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).
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.
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).