Which would you prefer? The Constitution or The Articles of Confederation? Anyway, what choices do you have?
How far is your point of view observed and/or respected by any of the three branches of government?
“Executive, (President and about 5,000,000 workers) Legislative (Senate and House of Representatives) and Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts).”
(https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/three-branches/three-branches-of-government)
While the separation of governmental powers sounds like a good idea, does it work?
***
Lately, the US President seems to have been mocking Americans with his cheat sheets and his verbal blunders. The clown show suggests that his role is that of a trained monkey and his person makes no difference. Still, “executive orders” are being issued on this person’s authority. Executive orders are used probably only for the sake of saving time, because they circumvent the legislative branch that, as a result, is becoming a window display as well. The Executive branch has assumed the role of the Legislative one. The Supreme Court frequently rules in the interest of international corporations and Goodness knows who or what else, while it answers to no one. Its members are nominated by the presiding government and they stay in office until they croak, which again suggests that they are part of a political theater in which everything is pre-arranged.
***
Old-timers who still had Civics at school confirm that in order to prevent a majority from depriving minorities of their God-given rights, universal human rights must be guaranteed by a Law of the Land that presides over all laws and cannot be rescinded or violated.
Or can they?
***
As long as it is a government that defines your “God-given rights,” it presides over you and it hands out those rights on its own volition. That contradicts the very idea of a universally-beneficial Law of the Land, because ultimately, both the handouts and the limitations serve certain groups of people, whose empowerment or disempowerment directly affects the country’s power structure.
If such a government is taken over by those, who invest the money to get their representatives “elected” (forget about Dominion voting machines; the Supreme Court ruled years ago that corporate campaign contributions constituted a form of “free speech”), the government no longer represents it electorate.
Gary D. Barnett writes about this, when he describes the powers wielded by Congress today, as opposed to the ones allowed by The Articles of Confederation:
“The U.S. Constitution illegally replaced by the current Constitution were The Articles of Confederation. While also flawed as any government document naturally is, they actually did limit the central government severely. The president of Congress had no power whatsoever, and no executive branch existed. There was no Supreme Court, and only one branch of government. Congress could make decisions, but had no power of enforcement. The federal government (Congress) had no power whatsoever to tax. Congress had no power whatsoever to regulate foreign trade or commerce. While Congress under the Articles had the authority to regulate and fund the Army (military), it had no power to raise an army or navy, and could not compel the states to comply with any requests for troops or funding, restricting greatly any power to war. And obviously, the Congress did not control the money, which it so desperately desired to do.”
Quoted from:
Barnett is generous to the government by not mentioning that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 gave the power of issuing the USD to a private bank, while founding the IRS to collect “federal” taxes to the Fed (“only 1%,” which resembles the “only two weeks to curb the spread”). Since then, the taxpayer has been “borrowing” from the bank for the US Budget (which supplies financing for the criminal enterprises of friends and family in the globalist banking system) at an interest. In the meanwhile, US citizens have no power over the way the federal government borrows and spends on their account.
***
This time in the history of the United States, whatever The Law of the Land would be and whatever it would be called, no legal document is respected by the US Congress or the Senate, both usurping the power of telling people what they are allowed or forbidden to do (and lately, say, or even think) based on the phantom menace of the mythical t*ist and “public safety” at the time of universal public poisoning that has been renamed into a “pandemic.” All three branches of government seem to operate under the spell of an external power that has shown it several times, especially in the last 27 months, that it doesn’t serve the interests of the country, but seems to submit to orders that promote and implement the controlled demolition of the land and its people.
What is The Law of the Land today?
Here is another article in which Barnett rightfully addresses the subject:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/09/gary-d-barnett/there-is-no-such-thing-as-limited-government/
Fantastic article! BRAVO
"political theater in which everything is pre-arranged"
Did you see Douglas Frank on Mike Lindell's "Pillow Summit?"
Oh, I forgot, it has already been "debunked" by Big Tech.
Just do a 'Google' search, you'll see!
“There are no sides.”
“There’s no Sunnis and Shiites.”
“There’s no Democrats and Republicans.”
“Just haves and have nots.”
—Six Term Senator Charles Meachum
It is all a “Big Show” and there is no 'Deep State' but just “THE STATE.“
--Edwin
One of those trinkets that I happened to come across was from American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Section 177. "The Law of the Land".
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.