The problem with NESARA is that it codifies that which would be accomplished by removing laws, not adding to them.
All of these things that will be accomplished are a fundamental part of things like "free trade" or "inalienable rights". Making MORE laws when we could just remove laws that took away those rights or destroyed free trade in the first place accomplishes the task better. The more laws there are, the more abuse of the system there can be.
We started this country with two pages of laws. Now we have trillions. I think a "Great Reset" back to two pages of laws might be the best path forward.
US has a decent constitution so you have a head start. Treaty law, admiralty law, are open to exploitation whereas constitution isn't, as long as it is adhered to.
The constitution is open to exploitation. That is how we got where we are today. It doesn't clearly express citizen sovereignty. It is implied, but not stated. In fact, I think "pursuit of happiness" in the DoI in place of the original "Property" from John Locke on his treatise of Social Contract theory was put in purposefully by banker interests (Hamilton e.g.) as a potential exploitation.
By common law (precedence) only sovereigns can own land (own, as in can't be taken away whenever the government wants, like when you don't pay your lease payment (aka property tax), etc.). By not explicitly stating property ownership as an inalienable right in the spiritual predecessor to the constitution (DoI) it left open the opportunity for the government to be the sovereign to a vassal citizenry, even though that goes directly against the intention (or what I believe to be the intention) of the founding fathers.
This was further exacerbated in the Bill of Rights (end of fifth amendment) where it allowed for eminent domain. Eminent domain is an explicit statement of the government as a sovereign of a vassal citizenry. It is this precedence, set by the constitution that allows for all of the fuckery that has happened since. If the government is soveriegn, and the people are not, the Government can do whatever the fuck it wants. It is no longer a government of We The People (all individuals equal in legal status to the government (a group of individuals)), but a Government over We The People.
The Constitution has flaws. Its close, but it needs a little help to get to a government Of We The People.
Common law, and a derivative in Constitutional Law is fine, it just has to be a constitution that explicitly states that all citizens are the equal of the government. All sovereign, all equal.
There is no reason that a group of individuals (any group of individuals) should be legally higher than a single individual. That leads to mob rule and an inevitable loss of all freedoms (coercion of forfeiture of inalienable rights) for the individual.
The problem with NESARA is that it codifies that which would be accomplished by removing laws, not adding to them.
All of these things that will be accomplished are a fundamental part of things like "free trade" or "inalienable rights". Making MORE laws when we could just remove laws that took away those rights or destroyed free trade in the first place accomplishes the task better. The more laws there are, the more abuse of the system there can be.
We started this country with two pages of laws. Now we have trillions. I think a "Great Reset" back to two pages of laws might be the best path forward.
US has a decent constitution so you have a head start. Treaty law, admiralty law, are open to exploitation whereas constitution isn't, as long as it is adhered to.
The constitution is open to exploitation. That is how we got where we are today. It doesn't clearly express citizen sovereignty. It is implied, but not stated. In fact, I think "pursuit of happiness" in the DoI in place of the original "Property" from John Locke on his treatise of Social Contract theory was put in purposefully by banker interests (Hamilton e.g.) as a potential exploitation.
By common law (precedence) only sovereigns can own land (own, as in can't be taken away whenever the government wants, like when you don't pay your lease payment (aka property tax), etc.). By not explicitly stating property ownership as an inalienable right in the spiritual predecessor to the constitution (DoI) it left open the opportunity for the government to be the sovereign to a vassal citizenry, even though that goes directly against the intention (or what I believe to be the intention) of the founding fathers.
This was further exacerbated in the Bill of Rights (end of fifth amendment) where it allowed for eminent domain. Eminent domain is an explicit statement of the government as a sovereign of a vassal citizenry. It is this precedence, set by the constitution that allows for all of the fuckery that has happened since. If the government is soveriegn, and the people are not, the Government can do whatever the fuck it wants. It is no longer a government of We The People (all individuals equal in legal status to the government (a group of individuals)), but a Government over We The People.
The Constitution has flaws. Its close, but it needs a little help to get to a government Of We The People.
What form of law would you support?
Common law, and a derivative in Constitutional Law is fine, it just has to be a constitution that explicitly states that all citizens are the equal of the government. All sovereign, all equal.
There is no reason that a group of individuals (any group of individuals) should be legally higher than a single individual. That leads to mob rule and an inevitable loss of all freedoms (coercion of forfeiture of inalienable rights) for the individual.
Isn't that covered in the retraining of all judges in constitutional law portion?
Some times you need to add laws for things to make sure they are not taken away by future laws. The Bill of Rights does this.
The rest of the conversation between me and kula above addresses this specifically.