Fundamentally, the Constitution places chains on government power. The lesson I take from that observation, therefore, is that they detest the very idea of any limitation on their power. Credit to the Founding Fathers, but I don't think it ever crossed their minds that it could possibly be as bad as it is.
a) CONSTITUTE (enacted) -TION (through action) implies being the reaction (living) within the enacting (process of dying).
b) the suggested constitution by the few tempts each of the many to ignore being the perceiving (reaction) within the perceivable (enacting); hence being a partial of the whole constitution of existence.
chains on government power
The power which binds GOVERN (to control) MENT (mind; memory) represents the free will of choice to consent to the suggested "governments" by the representative choices of others aka choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law...the inversion of balance (perceivable) to choice (perceiving) natural law.
To distract the many from the suggested choices by the few; they do it in the name of (in nomine); which allows the few to bind the many; while disguising the contract law under RELIGION; noun (Latin religio) - "to bind anew".
they detest the very idea of any limitation on their power
What if it's each of the many that "willingly" ignores ones power of free will of choice within perceivable for the suggested choices of others? And what if shirking response-ability (choice) tempts one to blame others for the consequences of ignorance?
My God, they just hate the Constitution so much.
Fundamentally, the Constitution places chains on government power. The lesson I take from that observation, therefore, is that they detest the very idea of any limitation on their power. Credit to the Founding Fathers, but I don't think it ever crossed their minds that it could possibly be as bad as it is.
a) CONSTITUTE (enacted) -TION (through action) implies being the reaction (living) within the enacting (process of dying).
b) the suggested constitution by the few tempts each of the many to ignore being the perceiving (reaction) within the perceivable (enacting); hence being a partial of the whole constitution of existence.
The power which binds GOVERN (to control) MENT (mind; memory) represents the free will of choice to consent to the suggested "governments" by the representative choices of others aka choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law...the inversion of balance (perceivable) to choice (perceiving) natural law.
To distract the many from the suggested choices by the few; they do it in the name of (in nomine); which allows the few to bind the many; while disguising the contract law under RELIGION; noun (Latin religio) - "to bind anew".
What if it's each of the many that "willingly" ignores ones power of free will of choice within perceivable for the suggested choices of others? And what if shirking response-ability (choice) tempts one to blame others for the consequences of ignorance?