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 Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.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.
The law is what the judges say it is. Look at Roe. Politics is jurisprudence, and since Justice Marshal. with Rabbinical Wisdom invented "Judicial Review" law has been very political.
No, I didn't see the Doug/Mike/Pillow Summit. It probably makes no difference, anyway.
In a way, the "Deep State," mostly as an enforcer of the "rules of compliance" and the mediator between the publically-presented officials and the puppet-masters, does seem to exist (mostly as alphabet-soup agencies, I guess), but I consider it part of the political spectrum.
A show it is, but I am finding it quite dumb and boring, and only a small fraction of it reaches me through 3rd or 4th-party sources. Still, it's a no-brainer to fill the blanks.
Mostly made up of the Alphabet agencies with liberal inputs and mutually beneficial relationships with AWS, SPACEX, GOOGLE, META/FB and companies. Also WEF/BILDERBERG and all participants.
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.
The law is what the judges say it is. Look at Roe. Politics is jurisprudence, and since Justice Marshal. with Rabbinical Wisdom invented "Judicial Review" law has been very political.
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
No, I didn't see the Doug/Mike/Pillow Summit. It probably makes no difference, anyway.
In a way, the "Deep State," mostly as an enforcer of the "rules of compliance" and the mediator between the publically-presented officials and the puppet-masters, does seem to exist (mostly as alphabet-soup agencies, I guess), but I consider it part of the political spectrum.
A show it is, but I am finding it quite dumb and boring, and only a small fraction of it reaches me through 3rd or 4th-party sources. Still, it's a no-brainer to fill the blanks.
Mostly made up of the Alphabet agencies with liberal inputs and mutually beneficial relationships with AWS, SPACEX, GOOGLE, META/FB and companies. Also WEF/BILDERBERG and all participants.
It also seems like there are several organizations and "agencies" serving the sole purpose of being red herrings.