The United States Supreme Court after the "Civil War" in Ex parte Mulligan. 71 UnitedStates 2 (1866) which stands to this day. Neither the legislator nor any executive or judicial officer may disregard the provisions of the constitution in CASE OF AN EMERGENCY.

Section 98 therefore ANYONE who declares the suspension of constitutionally guaranteed rights to (freely travel, peacefully assemble, EARN A LIVING, freely worship etc.) and or attempts to enforce such suspension within 50 independent, sovereign, continental United States of America IS MAKING WAR against our constitutional oath and, thus, IMMEDIATELY FORFEIT THEIR OFFICE AND AUTHORITY and their proclamations may be disregarded with impunity and that means anyone, even the governor or the president."

I am therefore suggesting that anyone feeling their constitutional rights have been stepped on, to immediately contact William Barr's Office at the Department of Justice, who is "responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice in the United States of America etc". The Department may be contacted by phone at the following:
Department Comment Line: 202-353-1555
Department of Justice Main Switchboard: 202-514-2000;TDD: 800-877-8339

This information can be located at (Contact the Department-U.S.) Department of Justice where you can submit a complaint on line.

It wouldn't hurt to contact your congress person and senator in your state, as well as your attorney general in your state by simply searching (attorney general and your state.)

This is the weekend so you won't be able to reach anyone until Monday. That's good, it'll give you time to think about what you want to say.

THIS IS MY PEACEFUL WAY OF SAYING "I'VE HAD ENOUGH" AND I APPRECIATE ANY HELP GIVEN AS I TRULY BELIEVE WE ARE ABOUT TO LOSE OUR COUNTRY

Smedley_buzkill

Actually it was Ex Parte Milligan 1866. The Court was ruling on the limits of Martial Law. What they said was that Martial Law could only be imposed if the Civil Authority was unwilling or unable to function properly, and could only be imposed on the affected area[s] for no longer than it took for Civil Authority to function again.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/2/
May I also point out to you that your source cites "50" states, when, in 1866 there were only 25 states? The 11 Southern states were not considered states yet, as they were under reconstruction law.

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

As much as I agree with the sentiment of what you have written, that is not how I read Ex parte Mulligan. 71 UnitedStates 2 (1866).

Ex parte Milligan
Ex parte Milligan, was a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled the application of military tribunals to citizens when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional. In this particular case the Court was unwilling to give President Abraham Lincoln's administration the power of military commission jurisdiction, part of the administration's controversial plan to deal with Union dissenters during the American Civil War. Justice David Davis, who delivered the majority opinion, stated that "martial rule can never exist when the courts are open" and confined martial law to areas of "military operations, where war really prevails," and when it was a necessity to provide a substitute for a civil authority that had been overthrown. Chief Justice Chase and three associate justices filed a separate opinion concurring with the majority in the judgment, but asserted that Congress had the power to authorize a military commission, although it had not done so in Milligan's case.Wikipedia
Full case name:Ex parte Lambdin P. Milligan
Citations:71 U.S. 2 (more) 4 Wall. 2, 18 L. Ed. 281, 1866 U.S. LEXIS 861
Prior history:This case came before the Court upon a certificate of division from the judges of the Circuit Court for Indiana, on a petition for discharge from unlawful imprisonment.
Majority:Davis, joined by Clifford, Field, Grier, Nelson
Concur/dissent:Chase, joined by Wayne, Swayne, Miller

I don't see any military tribunals..... yet.

Smedley_buzkill

The source Mollie uses refers to 50 states. There were not 50 states in 1866. There were not
even 40. There were 25 Union states and non-seceding states in 1866.

Fodaoson Loc: South Texas

The post is pointing to current questions about civil liberties and some current laws.
Although there was not fifty states in 1861-1865, there are fifty today and the ruling/law applies to all fifty.. The original constitution applied to 13 states but each state is admitted to the union only after it agrees to the rule of law as rule of laws established by the constitution,amendments and court rulings..

Mollie

[quote=Smedley_buzkill]Actually it was Ex Parte Milligan 1866. The Court was ruling on the limits of Martial Law. What they said was that Martial Law could only be imposed if the Civil Authority was unwilling or unable to function properly, and could only be imposed on the affected area[s] for no longer than it took for Civil Authority to function again.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/2/
May I also point out to you that your source cites "50" states, when, in 1866 there were only 25 states? The 11 Southern states were not considered states yet, as they were under reconstruction law.[/quote]


Hi Smedley, thanks for correcting the 50 states. This article was sent to me, that's how I copied but never even thought to count the states. Good catch!

I wasn't suggesting Martial Law at all. I merely thought that if the governor's were seemingly nullifying the constitution, the DOJ would have a DUTY to remove them. The results of their decisions have caused thousands to be unemployed, losing homes and basically, having a difficult time surviving. After all, The DOJ and others swore to uphold the constitution. So why aren't they?

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

He's pointing out that you don't understand what the ruling is actually addressing....

Go to the link he provided and see what the ruling is truly about...

It's important to vet articles that are sent by friends... One never knows how valid the misinformation is....

Mollie

Actually, I neither asked for nor do I want your advice.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

It's an open forum...

Can't really pick and choose who responds to a thread...

On the bright side, aside effect of being exposed to contradicting viewpoints is the opportunity to grow in understanding... But you have to take that first step

Mollie

Actually, I STILL DON'T WANT and especially DON'T NEED your comments. I tried to be nice the first time I said I didn't want or need your comments. You didn't care. The sad thing is, no one else wants your undesirable remarks either. Unfortunately for us, we have no choice.

Your the kind of person who criticizes people (not the subject being discussed) who are trying to carry on discussions that mean something to them. You keep trying to make YOU the subject when you're not. Frankly, your criticism is to the point your so anal, you'd give directions to an ant on how to take a s**t. Maybe this will help you to "grow in understanding". I can only hope.

Sicilianthing

>>>

I’m quite aware and to enforce this and all the other stuff in our Constitution will require you and everyone else to join American Militias and protest in Armed Rebellion on your officials at their offices, the Capitol, the city Halls and Police Stations, Sheriffs Stations etc...

Do you understand ?

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

It's never about the individual... Always about the information... You provided a faulty premise based upon a lack of understanding...

Upon being corrected you reacted as though it were a personal attack...

Whether or not you appreciate that is unimportant...

But ensuring that your false information isn't propogated is rather important

kemmer

Make sure either your affairs are in order or you have a backup buddy with bail money.

Sicilianthing

>>>

I Dont care kemmer.

kemmer

Such happened yesterday in several cities. The only results were numerous arrests. People are NOT going to rush out and join freakin’ militias. This is not the 18th century.