Summoned? How to Send 'em Packin'!!!

[palani]

Aulus Gellius ... Attic Nights ...1795 ... Book III ... Available through google books

Chap. XII The tribunes might arrest, but could not summon any one:

The imperium or authority of the Roman magistrates comprehended the right of issuing edicts, of personal arrests, and of citing to appear. We learn from this chapter than these rights did not belong to the same officer, and that the power of citing to appear was of a higher nature than that of personal arrest. See Heineccius, 578.

We read recorded in a certain letter of Atteius Capito, that Labeo Antistius was particulary distinguished by his knowledge of the Roman people. But a certain degree of wilful obstinacy, he observes, misled the man, insomuch that when Caesar Augustus became emporer, he did not allow the justice or propriety of any act, which he could not find sanctioned by the ancient usages of the Romans. He then relates what this same Labeo (when summoned by a messenger from the tribune of the people) answered: "When," says he, "at the instigation of a certain woman, the tribunes of the people sent Gellianus to him, desiring that he would appear and answer to the woman's complaint, he ordered him who had been sent, to return, and tell the tribunes, that they had no right either to summon him or any one else. That by the customs of our ancestors, the tribunes of the people had a right of arresting but not of summoning any one; that they might therefore come and order him to be seized, but had no right to summon him when absent." Having read this in Capito's letter, I found the same afterwards spoken of more at large in the 21st book of Varro's "Res humanae," whose words upon the subject I have transcribed: "In the magistracy," says he, " some have the power of summoning, some of arresting, others can do neither. The power of summoning belongs to the consuls, and others of high authority, that of arest to the bribunes of the people, and those officers who are attended by a messenger; but the quaestors and others, who have neither lictor nor a messenger, have neither power to summon, nor to arrest. They who have the right of summoning, are also able by law to seize, confine, and carry away, and this whether the persons are present , or are cited by their command. The tribunes of the people have no right of summoning. Nevertheless, many ignorant persons have used this authority, as if they were entitled to it. For some have ordered, not only a private individual, but a consul, to be summoned to the forum. I myself , one of the tiumvirs, being summoned by Portius, a tribune of the people, did not appear: depending upon the authority of established custom, I claimed this ancient privilege; and when a tribune myself, I ordered no man to be summoned before me, nor to obey the summons of my colleage, unless he thought proper." As to this right, of which Marcus Varro speaks, I am of the opinion that Labeo, when a private man, acted with an idle sort of confidence, in not appearing to the summons of the tribune. For what could be the reason for being unwilling to obey the summons of those, whom you allow to have the power of arresting you? For he who by law may be seized, may also be imprisoned. But while we are enquiring why the tribunes, who have a power of using coercive measures, have not the power of summoning, it occurs to recollection, that tribunes of the people appear to have been formerly created, not for the purpose of passing sentence, nor for taing cognisance of causes and complaints where the parties were absent, but by their presence, in causes, to take care that injustice be banished from their courts. Therefore the right of summoning was taken from them, because their office was to prevent, by their attention and presence, all acts of violence.

[palani]

This is part and parcel of both Roman law and civil law. The concept incorporates one of the key aspects of law, namely, REASON. Reason is a key component of common law.

While it is true most judicial actors might issue a warrant for ARREST yet if you do not come when SUMMONED (Pavlov's response? Like a dog being trained?) then the ARREST has no basis in law if merely issued for a failure to appear when SUMMONED.

Unless you consider the topic carefully the chances are you will not come up with the concept on your own. People have been programmed to respond yet when they do so improperly they establish the legal authority of the judicial actor who is going to extend his/her jurisdiction to them.

Nip it in the bud early and you stand a better chance of draining the swamp rather than defending yourself against alligators/sharks/attorners.

Any rebuttal? Anywhere? Anyone?

[Ares]

This is part and parcel of both Roman law and civil law. The concept incorporates one of the key aspects of law, namely, REASON. Reason is a key component of common law.

While it is true most judicial actors might issue a warrant for ARREST yet if you do not come when SUMMONED (Pavlov's response? Like a dog being trained?) then the ARREST has no basis in law if merely issued for a failure to appear when SUMMONED.

Unless you consider the topic carefully the chances are you will not come up with the concept on your own. People have been programmed to respond yet when they do so improperly they establish the legal authority of the judicial actor who is going to extend his/her jurisdiction to them.

Nip it in the bud early and you stand a better chance of draining the swamp rather than defending yourself against alligators/sharks/attorners.

Any rebuttal? Anywhere? Anyone?

No rebuttal, just clarification. How could not appearing when summoned result in a better out come for you?

[ximmy]

No rebuttal, just clarification. How could not appearing when summoned result in a better out come for you?

Depending on the judge it could go very bad for you... avoiding a summons can lead to subpoena, avoiding a subpoena can lead to warrant.

[midnight rambler]

Depending on the judge it could go very bad for you... avoiding a summons can lead to subpoena, avoiding a subpoena can lead to warrant.

Do you get paid to police others, or do you simply do it so you can feel good about yourself??

nothing was said anywhere about 'avoiding' it,


Nip it in the bud early

a response is required.

[ximmy]

Do you get paid to police others, or do you simply do it so you can feel good about yourself??

nothing was said anywhere about 'avoiding' it,



a response is required.

Response initiates connection between you and your strawman. The court has you by your balls (so to speak)

[palani]

No rebuttal, just clarification. How could not appearing when summoned result in a better out come for you?

I have determined that the best weapon in my arsenal is to not appear. This is also known as "not volunteering". The reason is same concerning failure to appear and to not exist. Once I appear I prove my existence.

When you choose to appear in response to a summons then you have acknowledged some connection between you and the party they are interested in. As the system is entirely commercial all the system wants from the party of interest is payment. If presented with a summons go ahead and abate the nuisance within 72 hours. Send it back to the originator with a copy of the first post in this thread.

Failure to appear to a summons cannot be criminal if there is no authority to issue the summons in the first place. Cops will have you sign one to gain your acceptance of the summons. You still have 72 hours to send it back.

During a traffic stop do you get the original or a copy of the summons? If you get a copy then to whom is the original of the summons intended?

Better outcome? Get ignored. Or at least make it more difficult for the system to work (I don't like it anyway so why would I want to make it work better?). Clog it up and make it expensive.

[vacuum]

Better outcome? Get ignored. Or at least make it more difficult for the system to work (I don't like it anyway so why would I want to make it work better?). Clog it up and make it expensive.
Right. You're essentially taking the matter away from paper pushers and instead involving lawyers with experience in ancient roman law.

[palani]

Depending on the judge it could go very bad for you... avoiding a summons can lead to subpoena, avoiding a subpoena can lead to warrant.

Law these days is not law. Lots of it is equity. Concepts of law appear to be merged with equity and in equity a single judicial actor is all that is needed. In law 2 or more judicial actors are required with one being of the quorum. A single judge at law has only the power to assign bail or to hold over for trial.

Point being: a subpoena is a WRIT to appear. WRITS are from law and come from the sovereign entity and come with a penalty if ignored. No courts in the U.S. represent ANY sovereign entities now-a-days.

The only power a chancellor in equity has is to assign contempt. If you find a chancellor crossing over into law to issue a writ (subpoena) and then attempting to use his contempt power when you choose to stay away you might have reason to get him booted.

Just thoughts and theory. It has to be discussed to get this mess sorted out.

[ximmy]

If presented with a summons go ahead and abate the nuisance within 72 hours.

Try to keep a distance between yourself and your strawman. Return the summons with:

Addressee not at this address
or
Recipient not at this address

If your lucky they will not issue a court ordered address verification. Anyone in your household can sign this confirming your residence there.

REMEMBER, they are still trying to get your signature, written or verbal, to proceed with a judgement against you or...

[palani]

Try to keep a distance between yourself and your strawman. Return the summons with:

Addressee not at this address
or
Recipient not at this address

If your lucky they will not issue a court ordered address verification. Anyone in your household can sign this confirming your residence there.

REMEMBER, they are still trying to get your signature, written or verbal, to proceed with a judgement against you or...

That is one of the best ways to avoid the issue. I make a point of not being located in any federal zone. Even if an envelope comes addressed to me properly (not all caps, spelled correctly) if it has a zip code it gets returned.

If they ever do send a letter properly addressed ... turns out that is going to be evidence that I am not in the federal overlay "this state" as it acknowledges that the court understands the concept of planes.

Things that happen in Iowa do not get adjudicated in IA.

[LuckyStrike]

While I have been summoned more than a handful of times I have never had jury duty. I got a summons from a county where I had resided in years prior but still got mail occasionally, she said if I didn't appear I could be held in contempt of court, I said good luck because apparently you have no clue where I live.

Another time I asked what I needed to do to get out of jury duty "tell them I hate niggers?" she laughed (so goes life in the South).

That being said however I think one of the most important things we can do is be jurors, trial by a jury of your peers is a hallmark of our society, and I've heard horror stories from people on jury duties about how dumb the other jurors are in their conclusions. Your attendance could very well mean a good person goes free.

[palani]

Another time I asked what I needed to do to get out of jury duty .

That is an easy one. Tell 'em you aren't a U.S. citizen.

If you were not born in the D of C or have no naturalization papers then this is not a false statement.

Present day court system can be traced back to a bit of treason Harry Truman performed on or around June 25th, 1948 in which congress adjourned and while they were gone he signed some bills having to do with 28 CFR into law. These bills created a federal overlay over the constitutional states. According to the constitution bills can only be signed into law while congress is seated. Ergo everything associated with 28 CFR is bogus. That includes state courts that classify crimes for U.S. citizens.

Sit on a jury ... participate in the fraud.

[LuckyStrike]

Sit on a jury ... participate in the fraud.

While I agree with your a lot of your info in this thread, I think you would want as many GSUS'ers as possible on your jury.

[palani]

While I agree with your a lot of your info in this thread, I think you would want as many GSUS'ers as possible on your jury.

(sigh) .. When you select a jury you agree that they have the right to judge facts. You might even be agreeing that they have the right to judge law but most black robed judicial actors are going to disagree with this. The point is the ONLY authority that convicts you is provided by YOU.

People like to argue. They believe they can prevail. They like to be perceived as fighting until the end. Actually you are convicted by your volunteering and by your own authority. Facts are on the moon. They are irrelevant. What is relevant is that the judge and all BAR actors have a lifestyle to preserve, mortgages to pay and retirement to fund. Everything else is an act, a play, a drama.

[Joe King]

Present day court system can be traced back to a bit of treason Harry Truman performed on or around June 25th, 1948 in which congress adjourned and while they were gone he signed some bills having to do with 28 CFR into law.If the Bills were ready for the POTUS signature, that means they'd already passed both Houses.



These bills created a federal overlay over the constitutional states. According to the constitution bills can only be signed into law while congress is seated. Ergo everything associated with 28 CFR is bogus. That includes state courts that classify crimes for U.S. citizens.Could you show me where it says that? I just did a quick read of Articles i and 2 and didn't see anything to that effect.
...but perhaps I missed it. TIA

[midnight rambler]

While I agree with your a lot of your info in this thread, I think you would want as many GSUS'ers as possible on your jury.

Fuck the notion of a bunch of brain-dead US citizens sitting in judgment of me. US citizens are foreign to me.

[palani]

If the Bills were ready for the POTUS signature, that means they'd already passed both Houses.
That is another issue. Congress apparenlty left behind a committee to transmit bills to the president after they had adjourned. This is another violation as there is no delegation of authority permitted to do such.



Could you show me where it says that? I just did a quick read of Articles i and 2 and didn't see anything to that effect....but perhaps I missed it. TIA
Sure. Article 1 Section 7 clause 2 and 3 ... to wit:


If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

There can be no bill signed into law while congress is adjourned. Truman's act was a political one not sanctioned by the U.S. constitution and the office he occupied.

[palani]

By the way, the facts surrounding the details of what Harry Truman did in 1948 may be found here

http://adask.wordpress.com/category/dennis-craig/

By looking though these pages you will find where the recorded documents that establish these as fact can be downloaded. They are also available for a nominal fee by contacting the Vermillion county recorder ... around $40 ... The documents are worthless if you continue to maintain contracts with the federal or state governments after reading them.

I have verified for myself that the details are correct. The congressional record is available in many major libraries. All you have to do is expend the interest and energy to check it out. Takes several hours at the most.

[Joe King]

There can be no bill signed into law while congress is adjourned. Truman's act was a political one not sanctioned by the U.S. constitution and the office he occupied.That doesn't say Congress has to be in session in order for the POTUS to sign a Bill. What it's sayin' is that after receiving it he has 10 days excluding Sundays in order to either sign, not sign, or veto the Bill.
Returning the Bill refers to him vetoing it.
...and not signing it allows it to become law same as if he had signed it. If Congress is adjourned, it merely prevents the return of the Bill to Congress.

[palani]

That doesn't say Congress has to be in session in order for the POTUS to sign a Bill. What it's sayin' is that after receiving it he has 10 days excluding Sundays in order to either sign, not sign, or veto the Bill.
Returning the Bill refers to him vetoing it.
...and not signing it allows it to become law same as if he had signed it. If Congress is adjourned, it merely prevents the return of the Bill to Congress.

You need to go back and examine basics.

Laws do not happen while congress is adjourned.

When they were called back in emergency session by Truman several days later they had the opportunity to raise an objection and they failed to. They went silent and by doing so assented.

Just because THEY did so does not mean you also have to assent.

Any action I take on becoming cognizant of this information is done nunc pro tunc because it was buried in thousands of pages of congressional record.

[Joe King]

You need to go back and examine basics.

Laws do not happen while congress is adjourned.They adjourned after the Bill was presented to the POTUS for signing. ie similar to the situation described in the Constitution.



When they were called back in emergency session by Truman several days later they had the opportunity to raise an objection and they failed to. They went silent and by doing so assented.Then they had opportunity to voice objection, didn't they? So why didn't they? Could it be possible that they didn't object because the Bill was what Congress intended it to be?



Just because THEY did so does not mean you also have to assent.

Any action I take on becoming cognizant of this information is done nunc pro tunc because it was buried in thousands of pages of congressional record.
Congressional Record is their way of making public that which they say and do while in session. Are you saying that you don't feel you should need to read it? I thought every American read that. :confused:

[palani]

They adjourned after the Bill was presented to the POTUS for signing. ie similar to the situation described in the Constitution.

Why are you ARGUING with me? I suggested you go read the material at Adasks' site at the url I gave.

Here are supreme court decisions on the subject ... directly from Craig's documents. If you take exception to what the supreme court decides I suggest you contact them.

http://i55.tinypic.com/2rwrlup.jpg

[Joe King]

Did he actually try to return the Bill? I thought the point was that he signed it? Congress doesn't have to be in session when he signs it. Only if he returns it to them. If they're in session, they have opportunity to override, if they are already adjourned, the Bill fails to become law.

Wouldn't you have wanted him to return the Bill in question?

[palani]

Did he actually try to return the Bill?

See Adasks' site.

It doesn't make any difference what Truman did. The record speaks for itself.

[ximmy]

Joe King's job is to derail pertinent posts....

[Joe King]

Joe King's job is to derail pertinent posts....No, I was just pointing out that the Constitution says nothing about Congress having to be in session when a Bill that has already been presented to the POTUS for signing, is actually signed. As long as it's signed within 10 days, not including Sundays, the members of Congress could all be at a beach party somewhere gettin' drunk when the POTUS signs it, for all it matters.
They adjourn all the time after passing Bills and before they're signed. How many times have we all read about 'em hurrying to get stuff done before their break?

[palani]

Dotting the "eye's" and crossing the "tee's" is what law is all about. All you are saying is sloppiness is permitted of your public servants and you have no personal standards.

This method of attacking them on violated procedure meets with my approval. Any method that gets one free while staying in honor is acceptable in my book.

[Joe King]

Dotting the "eye's" and crossing the "tee's" is what law is all about. All you are saying is sloppiness is permitted of your public servants and you have no personal standards.No, what I'm saying is that the Constitution does not specify that Congress be in session when the POTUS actually puts ink to paper and signs a Bill they've presented to him within the previous ten days. {not counting Sundays}



This method of attacking them on violated procedure meets with my approval. Any method that gets one free while staying in honor is acceptable in my book.Mine too, but you made it sound as though it wasn't Congress who presented the Bill to the POTUS for signing.

[palani]

No, what I'm saying is that the Constitution does not specify that Congress be in session when the POTUS actually puts ink to paper and signs a Bill they've presented to him within the previous ten days. {not counting Sundays}


... unless the Congress by its' adjournment prevents its' return, in which case it shall not be a Law....

You place no authority on the return of the bill whether signed or unsigned. It is the RETURN to an assembled Congress that makes it a Law. No Congress ... No Law.



Mine too, but you made it sound as though it wasn't Congress who presented the Bill to the POTUS for signing. The facts are on the record. Read it.

[Joe King]

You place no authority on the return of the bill whether signed or unsigned. It is the RETURN to an assembled Congress that makes it a Law. No Congress ... No Law.If it's signed, why would it need be returned to Congress? It is the President, after all, via his Executive Branch that create the Regulations to then enforce the the new law.
ie it only is returned to Congress in the event of a Presidential Veto. Did he Veto the Bill in question? I thought you said he signed it?



The facts are on the record. Read it.Yea, the Constitution does not say they need be in session for a Bill to be signed into law. Only if it's returned to them by Veto.

[palani]

I could be disturbed by your failure to understand basic principles but then I figure you are merely displaying the law of your being. What you are communicating is why you volunteer to being the bottom feeder in the food chain. You have sufficient information to pull yourself up by your bootstraps but I have no doubt you will find an excuse not to do so.

[po boy]

This is part and parcel of both Roman law and civil law. The concept incorporates one of the key aspects of law, namely, REASON. Reason is a key component of common law.

While it is true most judicial actors might issue a warrant for ARREST yet if you do not come when SUMMONED (Pavlov's response? Like a dog being trained?) then the ARREST has no basis in law if merely issued for a failure to appear when SUMMONED.

Unless you consider the topic carefully the chances are you will not come up with the concept on your own. People have been programmed to respond yet when they do so improperly they establish the legal authority of the judicial actor who is going to extend his/her jurisdiction to them.

Nip it in the bud early and you stand a better chance of draining the swamp rather than defending yourself against alligators/sharks/attorners.

Any rebuttal? Anywhere? Anyone?


Can you show any proof of this working in real life?

[palani]

Can you shoe any proof of this working in real life?

I am suggesting this is the attitude one must go into any situation with. Don't concentrate on just this one action. Concentrate on the behavior.

[po boy]

I am suggesting this is the attitude one must go into any situation with. Don't concentrate on just this one action. Concentrate on the behavior.


I'll take that as a no then.

[palani]

I'll take that as a no then.

Take it any way you like. This thread is for discussion and education only.

[Joe King]

I could be disturbed by your failure to understand basic principles but then I figure you are merely displaying the law of your being. What you are communicating is why you volunteer to being the bottom feeder in the food chain. You have sufficient information to pull yourself up by your bootstraps but I have no doubt you will find an excuse not to do so.If the POTUS signs the Bill, why would it be returned to Congress? The Executive Branch executes the laws enacted by Congress and signed into law by the POTUS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Article_I_legislati ve_role

The first power the U.S. Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) confers upon the president is the legislative power of the presidential veto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_veto). The Presentment Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentment_Clause) requires any bill passed by Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) to be presented to the president before it can become law. Once the legislation has been presented, the president has three options:
Sign the legislation; the bill then becomes law.
Veto the legislation and return it to Congress, expressing any objections; the bill does not become law, unless each house of Congress votes to override the veto by a two-thirds vote.
Take no action. In this instance, the president neither signs nor vetoes the legislation. After 10 days, not counting Sundays, two possible outcomes emerge:

If Congress is still convened, the bill becomes law.
If Congress has adjourned, thus preventing the return of the legislation, the bill does not become law. This latter outcome is known as the pocket veto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto).

If you'll notice the last part, it specifies that Congress may or may not be in session when a Bill is signed into law.

So why do you keep insisting that Congres must be in session in order for the POTUS to sign a Bill?
Congress has been adjourning after presenting a Bill to the POTUS for signing since longer than I can remember them doing it, which at this point is 8 administrations....and counting.

[po boy]

Take it any way you like. This thread is for discussion and education only.

Is there value in something that can't be proven to work?

[palani]

If the POTUS signs the Bill, why would it be returned to Congress? The Executive Branch executes the laws enacted by Congress and signed into law by the POTUS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Article_I_legislati ve_role

The first power the U.S. Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) confers upon the president is the legislative power of the presidential veto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_veto). The Presentment Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentment_Clause) requires any bill passed by Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) to be presented to the president before it can become law. Once the legislation has been presented, the president has three options:
Sign the legislation; the bill then becomes law.
Veto the legislation and return it to Congress, expressing any objections; the bill does not become law, unless each house of Congress votes to override the veto by a two-thirds vote.
Take no action. In this instance, the president neither signs nor vetoes the legislation. After 10 days, not counting Sundays, two possible outcomes emerge:

If Congress is still convened, the bill becomes law.
If Congress has adjourned, thus preventing the return of the legislation, the bill does not become law. This latter outcome is known as the pocket veto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto).

If you'll notice the last part, it specifies that Congress may or may not be in session when a Bill is signed into law.

So why do you keep insisting that Congres must be in session in order for the POTUS to sign a Bill?
Congress has been adjourning after presenting a Bill to the POTUS for signing since longer than I can remember them doing it, which at this point is 8 administrations....and counting.

I'll give you an example you might understand:

A news reporter was standing on the street polling people on what they thought the worlds greatest wonder was. One mentioned the great pyramids. Another mentioned the invention of flight. A third mentioned a thermos.

This last one caught the reporter off guard. He asked the guy "why would a thermos classify as the worlds greatest wonder?" The guy responded "When you put something hot in it stays hot. When you put something cold in it stays cold." The reporter, "Yeah, so what?". The guy, "Well how does it know?"

If congress is adjourned how does it know what the president did with the bill? Are they expected to be more intelligent than a thermos?

[palani]

Is there value in something that can't be proven to work?

You always learn something. How's your present method working?

[Joe King]

If congress is adjourned how does it know what the president did with the bill? Are they expected to be more intelligent than a thermos?
They know ahead of time whether he's inclined to sign it or not. If they think he'll Veto it, they have the option of staying in session if they decide to.

The bottom line is that they do not, have to be in session in order for the Bill to be signed into law. If the POTUS Vetos it and they still want to pass it with an over-riding majority, they have to be in session. If not, it just gets rejected.

The Constitution spells it out very clearly.

Again, whatever makes you think they had to be in session in order for a Bill to be signed? I've shown plenty of proof supporting my position on this, where's the proof that would support yours?

Or was the thermos story supposed to be proof? lol

[palani]

They know ahead of time whether he's inclined to sign it or not. If they think he'll Veto it, they have the option of staying in session if they decide to.

The bottom line is that they do not, have to be in session in order for the Bill to be signed into law. If the POTUS Vetos it and they still want to pass it with an over-riding majority, they have to be in session. If not, it just gets rejected.

The Constitution spells it out very clearly.

Again, whatever makes you think they had to be in session in order for a Bill to be signed? I've shown plenty of proof supporting my position on this, where's the proof that would support yours?

Or was the thermos story supposed to be proof? lol

From The Constitution of the United States of America Analysis and Interpretation


page 136 ..If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return in which case it shall not be a Law.

From Notes on the Constitution of the United States showing the construction and operation of the constitution as determined by the Federal Supreme Court and containing References to illustrative cases from the inferior Federal courts and State courts:


A bill becomes a law either by the signing of it by the President, or by his retaining it for 10 days without signing; but he must receive it ten days before adjournment, or it will not become a law. Hyde v White, 24 Tex. 145, 1 Tex. 107; 26 Tex. 82.

Hyde v White, 24 Tex. 145:


A bill which has passed both houses of the legislature, and been presented to the governor, for his approval, within less than twenty-four hours previous to the time of the adjournment of the legislature, and when an intervening day between the presentation, and the adjournment, could not have elapsed, does not become a law, if it be neither returned by the governor to the house in which it originated, nor appear to have received in any way the executive section.

Do you have anything you care to discuss that you really know anything about?

[po boy]

You always learn something. How's your present method working?

Well if I wanted to end up in Jail I might participate in this theoretical discussion if you could explain how someone has successfully used this method which you haven't thus far.

If one wants to challenge jurisdiction I don't think what this thread is suggesting is wise.

[Joe King]

If Congress could not adjourn prior to signing, the text of the Constitution would not mention anything about what happens if they are adjourned, because it would be illegal for them to be adjourned prior to signing.
If not, these words would be meaningless. "unless the Congress by their Adjournment" By saying "unless", the Constitution says that their adjournment is an option.

Your Hyde vs White case is a Texas case, not Federal.

[ximmy]

palani, have you seen this video... Ungrip?

I've been working toward this myself with some success...

"volunteering to appear" was my first early mistake and I will never make that mistake again.

Original post by Serpo:

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?54854-UNGRIP-(From-the-creators-of-Esoteric-Agenda-and-KYMATICA)&highlight=ungrip



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X___PGiiYc

[palani]

...it would be illegal for them to be adjourned prior to signing.
Isn't that what I have been saying, with the exception that it is not illegal for them to adjourn but rather it is not according to procedure to permit laws to be enacted while they are adjourned.



Your Hyde vs White case is a Texas case, not Federal.
Nonetheless, it is cited as an EXAMPLE. Go back and read the title of the book I got this cite from.

[palani]

Well if I wanted to end up in Jail I might participate in this theoretical discussion if you could explain how someone has successfully used this method which you haven't thus far. Do you want to end up in jail?


If one wants to challenge jurisdiction I don't think what this thread is suggesting is wise. Where has anyone suggest challenging jurisdiction? This thread is not about jurisdiction. It is about pecking order. At what point do you permit your SERVANTS to summon YOU?

[Joe King]

Isn't that what I have been saying, with the exception that it is not illegal for them to adjourn but rather it is not according to procedure to permit laws to be enacted while they are adjourned.The Constitution specifically states that it is possible for them to be adjourned in the case of a Veto. Why would they be adjourned in that case? If the POTUS was going to Veto the bill, that's when they wouldn't want to be adjourned.
Why does the Constitution allow for their adjournment prior to 10 days after presentation in the case of a Veto?
ie that's when they need to be there to receive the Bill back and if it gets signed, there's nothing for them to do.




Nonetheless, it is cited as an EXAMPLE. Go back and read the title of the book I got this cite from.All your stuff is examples and not real-World.
ie theory

[palani]

palani, have you seen this video... Ungrip?
On dialup so avoid video.


I've been working toward this myself with some success...

"volunteering to appear" was my first early mistake and I will never make that mistake again.


Never say never. If you have blood running through your veins your biggest handicap with the court system is that you "appear" while a corporation (being a fiction) will never appear.

[palani]

The Constitution specifically states that it is possible for them to be adjourned in the case of a Veto. Why would they be adjourned in that case? If the POTUS was going to Veto the bill, that's when they wouldn't want to be adjourned.
Why does the Constitution allow for their adjournment prior to 10 days after presentation in the case of a Veto?
ie that's when they need to be there to receive the Bill back and if it gets signed, there's nothing for them to do. Because they are not PERMITTED to adjourn unless they abandon their bill. Yet they DO NOT abandon their bill ... instead preferring to call it "law". Law is ENACTED. It is ENACTED by LEGISLATURE. LEGISLATURE must be PRESENT to ENACT. Again, you have NO STANDARDS. IT IS WHY YOU ARE A SLAVE (in my humble opinion).




All your stuff is examples and not real-World.ie theory
Tell me, how are your "real-World" experiences working out for you?

[Joe King]

Where has anyone suggest challenging jurisdiction? This thread is not about jurisdiction. It is about pecking order. At what point do you permit your SERVANTS to summon YOU?At the point you've ceded some of your Rights to the gov? Anyone who has a SS# or drivers license or any other kind of license had best not take your advice before taking a bunch of other very careful steps in order to correct the record. If people take your stuff at face value and apply it in their current lives, they'll end up in jail most likely.

That said, your opinions are oftentimes very enlightening from the standpoint of getting people to consider their circumstances.

[palani]

At the point you've ceded some of your Rights to the gov? Anyone who has a SS# or drivers license or any other kind of license had best not take your advice before taking a bunch of other very careful steps in order to correct the record. If people take your stuff at face value and apply it in their current lives, they'll end up in jail most likely.

Point out where I have given any advice. Anyone who lives their life as a slave and suddenly grows a pair had better be prepared for some rough treatment and attitude adjustment.

Nothing in this thread is intended as a way to get out of the system. It is intended to discuss ways to prevent getting sucked back in again. This PRESUMES that one has navigated their way out.

[Joe King]

Because they are not PERMITTED to adjourn unless they abandon their bill. Yet they DO NOT abandon their bill ... instead preferring to call it "law". Law is ENACTED. It is ENACTED by LEGISLATURE. LEGISLATURE must be PRESENT to ENACT. Again, you have NO STANDARDS. IT IS WHY YOU ARE A SLAVE (in my humble opinion).

It doesn't say they abandon the Bill, but rather that only in the case of a Veto that they must be in session if they want a chance to override it.

If not being in session wasn't an option, it wouldn't need to mention what happens if they are adjourned at the time of signing, now would it?
Otherwise, those are meaningless words in the Constitution where it talks of what happens if they be adjourned.



Tell me, how are your "real-World" experiences working out for you?My real-World experiences have worked just great. Peachy, actually.

[palani]

It doesn't say they abandon the Bill, but rather that only in the case of a Veto that they must be in session if they want a chance to override it.
Nonsense.



My real-World experiences have worked just great. Peachy, actually. Then why are you reading this thread? Contented cows deserve to be put out to pasture.

[Joe King]

Point out where I have given any advice. Anyone who lives their life as a slave and suddenly grows a pair had better be prepared for some rough treatment and attitude adjustment.

Nothing in this thread is intended as a way to get out of the system. It is intended to discuss ways to prevent getting sucked back in again. This PRESUMES that one has navigated their way out.Then if you apply this stuff in your real life, you've obviously gotten out of the system. Many of the good people here would be interested in learning about the path to do just that.

Why don't you share with them the mechanism with which to be able to successfully implement your legal maxims?

[Joe King]

Nonsense. That's what the words actually say in the Constitution.
Again, if being adjourned wasn't an option, why mention it? If they know the Bill is going to be Vetoed, it would be stupid to give them the chance to adjourn ahead of time, only in the case of a Veto, but not a regular signing by the POTUS.
...and the Founders would not have done that.



Then why are you reading this thread? Contented cows deserve to be put out to pasture.
Maybe you're a cow, but I'm a King.

[Uncle Salty]

page 136 ..If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return in which case it shall not be a Law.

Here is my understanding of the above quote. The key to it is understanding what is meant by the President "returning" the Bill. It seems to me that "returning" means sending the bill back unsigned, basically vetoing it. I say that because the statement above goes on to compare the "returning" of the Bill to a signed bill in the statement "in like Manner as if he had signed it." So, what that whole statement says is that if the President doesn't "return" the bill (veto it or return it unsigned) within ten days, the Bill becomes law as if it were signed, unless Congress prevents its return by being adjourned, in which case it is not a law.

The meaning of the word "return" is crucial to the understanding. It does not simply mean giving it back signed or unsigned, it signifies giving the Bill back unsigned. That is the crucial concept.

The conclusion is that the President cannot return a bill (send it back unsigned) while Congress is adjourned because that would prevent Congress from over riding that veto.

Reread that passage and it will become clear.

[palani]

Then if you apply this stuff in your real life, you've obviously gotten out of the system. Many of the good people here would be interested in learning about the path to do just that.

Why don't you share with them the mechanism with which to be able to successfully implement your legal maxims?

Control:
time
place
space
plane
lawform

Give everyone what is due him (respect your contracts).

[palani]

That's what the words actually say in the Constitution.
Are you concerned with what words say or what they mean?

Maybe you're a cow, but I'm a King.
You are contented. A contented King is contradictory. Your parents inflicted a cruel hoax on you when they decided to pass you through the fires of Moloch.

[palani]

Here is my understanding of the above quote. The key to it is understanding what is meant by the President "returning" the Bill. It seems to me that "returning" means sending the bill back unsigned, basically vetoing it. I say that because the statement above goes on to compare the "returning" of the Bill to a signed bill in the statement "in like Manner as if he had signed it." So, what that whole statement says is that if the President doesn't "return" the bill (veto it or return it unsigned) within ten days, the Bill becomes law as if it were signed, unless Congress prevents its return by being adjourned, in which case it is not a law.

The meaning of the word "return" is crucial to the understanding. It does not simply mean giving it back signed or unsigned, it signifies giving the Bill back unsigned. That is the crucial concept.

The conclusion is that the President cannot return a bill (send it back unsigned) while Congress is adjourned because that would prevent Congress from over riding that veto.

Reread that passage and it will become clear.

Let me be perfectly clear on this. If your analysis is correct then you have no remedy. The reason you have no remedy is because by your own words you have not been injured.

Live long and prosper in the nest you have created for yourself.

Others who analyze differently have suffered an injury and upon articulation of this injury the remedy becomes apparent.

[Uncle Salty]

Let me be perfectly clear on this. If your analysis is correct then you have no remedy. The reason you have no remedy is because by your own words you have not been injured.

Live long and prosper in the nest you have created for yourself.

Others who analyze differently have suffered an injury and upon articulation of this injury the remedy becomes apparent.

If my analysis is correct, then it is correct. You can try and twist your analysis to meets your hypothetical needs, but that does not make your analysis correct.

[Joe King]

The fact that the Constituton specifically allows for Congress to be adjourned in the case of a Veto, it would stand to reson that they could also be adjourned if he fact signs it.
After all, how could they know for sure if he's going to sign or not? If no Bill could be signed without Congress in session, it would say that, but it doesn't. Rather it includes the possibility they could in fact be adjourned at the time the Bill could be signed.

The only reason adjournment is mentioned at all is due to the fact that in the case of a Veto, Congress would still have work to do.
On the other hand, if it is signed, the Executive Branch then executes the new law and Congress' job was finished 10 days prior.

Also Palani, they adjourn like that all the time, so why don't you go file charges on them, take 'em to Court and whip out your Case and get all the laws over-turned where Congress was adjourned at the time they were signed.
We'd be back to the way it was in 1910 in no time at all, including on a gold standard.
If you have this knowledge and power to use it, why wouldn't you? It's fool proof, right? You'd probably get a statue in your honor, or something.

[Uncle Salty]

The fact that the Constituton specifically allows for Congress to be adjourned in the case of a Veto, it would stand to reson that they could also be adjourned if he fact signs it.
After all, how could they know for sure if he's going to sign or not? If no Bill could be signed without Congress in session, it would say that, but it doesn't. Rather it includes the possibility they could in fact be adjourned at the time the Bill could be signed.

The only reason adjournment is mentioned at all is due to the fact that in the case of a Veto, Congress would still have work to do.
On the other hand, if it is signed, the Executive Branch then executes the new law and Congress' job was finished 10 days prior.

Also Palani, they adjourn like that all the time, so why don't you go file charges on them, take 'em to Court and whip out your Case and get all the laws over-turned where Congress was adjourned at the time they were signed.
We'd be back to the way it was in 1910 in no time at all, including on a gold standard.
If you have this knowledge and power to use it, why wouldn't you? It's fool proof, right? You'd probably get a statue in your honor, or something.

Exactly. Palani has misunderstood what is meant by the word "return" in the passage. He thinks the signed bill needs to be returned, but that is not what is written.

[Uncle Salty]

Why are you ARGUING with me? I suggested you go read the material at Adasks' site at the url I gave.

Here are supreme court decisions on the subject ... directly from Craig's documents. If you take exception to what the supreme court decides I suggest you contact them.

http://i55.tinypic.com/2rwrlup.jpg

Again, Palani, you have misinterpreted the word "return." You think the signed Bill by the President needs to be physically returned to Congress. But they are using the word "return" as as indicating that the President is returning an unsigned bill and that is why it does not become law, because it is not signed but rather "returned" to the Congress by the President. The whole passage you refer to is to not allow Congress to pass a bill and then bail out and not allow the President to "return" the bill so it does become law. You have it backwards.

[palani]

If my analysis is correct, then it is correct. You can try and twist your analysis to meets your hypothetical needs, but that does not make your analysis correct.

I accept your commitment to "your" analysis however my analysis is more correct than yours.

[palani]

they adjourn like that all the time, so why don't you go file charges on them, take 'em to Court and whip out your Case and get all the laws over-turned where Congress was adjourned at the time they were signed. That is the end result of correcting one's status. It is not a law if it does not apply to you. Panama can pass all the laws they like and they don't apply to me. Congress can pass all the laws they like for THEIR territories and they don't apply to me. CONGRESS CANNOT PASS ANY LAWS THAT APPLY TO ME WITHIN MY OWN STATE (COUNTRY) except as outlined by the powers delegated by the U.S. constitution.

[palani]

Exactly. Palani has misunderstood what is meant by the word "return" in the passage. He thinks the signed bill needs to be returned, but that is not what is written. I misunderstand less than you comprehend.

The U.S. constitution establishes a federal government that delegates powers to three separate entites: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Each entity is to protect their own powers to the nth degree. This means they are not intended to be cozy with each other.

For Congress to enact any laws they must be in session when it becomes law. That means they MUST give the president a full 10 days prior to adjournment before they present a bill to him for signature or return. There is no such thing as a 'pocket veto' under such a system.

That is my decree because that is what was outlined in the U.S. constitution. You boys are too familiar with what this system has done, where each of the three branches has one hand in the other branches pocket at all times. All you are doing with this dicta is establishing your piss poor standards.

[palani]

You have it backwards. Congress has to be in session when a new law is enacted. Their job is to enact law. They can't do it with a fishing pole in one hand and a trout in the other.

Again ... these are my standards. Your standards are obviously significantly less developed.

[Uncle Salty]

I misunderstand less than you comprehend.

The U.S. constitution establishes a federal government that delegates powers to three separate entites: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Each entity is to protect their own powers to the nth degree. This means they are not intended to be cozy with each other.

For Congress to enact any laws they must be in session when it becomes law. That means they MUST give the president a full 10 days prior to adjournment before they present a bill to him for signature or return. There is no such thing as a 'pocket veto' under such a system.

That is my decree because that is what was outlined in the U.S. constitution. You boys are too familiar with what this system has done, where each of the three branches has one hand in the other branches pocket at all times. All you are doing with this dicta is establishing your piss poor standards.

You misunderstood what is meant by the term "return." Simple as that. You can continue to deceive yourself...but you have been pwned. You really need to read those two passages again.

[Uncle Salty]

Congress has to be in session when a new law is enacted. Their job is to enact law. They can't do it with a fishing pole in one hand and a trout in the other.

Again ... these are my standards. Your standards are obviously significantly less developed.

Your standards do not matter. The Constitutional standards are what matters and you have a difficult time understanding this particular one. It happens. People get things wrong. You are wrong on this. Get over it. No big deal.

[Joe King]

That is the end result of correcting one's status. It is not a law if it does not apply to you. Panama can pass all the laws they like and they don't apply to me. Congress can pass all the laws they like for THEIR territories and they don't apply to me. CONGRESS CANNOT PASS ANY LAWS THAT APPLY TO ME WITHIN MY OWN STATE (COUNTRY) except as outlined by the powers delegated by the U.S. constitution.That's all fine and good. I actually agree with you on that.
...but that's not what we're talking about. What we are talking about is whether ANY Bill {regardless of whether or not it applies to Palani} can be signed by the POTUS after Congress has adjourned. Nothing more. If you'd like to discuss which laws apply in the situation you describe, I'd be happy to, but that's not this discussions subject.

[Uncle Salty]

That's all fine and good. I actually agree with you on that.
...but that's not what we're talking about. What we are talking about is whether ANY Bill {regardless of whether or not it applies to Palani} can be signed by the POTUS after Congress has adjourned. Nothing more. If you'd like to discuss which laws apply in the situation you describe, I'd be happy to, but that's not this discussions subject.

Exactly. Palani is raising straw man arguments to try and distract from the fact that he refuses to see he is wrong about how a bill is passed or not passed.

[Joe King]

Congress has to be in session when a new law is enacted. Their job is to enact law. They can't do it with a fishing pole in one hand and a trout in the other.The law is enacted in two steps. The first is by Congress passing a Bill and the second step is the POTUS signing it.

Why do believe a signed Bill must be returned to Congress?

What are they going to do with it?

Where in the Constitution does it say what Congess' duties are relative to a Bill once signed into law by the POTUS?

What does it say?



Again ... these are my standards. Your standards are obviously significantly less developed.My standards are set by what the words themselves say that are in the Constitution.

Again, if Congress HAD to be in session for a Bill to become law, why does the Constitution specifically allow for the possibility they might be adjourned during the 10 days the POTUS is given to either sign or not sign a Bill?

If they can't be adjourned during that time frame, the Constitution contains useless words when it talks of what happens be they adjourned during those 10 days.

The Founders did not use any useless words when writting the Constitution.

[palani]

You misunderstood what is meant by the term "return." Simple as that. You can continue to deceive yourself...but you have been pwned. You really need to read those two passages again.

The "return" is the important part. A bill is "returned" signed by the president or "returned" unsigned (vetoed). A "pocket veto" is non-existent in MY congress.

That is the point. A congress that adheres to other rules is not "my" congress.

[palani]

Your standards do not matter.
My representatives follow my rules. In YOUR pitiful world your slave standards do not matter.

See the difference?

[palani]

What we are talking about is whether ANY Bill {regardless of whether or not it applies to Palani} can be signed by the POTUS after Congress has adjourned.
We already know Congress wears two hats, one for the territories they control and one limited by the U.S. constitution.

I have no objection to them following any rules they like AS LONG AS THOSE RULES DON'T APPLY TO ME. Get it? What they call laws that they create under substandard unconstitutional rules are non-existent. They can apply to you and I won't lose a bit of sleep.

Enjoy!!!

[palani]

Exactly. Palani is raising straw man arguments to try and distract from the fact that he refuses to see he is wrong about how a bill is passed or not passed.
I care little how laws that don't apply to me are passed or not passed.

[Uncle Salty]

The "return" is the important part. A bill is "returned" signed by the president or "returned" unsigned (vetoed). A "pocket veto" is non-existent in MY congress.

That is the point. A congress that adheres to other rules is not "my" congress.

Again, this is where you are wrong.


page 136 ..If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return in which case it shall not be a Law.

Do you see the bold passage above? What that passage is saying is that if the President ignores the bill and doesn't return it within ten days, it becomes law in like Manner as if he had signed it unless Congress by their adjournment prevents its Return. It doesn't say that the signed Bill by the President needs to be returned. Nowhere does it state that. It says that an unreturned bill becomes law just like a signed bill as long as Congress did not prevent the President from returning (not signing) the bill.

Tricky wording and I understand how you might have missed it. Like I said, it's okay to be wrong. Just admit it and move on. You don't understand the rules of "your" Congress or Constitution as it applies here...and again...that's okay.

[Joe King]

Care to actually address any of these question? ie the pertinent ones?




Why do believe a signed Bill must be returned to Congress?

What are they going to do with it?

Where in the Constitution does it say what Congess' duties are relative to a Bill once signed into law by the POTUS?

What does it say?






if Congress HAD to be in session for a Bill to become law, why does the Constitution specifically allow FOR the possibility they might be adjourned during the 10 days the POTUS is given to either sign or not sign a Bill?

If they can't be adjourned during that time frame, the Constitution contains useless words when it talks of what happens be they adjourned during those 10 days.

[Uncle Salty]

I care little how laws that don't apply to me are passed or not passed.

Yet you claim to tell us how they are passed or not passed and base your arguments on those premises. You discount the relevance of a bill by saying it wasn't constitutionally passed but then say you care little how bills are passed or not passed? Can't have it both ways.

[palani]

The law is enacted in two steps. The first is by Congress passing a Bill and the second step is the POTUS signing it.

Why do believe a signed Bill must be returned to Congress? How else would they know whether a law is a law? How do you enact law without knowing whether it is law of not (i.e., all the "i's" dotted, "tee's" crossed)?


What are they going to do with it? Enact it.


Where in the Constitution does it say what Congess' duties are relative to a Bill once signed into law by the POTUS? Aren't they to follow it?



My standards are set by what the words themselves say that are in the Constitution. Mine are set by how I interpret them.


Again, if Congress HAD to be in session for a Bill to become law, why does the Constitution specifically allow for the possibility they might be adjourned during the 10 days the POTUS is given to either sign or not sign a Bill? If congress is adjourned how do they enact? How do they know what they enacted? HOW?


If they can't be adjourned during that time frame, the Constitution contains useless words when it talks of what happens be they adjourned during those 10 days. It states that no law is enacted should Congress adjourn while bills are in front of the president for signature.


The Founders did not use any useless words when writting the Constitution.
"Use" is a word established for trust law. The constitutional is an express charitable trust so you will find no words not required for developing a trust in the document.

[palani]

Again, this is where you are wrong.

I establish my own standards. You have lost the ability to do the same.

[Joe King]

Tricky wording and I understand how you might have missed it. Like I said, it's okay to be wrong. Just admit it and move on. You don't understand the rules of "your" Congress or Constitution as it applies here...and again...that's okay.

I don't think it's tricky wording at all. It seems pretty straight forward. As you said, it's all about the context used with the word "return".

What the Founders did was to condense the wording as much as possible while still saying what they wanted it to say.
ie it could be explained in 4 paragraphs what those couple of lines are able to convey.

Also, the Constitution was written and intended to be be read and understood by the common man and without need for a Lawyers interpretation of it to tell you what it means.
ie the Courts

[palani]

I don't think it's tricky wording at all. It seems pretty straight forward. As you said, it's all about the context used with the word "return".

What the Founders did was to condense the wording as much as possible while still saying what they wanted it to say.
ie it could be explained in 4 paragraphs what those couple of lines are able to convey.

Also, the Constitution was written and intended to be be read and understood by the common man and without need for a Lawyers interpretation of it to tell you what it means.
ie the Courts

Actually congress does not need the guidance of the U.S. constitution to administrate the laws intended for their 14th amendment citizens. They seem to prefer to give some semblance of authority to the constitution but that is mere window dressing. The fact is the 14th amendment nullified the entire constitution. That is what amendments are intended to do, after all, amend.

Again, I have no complaints about laws intended for these 14th amendment citizen/slaves. Just don't apply them to me because the jurisdiction is foreign.

[Joe King]

How else would they know whether a law is a law? How do you enact law without knowing whether it is law of not (i.e., all the "i's" dotted, "tee's" crossed)?

Enact it.What specific act are they Constitutionally required to take upon a Bills signing? Please use a direct quote from the Constitution in your answer, as I see nowhere in the Constitution where it imposes a duty upon Congress to do anything with a newly signed Bill other than abide by it. {unless of course they've exempted themselves from it, but that's for another thread}



Aren't they to follow it?But you're saying they must take some kind of action after the Bill is returned to them with the POTUS signature on it. What is that Constitutionally mandated action?



Mine are set by how I interpret them.No, you're allowing someone else to have shown you what it means for the POTUS to "return" a Bill to the Congress.



If congress is adjourned how do they enact? How do they know what they enacted? HOW?It takes two steps to enact a law. First, the Congress agrees on a Bill and secondly the POTUS signs it into law and then the new law is executed via the POTUS and his Executive Branch agencies.
Do you think that the Legislative Branch is the one to execute the law? They're not. Once a Bill is presented for signing, their job in the process is done. {assuming it doesn't get Vetoed}



It states that no law is enacted should Congress adjourn while bills are in front of the president for signature.The Constitution simply does not say that. It specifically allows for them to be adjourned after presenting a Bill to the POTUS.



"Use" is a word established for trust law. The constitutional is an express charitable trust so you will find no words not required for developing a trust in the document.Ok. I'll "use" a different word if it will make you happy. ::)

Do you actually believe the Founders "placed" unnecessary words in the Constitution? Because if Congress was required to be present for the POTUS' signature, they would not have written into it what happens if they be adjouned during the process.
ie the fact they can be adjourned in the case of a Veto they didn't know was coming also would allow for them to be adjourned in the case he goes ahead and signs it. How do they truly know ahead of time what he's going to do?

Also, the fact they stipulate that an unsigned Bill automatically becomes law with no mention of wheter or not Congress is adjourned, implies that a signed Bill would too.

[Joe King]

Actually congress does not need the guidance of the U.S. constitution to administrate the laws intended for their 14th amendment citizens. They seem to prefer to give some semblance of authority to the constitution but that is mere window dressing. The fact is the 14th amendment nullified the entire constitution. That is what amendments are intended to do, after all, amend.The 14th didn't nullify anything. What it did {one of the things} was to create a new form of federal citizenship. On that, you'll get no arguement from me.
...but that's not what this discussion is about.



Again, I have no complaints about laws intended for these 14th amendment citizen/slaves. Just don't apply them to me because the jurisdiction is foreign.Again, where in the Constitution does it spell out exactly what Congress' duty is to a Bill once signed by the POTUS?
That's all this discussion is about.
ie the context surrounding the "returning" of a signed Bill to Congress, as defined within the Constitution.

[Joe King]

The Bill Becomes Law
Officially, after the President signs the bill, 10 days passes without a signature, or after a veto override, the bill is considered law.

It is in effect at that moment. But in reality, it is, of course, more difficult than that.

The law is transmitted to the Archivist of the United States. The Archivist assigns the law a number.

The Archivist publishes the law on its own, as a pamphlet.

This is known as a slip law.

The slip law contains a lot more than just the text of the law itself, such as where it is be inserted in the United States Code, if at all; its legislative history; the committees through which it passed; and so on.

In effect, the slip law is a historical document in itself.

The law is also published in the United States Statutes at Large, The Statutes at Large is a collection of all laws passed in any given Congress.

Finally, if a law affects the U.S. Code, it is added to the Code, striking out sections or clauses that a law removes, and adding new ones the law created. The entire U.S. Code is republished every six years.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_law.html

[palani]

What specific act are they Constitutionally required to take upon a Bills signing? Please use a direct quote from the Constitution in your answer, as I see nowhere in the Constitution where it imposes a duty upon Congress to do anything with a newly signed Bill other than abide by it. {unless of course they've exempted themselves from it, but that's for another thread}

Article 1 Section 7 deals with bills. Laws are the ultimate goal, not bills.



Article 1 -
Section 1 - The Legislature

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
.
.
.
Section 8. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[palani]

But you're saying they must take some kind of action after the Bill is returned to them with the POTUS signature on it. What is that Constitutionally mandated action? Without the presidents signature they get to decide whether to override. With the presidents signature they might decide to adjourn if there is no other bill pending the presidents signature. Either way, when they end their session they KNOW what is law and what is not law.

[palani]

No, you're allowing someone else to have shown you what it means for the POTUS to "return" a Bill to the Congress.

I listen to arguments and choose to select those arguments that are most consonant with reason. I am listening to your arguments but you have little reason to convey.

[palani]

It takes two steps to enact a law. First, the Congress agrees on a Bill and secondly the POTUS signs it into law and then the new law is executed via the POTUS and his Executive Branch agencies.
Do you think that the Legislative Branch is the one to execute the law? They're not. Once a Bill is presented for signing, their job in the process is done. {assuming it doesn't get Vetoed}
Legislative powers include enacting laws. Congress must be in session to enact laws. If the president signature is required to enact a law then Congress had best be in session when it is applied or else they shall have abdicated their own duty. I thought I covered this before.

[palani]

The Constitution simply does not say that. It specifically allows for them to be adjourned after presenting a Bill to the POTUS.
If this were the case then it is the president that has enacted the law rather than the legislature. This is in violation of the separation of powers.

[palani]

Do you actually believe the Founders "placed" unnecessary words in the Constitution? Because if Congress was required to be present for the POTUS' signature, they would not have written into it what happens if they be adjouned during the process.
ie the fact they can be adjourned in the case of a Veto they didn't know was coming also would allow for them to be adjourned in the case he goes ahead and signs it. How do they truly know ahead of time what he's going to do?

Also, the fact they stipulate that an unsigned Bill automatically becomes law with no mention of wheter or not Congress is adjourned, implies that a signed Bill would too.

As I was not around in the 18th century I choose not to comment upon the necessities of the 18th centuries. This is the 21st century. Times change and needs change as well.

[palani]

The 14th didn't nullify anything. What it did {one of the things} was to create a new form of federal citizenship. On that, you'll get no arguement from me.
...but that's not what this discussion is about.
When you have a seated president who would not have qualified for the job prior to the 14th amendment you cannot ignore the effects of the 14th amendment.



Again, where in the Constitution does it spell out exactly what Congress' duty is to a Bill once signed by the POTUS?
That's all this discussion is about.
ie the context surrounding the "returning" of a signed Bill to Congress, as defined within the Constitution.

Congress has a duty to enact laws not bills.

[palani]

The Bill Becomes Law
Officially, after the President signs the bill, 10 days passes without a signature, or after a veto override, the bill is considered law.

It is in effect at that moment. But in reality, it is, of course, more difficult than that.

The law is transmitted to the Archivist of the United States. The Archivist assigns the law a number.

The Archivist publishes the law on its own, as a pamphlet.

This is known as a slip law.

The slip law contains a lot more than just the text of the law itself, such as where it is be inserted in the United States Code, if at all; its legislative history; the committees through which it passed; and so on.

In effect, the slip law is a historical document in itself.

The law is also published in the United States Statutes at Large, The Statutes at Large is a collection of all laws passed in any given Congress.

Finally, if a law affects the U.S. Code, it is added to the Code, striking out sections or clauses that a law removes, and adding new ones the law created. The entire U.S. Code is republished every six years.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_law.html

Thank you. The Archivist has a duty to notify everyone on the planet what is law and what is not law. Congress has a duty to enact law. Congress has to be in session when a law is enacted.

[palani]

And now I think all the information necessary to come to a conclusion has been presented so this thread is locked. If anyone wants to dig deeper into this topic they might do their own research or open another thread.

[palani]

Finito.