Ok, hear me out ...... let's start off with 2 datums .... 1. We are watching a movie and 2. Trump is currently the "real" president acting as such.
So, if we are watching a movie and all the important actors are playing their parts well under control, why would any plan depend upon the variability of an election at this point? Why depend upon a single individual staying healthy etc. (i.e. Trump). It would seem if we are watching a movie then all important variables can be accounted for a coped with if it falls "wrong", an actor/controlled asset replaced etc. Also if the next election is vital, wouldn't Q be communicating to us to assist as such? Q has gone dark because we did most all thats needed of us until the normies awaken.
Secondly if Trump is actually doing his 2nd term, he does not get 3 per the rules (assuming we playing fair in that case).
If we are watching a movie, then we can assume most all individuals with power to affect real outcomes are under control (maybe the blackmail material is in white hats hands and they do what they are told like how RICO is run). It seems like Trumps first term was to put various last steps in place Space force, various EO's etc. and now he may only have a small part to play in the final stretch. Q did say they have plans "beyond Trump".
If we are "watching a movie", all vital variables must be under control at a probably impressive scale.
Again you are getting lost in the words, so before I address this, confirm that the core issue you have here is that the word "Sovereign" was omitted from the Declaration.
It would be far more accurate to say that the core issue I have is that a clear statement of individual Sovereignty was omitted from the Constitution.
The Declaration is irrelevant, as it is not law, and plays no part in our system of government, except as occasional inspiration, and mostly just as a purposeful confusion.
The DoI is the carrot that can be pointed to when the stick (Constitution) is shoved up your ass.
I disagree. We are talking about points of law. The words, their meanings (by which I mean their vernacular, i.e., their common misunderstanding), definition (according to the law), inflection, placement, sentence structure, are all that matters, because that is how Law Magic works.
Tell me as succinctly as you can, what "individual Sovereignty" is defined as, either in Blacks Law or any other source you consider suitable for the "Law Magic" ?
First I will answer "succinctly," then I will comment. I hope you read it all.
From BLD:
Also:
There is your "succinct" answer.
There is no such thing as "individual Sovereignty" in BLD. It has no meaning really, or rather, there is no meaning to Sovereignty other than "Sovereignty of the Individual."
Not so succinct:
The problem with the succinct answer is that it doesn't actually explain anything. This is a very difficult concept to understand because we have been trained to not understand how a person can be Sovereign. Indeed, most of the definition in BLD is all about how corporate entities (legal fictions) can be sovereign. That includes the first definition, which is their opening line.
They use the phrase "independent state," which sounds like exactly such a corporate entity (the State e.g.) but really, that phrase just means the area over which the Individual entity (legal or Natural) has control, AKA their Jurisdiction. It is in the second definition that it can be really appreciated. Sovereignty is an “uncontrollable power,” in that there is no higher possible control (even theoretically) over some Jurisdiction.
Aside
Some of your questions (and your demand for "succinctness") suggests to me one of three things:
I think it has to be one of the second two options because you asked me to clarify:
I have explained clearly and unequivocally that this was NOT my "core issue" I don't know how many times (6-10?) in this exchange. It is impossible for you to have read what I've written while actually trying to understand it and not have realized that.
You also keep saying things like:
From my perspective, I am trying to explain something that my research strongly suggests we have been brainwashed to see differently. I am explaining something that is, from my experience, very difficult to understand because of that brainwashing. Thus I am not being “long winded” (from my perspective) but extremely precise, because it is only with precision (and the precise path of understanding that comes from that) that the brainwashing can be overcome. By being less precise, I would not be able to overcome all the roadblocks that have been put in the way to prevent people from seeing what has happened.
Maybe you are right, but I suggest if you aren’t truly reading to understand, rather than to argue or respond, you are not getting what I am trying to say, and it is within what I am saying that the path out of the brainwashing lies.
Now, obviously that’s not all on you, but overcoming brainwashing is REALLY HARD. Thus I ask for some latitude, and I ask you, if you wish to understand, that you really try to do so, even if it seems like what I’m saying doesn’t appear to be “necessary” or “applicable,” I have my reasons for its inclusion, and they may not be obvious.
The correct answer is:
Now I will give you a succinct answer to my own question:
If you believe the above statement is incorrect, the onus is on you to prove that. And you have to do it vigorously. Your current argument does not hold water because there is no definition in BLD that contains Sovereign that applies to Natural Persons - the way Founders intended America to be.
John Locke, an English philosopher, argued that individuals possess natural rights, including life, liberty, and property. He believed that government's role is to protect these rights, and individuals have the right to rebel against oppressive governments. Others such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories that further emphasised natural rights and individual autonomy.
This is the core of the idea. Does not need any terminology or legal definitions because:
Its self evident
It had never been put into practice for it to have a legal definition or to have a point of law.
Declaration of independance is frequently portrayed as "an inspirational document with little legal value" - by the very Matrix we are trying to break free.
Please read the next line with out judgement.
Look at the founding documents without any preconceived legal notions. Understand each for exactly what is written in them, and nothing else
(This is exactly what I tell doctors and scientists regarding vaccine. I tell them to read the Pfizer clinical trial without any preconcieved notions and read exactly what is written in them and judge it for themselves.
The reason is that every person has a huge blind spot when it comes to their own profession, since our indoctrination in our own field is much stronger, and we are also part of the Matrix in that area.)
Declaration of Independence was not meant to be interpreted by some lawyers. It was a novel philosophical idea and it was meant to be understood by ANYONE - whether they have legal background, or political background or philosophical background or just ordinary citizens.
All other laws derives from this. The only reason Common Law/Natural Law is relevant in US judicial system is because the Declaration states that the people are exerting their rights under Natural Law.
The word "unalienable rights" it the real crux for the founding of US. It creates a powerful framework that would not have been possible if you relied on "points of law" as you put it.
If they put in the word "Sovereign" or "Individual Sovereignty", the entire foundation would have crumbled from the beginning since it would have given the judges all kinds of interpretation, but thankfully the Founders were smart.