September 25, 2020

Shall Not Be Infringed Against Empty Words

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Bill of Rights should have been the Supreme law of the land. The Bill of Rights is NOT the Supreme law of the land. So how can an inferior “law” subject to constitutional authority Not be infringed against? Because under the correct constitutional methodology the federalists can do whatever they want to any Amendment of the Bill of Rights.. The two documents are and always have been in opposition against each other.. The Bill of Rights should have been the Supreme law of the land NOT included in the Constitution as Amendments thus in clever legal terms has been placed in the inferior position of the Constitution itself, which is why if there were the constitutionally legal action to amend or remove any of the Bill of rights amendments they can do so and call that legal under Constitutional law.. Such as altering the 2nd Amendment to suit the anti private gun ownership mentality in the country.. Which is why the 2nd Amendment is constantly under duress because the constitutional legal power to remove the 2nd Amendment exists.. Thus that “right” can be removed, thus that isn’t a right it is a privilege.. According to their legalese… Worse yet the U.S. constitution is inferior by it’s own wording to International Law… So shall not be infringed against is empty legal rhetoric..

Share