"IV That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge be hereditary."
I believe the founding fathers anticipated fraud effectively. Our Republic has not functioned properly for a long time. Once our nation (and the world?) are capable of justice (w/o unacceptable loss of lives), our Constitution will be understood as the brilliant document that it is. That being said, I appreciate Clif High's theories and his explanations. Considering alternative theories/perspectives is important, IMO.
I believe the founding fathers anticipated fraud effectively.
I think both forces were fighting when the constitution was created, and overall the Humanists did their very best to safeguard it from future fraud. However, nothing is foolproof from the fools. Its all as good as the people.
BTW, I think Clif got the section wrong. Its not "Article 1, Section 3, Clause 17", but rather Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17:
Christopher Hallett worked for the govt as a defense contractor. Apparently he worked with the Treasury department, helping to develop algorithms that could identify Emolument violations by govt employees. He also understood the American Common Law and the violations of parents' God given right to say what happens to their children. He exposed government funded child trafficking out of Broward county FL (his Home) and [they] might have killed him for it.
'This book is about liberty. It is about the
lawful and unlawful means by which
government acts in depriving an individual of his liberty. History teaches that deprivation of liberty is more often arbitrary and unlawful
than it is otherwise. At least this is always the tendency of those who hold executive power.
Daniel Webster once stated this problem In
these words:
"The contest for ages has been to rescue
liberty from the grasp of the executive power."
Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776 -
"IV That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge be hereditary."
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/virginia.asp
Here's the link to "The American Constitution - A Documentary Record"
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/constpap.asp
I believe the founding fathers anticipated fraud effectively. Our Republic has not functioned properly for a long time. Once our nation (and the world?) are capable of justice (w/o unacceptable loss of lives), our Constitution will be understood as the brilliant document that it is. That being said, I appreciate Clif High's theories and his explanations. Considering alternative theories/perspectives is important, IMO.
I think both forces were fighting when the constitution was created, and overall the Humanists did their very best to safeguard it from future fraud. However, nothing is foolproof from the fools. Its all as good as the people.
BTW, I think Clif got the section wrong. Its not "Article 1, Section 3, Clause 17", but rather Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/clause-17/
For alternate explanations, people should watch
War Castles - Military Insider :Robert-Leroy: Horton
And video from David Lester Straight
Honestly, Clif's explanation makes the most sense or rather more complete since they all pretty much say the same thing but in different ways.
"It's all as good as the people"
I agree 💯. We are a self governed republic and we the people accept responsibility for oversight of our government.
I learned about David Straight the same time I learned about Kirk Pendergrass.
https://kirkslawcorner.com/
https://youtube.com/channel/UCK42azaVrSdD4E-v6FffRfg
Here's an article that shills will parade, even though it Streisand's the shit out of the cabals agenda
https://www.the-sun.com/news/1818133/qanon-mom-shot-dead-legal-expert-hired-kids-back/
https://archive.org/details/arrests-and-false-imprisonment
From the Introduction:
'This book is about liberty. It is about the lawful and unlawful means by which government acts in depriving an individual of his liberty. History teaches that deprivation of liberty is more often arbitrary and unlawful than it is otherwise. At least this is always the tendency of those who hold executive power. Daniel Webster once stated this problem In these words:
"The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of the executive power."