The power in our constitution is it defines purpose, not policy. It inherently constrains government; it does not give rights but prevents them from being usurped by legislation, federalization, and judicial overreach.
What you seek is already IN the constitution, but criminals don’t abide by laws, do they?
The Federal Reserve Act was not properly ratified and should be repealed; income tax are likewise not lawful but the whole Potemkin nature of the system has brainwashed people to believe they are and a necessary evil.
We should be thinking of stripping down decades of legislation not adding more.
The power in our constitution is it defines purpose, not policy. It inherently constrains government; it does not give rights but prevents them from being usurped by legislation, federalization, and judicial overreach.
That may have been true in the original, but the bill of rights changed that. From the fifth amendment (end)
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This statement right here gives the whole thing away to the banks. It sets a precedent that makes what we see now inevitable. The DoI makes a statement of individual sovereignty. It states that we are sovereign, and any government is on equal footing with the sovereign citizens. This last sentence in 5A changes all that. It places the "needs of the many" ahead of the rights of the individual (hello vaccine mandates).
Of equal importance it also makes clear a hierarchy of "sovereignty." Hint: there is no such thing as a hierarchy of sovereignty. When it comes to kings and queens of their domain, all are equal. Whenever they meet, it is on equal footing. There is no such thing as a "King of Kings" in a human society. If there is a King of Kings then the lower "kinghood" is an illusion, only having "sovereignty" at the pleasure of the real king, just like "citizens" held property at the pleasure of the emperor, etc.
The DoI and the original Constitution, and the works by John Locke that inspired them, made clear that government was sovereign, but not our sovereign. Disputes between the government and the individual were intended to be met on equal footing. That is not what happened. I think it is because of this line in 5A that caused it all (from the legal precedence perspective, obviously it took external fuckery as well).
The Bill of Rights needs to be changed. It gave this power to the government. It is exactly this power and this precedence that has allowed the Fed to do all its fuckery (the Fed fyi is by law a higher sovereign than the U.S. government).
Vaccine mandates go back to 1905 smallpox Jacobson, who argued it violated the 14th amendment.
I wasn't talking about vaccine mandates specifically. I was talking about the injection of the idea of the "needs of the many" (whoever those many might be, usually loosely defined) vs. the rights of the individual. The application to vaccination is irrelevant except to give the idea context. I was showing where in the constitution the idea gained precedence.
The banks take everything because of the Federal Reserve system and unlimited money supply. No 5th amendment “takings clause” required.
The Fed is the machine they use to do it. Before the Fed existed they used other machinations. All of the rules and laws that came about to allow them to do what they did started by the application of the precedence set to us not having a sovereign equality to the government. That lack of equal footing under the law was initialized by this sentence in the fifth amendment.
The Bill of Rights has not ceded a smidge compared the Black Friday ‘America for Sale’ giveaways by politicians.
Since the topic of conversation was problems with the constitution, I was talking on that topic. What I explained was the beginning of the problems. i did not make a laundry list of all of them. Do not discount the power of precedence. Our entire system of laws is founded upon that concept.
If Liars and Thieves abuse constitutional intents and purposes, why punish the constitution?
Precedence was set in the fifth amendment for all future fuckeries due to placing the citizen below the government. I am not punishing the constitution, but pointing out a flaw. I believe that flaw was put there by the banks (through their influence).
The power in our constitution is it defines purpose, not policy. It inherently constrains government; it does not give rights but prevents them from being usurped by legislation, federalization, and judicial overreach.
What you seek is already IN the constitution, but criminals don’t abide by laws, do they?
The Federal Reserve Act was not properly ratified and should be repealed; income tax are likewise not lawful but the whole Potemkin nature of the system has brainwashed people to believe they are and a necessary evil.
We should be thinking of stripping down decades of legislation not adding more.
That may have been true in the original, but the bill of rights changed that. From the fifth amendment (end)
This statement right here gives the whole thing away to the banks. It sets a precedent that makes what we see now inevitable. The DoI makes a statement of individual sovereignty. It states that we are sovereign, and any government is on equal footing with the sovereign citizens. This last sentence in 5A changes all that. It places the "needs of the many" ahead of the rights of the individual (hello vaccine mandates).
Of equal importance it also makes clear a hierarchy of "sovereignty." Hint: there is no such thing as a hierarchy of sovereignty. When it comes to kings and queens of their domain, all are equal. Whenever they meet, it is on equal footing. There is no such thing as a "King of Kings" in a human society. If there is a King of Kings then the lower "kinghood" is an illusion, only having "sovereignty" at the pleasure of the real king, just like "citizens" held property at the pleasure of the emperor, etc.
The DoI and the original Constitution, and the works by John Locke that inspired them, made clear that government was sovereign, but not our sovereign. Disputes between the government and the individual were intended to be met on equal footing. That is not what happened. I think it is because of this line in 5A that caused it all (from the legal precedence perspective, obviously it took external fuckery as well).
The Bill of Rights needs to be changed. It gave this power to the government. It is exactly this power and this precedence that has allowed the Fed to do all its fuckery (the Fed fyi is by law a higher sovereign than the U.S. government).
Vaccine mandates go back to 1905 smallpox Jacobson, who argued it violated the 14th amendment.
The banks take everything because of the Federal Reserve system and unlimited money supply. No 5th amendment “takings clause” required.
The Bill of Rights has not ceded a smidge compared the Black Friday ‘America for Sale’ giveaways by politicians.
If Liars and Thieves abuse constitutional intents and purposes, why punish the constitution?
I wasn't talking about vaccine mandates specifically. I was talking about the injection of the idea of the "needs of the many" (whoever those many might be, usually loosely defined) vs. the rights of the individual. The application to vaccination is irrelevant except to give the idea context. I was showing where in the constitution the idea gained precedence.
The Fed is the machine they use to do it. Before the Fed existed they used other machinations. All of the rules and laws that came about to allow them to do what they did started by the application of the precedence set to us not having a sovereign equality to the government. That lack of equal footing under the law was initialized by this sentence in the fifth amendment.
Since the topic of conversation was problems with the constitution, I was talking on that topic. What I explained was the beginning of the problems. i did not make a laundry list of all of them. Do not discount the power of precedence. Our entire system of laws is founded upon that concept.
Precedence was set in the fifth amendment for all future fuckeries due to placing the citizen below the government. I am not punishing the constitution, but pointing out a flaw. I believe that flaw was put there by the banks (through their influence).