By Anna Von Reitz
I am constantly running into misconceptions people have "adopted" through suppositions and assumptions made in ignorance, and those wrong-headed ideas grow into a life of their own when shared. So let's prune out the static.
First and foremost among these wrong assumptions is the idea that the Constitutions are "the" supreme law in international affairs. They're not.
Treaties outrank Constitutions. Constitutions must conform to Treaties, not the other way around.
The Constitutions we have are typical of Constitutions everywhere. They are power-sharing agreements with business organizations that implement treaties and which result in debts and performance obligations on all sides.
Look up the legal definition of the word "constitution" and you will learn that all constitutions are debt agreements.
Our Constitutions define and hire three Federal Subcontractors --- one American Federal Republic, one British Territorial organization, and one Holy Roman Empire Municipal organization.
The States are obligated to pay in gold and silver for the services that each of these Subcontractors perform, and they also agree to "delegate" certain enumerated "Powers" to these Subcontractors to enable them to provide the related services to be performed.
There is nothing mysterious about this and nothing sacrosanct.
The Constitutions are called "The Law of the Land" because all the Federal Subcontractors operate in jurisdictions other than the land; they operate in the international jurisdiction of the sea, or in the global jurisdiction of the air, so that when they "come ashore" the Constitutions lay down their limits and duties.
It's the "Law of the Land" from their perspective, not ours.
The Constitutions do not represent the full scope of our Land Law. They merely represent the Land Law that the Federal Subcontractors are obligated to follow with respect to us and our States of the Union.
The Federal Subcontractors were all business organizations and functioned initially as unincorporated businesses.
Following the Civil War, the American Federal Subcontractor doing business as the States of America, was no longer operating, because the Confederation sponsored and directed it--- and the Confederation itself ceased functioning in 1860.
The Reconstruction of the Confederation was never finished and the fate of both the Confederation and the Federal Republic, our American Federal Subcontractor, both, were held in abeyance, waiting for the States to Assemble and complete the Reconstruction process.
We have been waiting 160 years. This is the first time that the States of the Union have assembled since the Civil War.
Go to: www.TheAmericanStatesAssembly.
----------------------------
See this article and over 2800 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal buttons on this website.
How do we use your donations? Find out here.
Just what is this reconstuction of the confederation and why did they even leave in the first place....beginning a " civil war" doesnt give our republic the right to just walk out and never return...there must have been something that prevented them from reconstureing....they all need to stand trail and explain why they just walked out and never retured...it makes no sense..!!
ReplyDeleteIf there was a full continental congress already involved, are you telling us that no one retured...not even one congressman...i dont believe it..!! They werent that stupid back then like they are now..!!
Please explain...!!
For one thing 1845 admiralty jurisdiction was permitted on land act of congress ,then in 1860 common law courts cease to exist.
DeleteThen there was Moran bill taxing south up to 70% whereas northern oligarchs 2%.
Just after passing the southern states walked out and dishonest Abe gathered milita many states refused to send thair milita and were punished by disenfranchisement 2 ways one declaimed the stats not republican form of gov.
And would let any body that had sympathy for victims hold office .
Key law of the land (territorial ) its from thair perspective.
ReplyDeleteLike nonresident alien.
From thair perspective.
"Treaties outrank Constitutions. Constitutions must conform to Treaties, not the other way around."
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. Supreme Court disagrees: ""No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." Reid vs Covert (1957)
"Treaties outrank Constitutions. Constitutions must conform to Treaties, not the other way around."
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. Supreme Court disagrees: ""No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." Reid vs Covert (1957)
"Treaties outrank Constitutions. Constitutions must conform to Treaties, not the other way around."
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. Supreme Court disagrees: ""No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." Reid vs Covert (1957)
Anything repugnant to constitution null and void .
DeleteWe are experiencing a revolution in higher frequency density consciousness.
ReplyDelete3D 2 5D those not in love and service to others,will not shift with us,because those living in FEAR of what love is in living Spirit and are living in service to self indulgence and perversion of Nature will accelerate the collapse of their timeline,and accelerate the separation of the particle spin rotation of our Merkaba to say goodbye to them.
ALOHA Laniakea