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?
if TPTB don't give a shit about the current Constitution
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.
why would anyone think They would give a shit about any revision?
What if suggestion implies a revision of perception? Doesn't a merchant constantly revise suggested offers? What's the changing of prices but revisionism?
to restrain the government
Restraining the control (govern) of mind (ment) implies ones free will of choice...especially from suggested temptations by others.
They never ever ever mention it (constitution) when it restrains their own power.
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.
what was explicitly agreed on
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.
A jew folds gentiles together to establish layers upon layers of deception as a fabric over life.
he (DJT) was not empowered to do so (his words) "by something called the Constitution"
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.
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.
Wrong. You have it backwards
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.
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.