Isn't it time to start thinking of a new Constitution? Legal scholar says yes
Dean of Berkeley Law School, Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, joins Morning Joe to discuss his new book 'No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States'.
Long ago I thought something like this was a good idea. It's not. At all. It's just another psyop to buy time or distract or give false hope or--finger crossed!--cement Their fascism.
The proof is this: if TPTB don't give a shit about the current Constitution, why would anyone think They would give a shit about any revision?
The key practical observation is this: the Constitution was fundamentally to restrain the government, but TPTB only talk about it when it empowers them or restrains others. They never ever ever mention it when it restrains their own power. The sole exception to that is when it serves as an alibi ("Well, I sure would have done that for you but, you know, the Constitution and all, amirite?")
Looking deeper, the situation is this: constitutions are fine and all so everyone can have some idea of what was explicitly agreed on, but in the end, honorable men will do honorable things, and dishonorable men will do dishonorable things. There is no piece of parchment with ink splattered on it that alters that.
In the classic Western, "The Outlaw Josey Wales":, the character of Ten Bears sums it up eloquently: "No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men."
PS: The one instance that comes to mind of a politician candidly acknowledging that the Constitution restrained his actions was--you guessed it--DJT. During the pandemic, some dumbshit reporter asked him if it wasn't "irresponsible" or whatever that he didn't lock down the country. He said it was not a good idea, and besides, he was not empowered to do so (his words) "by something called the Constitution".
How bad is it when people have to be reminded of such things?
Current (inception towards death) implies setting apart (life)...that's what empowers each being. Constitution implies setting together...which deprives each being of power.
Giving currency (bank) and taking currency (trust)...few apart who give, many together who take.
What if suggestion implies a revision of perception? Doesn't a merchant constantly revise suggested offers? What's the changing of prices but revisionism?
Restraining the control (govern) of mind (ment) implies ones free will of choice...especially from suggested temptations by others.
CON (together) STITUTE (to set) implies mind controlled (government) many following suggestions by selected few.
The power of few implies DEMOS (people) KRATOS (strength) aka democracy...the power of suggesting few are consenting many.
a) Many consented to suggestions by few...what few have suggested is irrelevant, as is the conflict of reason (agree vs disagree) among many. Both distract from consent...which implies denial of self for another, hence denial of "ones choice" for "chosen ones" suggestion.
b) Explicit implies unfolding; implicit implies infolding...being implies EX (life) IN (inception towards death).
Suggested fold aka "doubling of any flexible substance" aka "in composition, the same quantity added" aka "pressed together" aka "flock of sheep"...tempts being to ignore self for others.
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/fold
A jew folds gentiles together to establish layers upon layers of deception as a fabric over life.
Many are the constitution of few...DJT was selected by few to speak in the name of many, hence unconstitutional.
Gentiles are tricked by a jew to vote for representatives...the vote by ones choice implies the constitution; the representatives imply unconstitutional representation of ones free will of choice, and the chosen ones, who suggested voting, imply the ones controlling the constitution, while puppeteering the representatives.
Wrong. You have it backwards
Current (inception towards life) implies unification with the ether (death)
a) A unit (life) coming in (inception) and out (death) of current...
b) Uni (one unit) fic (to make) ation (action)...action (inception towards death) makes reacting units (life) aka the current of dying makes living waves.
c) Instead of "ether"...think EITHER (one of two) OR (alternation of partial within whole). One can be tricked to ignore OR for EITHER.
a) A conflict of reason (right vs wrong) among many about a suggestion by few...not natural, but artificial.
b) If current (inception towards death) implies TOWARDS, then each unit (life) within can navigate by free will of choice in-between forwards/backwards + left/right + up/down.
In other words...motion generates a momentum for navigation of matter within.
In short...one can be tricked to ignore "towards" for every which way of perspective.
I knew it would be a jew before I saw it
You saved me time from having to research it
"Legal" scholars always spout this shit every time there are a few SCOTUS decisions that don't go their way.
The US constitution is the las speed bump that stands in the way of the NWO. They want to eliminate the constitution so they can turn you Into a serf and merge mexico, Canada and the usa.
Then the world will be divided I to economic provinces.with Israel ruling over the entire world.
That's exactly it and anyone who downplays this is tarded or shilling.
The second amendment is a huge speed bump that they want gone.
I'm your northern neighbor and we have something called the charter of rights. This is how anyone here with a brain was able to legally deny the almost forced vaxx a few years back. In court and out this gives us own individual freedoms and they want that gone.
Nah.
NO! NO! NO!!!!!!!!!!
It is our precious constitution that makes the USA so great.
HANDS OFF!!!!!!!
It's time to rid the country of corrupt politicians that hate our constitution, because it restrains their evil plans.
This is from Morning Joe on MSNBC. You have to wonder how all the rhetoric against the U.S. Constitution can be delivered in lock step like this.
The purpose of this is to "change the rules" to make it impossible to beat the Democrats in elections. The Democrats are expert at rule changing to ensure their hand-picked candidates are the ones that make it to the ballot.
Youtube link
Isn't it time to start thinking of a new Constitution? Legal scholar says yes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKvGq1500BU
One group of people owns all media.
It's also people outside the media.
Rule/reg - "to move in a straight line"...that implies change.
It's time to get rid of communists.
a) -ist (communist) implies ones consent to suggested -ism (communism)
b) Few trick many to consent to suggested community (communism) and society (socialism).
c) COM implies "together"; being implies apart from one another...only self discernment can get rid of COM-munism.
NO!
a) Constitute implies "setting together"...answering a question of another also implies setting together. This consent given (answer) to a suggestion (question) by another establishes a new constitution.
b) A talmudic jew protects an old constitution (mishnah) by tempting gentiles to reason (gemara) about new constitutions.
c) Underneath that deception operates nature, which "sets apart" each one within from one another...all the reasoning about setting together among gentiles permits each jew to remain apart, while setting gentiles together.
I don't habe an opinion about this since I'm not American but I've always found it strange how Americans view their Constitution as some kind of infallible holy book and the Founding Father as if they'd been prophets.
Because it is
Only White land owners should be allowed to vote.
So that would exclude you and include me. Would you be happy with that?
I said White. That excludes you, rabbi.
You will never be White.
You will never get laid.
You will never move out of your moldy basement.
Now put the mirror down and join the rest of us
Oh right. You cant. Jews can only change their last names to sound less jewy, get rhinoplasty and pretend to be "fellow whites."
Kek
That is how people are being led to think by their rhetoric.
There are many examples now of those people (you?) being on message with them all referring to the Constitution as "little piece of paper" or "little booklet you carry in your pocket." That is a dog-whistled reference to the "Little Red Book," Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung, which was printed pocket sized for citizens of the People's Republic of China to carry with them.
The haters of Democracy in the Western world see pocket Constitutions as analagous to the Little Red Book in communist China.