Before the U.S. Constitution can be used as the basis for the One World Government, the U.S. legal system must be purified to prevent laws that have caused chaos within the United States from spreading onto the international level.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
The Exit Strategy for Iraq proposal leads to the creation of an international court system so that disputes between nations are resolved in court rather than the battlefield. The Iraq War devolved as a genocide, a character defamation campaign against Saddam Hussein. He was tried in an Iraqi court for a crime against his own people, and executed, but by being tried for a lesser crime, he never stood trial for the crimes that were brought against him that justified the preemptive strike. With the power of the United States behind the lesser court case, did he receive a fair trial? The Sixth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and the question is, can America have a double standard in the world by guaranteeing the inalienable rights to American citizens and by denying them to others? What makes them inalienable? They are based on Universal Law, which treats every nation and every individual fairly and equally. Under the Universal Law of Cause and Effect, or karma, or the Golden Rule, by denying another his or her, or their, inalienable rights, we are losing our rights. Universal Law is immutable. They apply to every atom in the Universe. Genocides are based on weaving an illusion. To end a genocide, someone must defend the person who is being crucified, but the Sixth Amendment right to "obtaining witnesses in his favor" can be very difficult to achieve. The ultimate conclusion of a genocide is that the person who is being defamed is forced to flee for his or her life, or leaves by dying, because the resistance is so powerful hat no one will testify in his defense. Having the assistance of counsel for his defense can also be difficult to achieve because the life of the attorney can be threatened. In some cases, the judge can be swayed, also, and was demonstrated in Iraq. When you are being defamed, it is important to understand that someone will always defend you. The Sixth Amendment is still valid, but it must be extended to the higher level for the United States to protect our own rights. The U.S. legal system must be based on Universal Law because it treats everyone fairly and equally. The judge may be drawn into one of the ripples of effects that go out from the character defamation, but if the defendant cannot have a fair trial in the state or district where the crime was committed, the case can be appealed to an Appellate Court, and if not there, then to the Supreme Court where the laws themselves are addressed and the defendant is seen not as an individual, but as a example of a rationale for change in the legal system. The United States must address the Exit Strategy for Iraq, and the character defamation campaign against Saddam Hussein. The Grand Lie was told to justify the war, and it drew in every person on the planet in some way, but it went against the premise that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and with our two party political system, it created a schism within our country. The focus is now on the Supreme Court. Supreme Court justices have their opinions, but the schism has created an optical illusion effect within the United States, and both sides are valid. There are conservative and liberal justices, and under normal circumstances, the system works. But, we are reaching the point where one seat is vacant, and several justices are reaching the age where they may choose to retire, and who will replace them? The next president of the United States is responsible for nominating someone, but Congress must agree to the selection. There is a battle that is forming and both sides are fighting for their lives. This election is not politics as usual, but just like the justification for the preemptive strike on Iraq, it is one small step for the politicians, and one major leap for the rest of the planet. Until this time, there has been resistance to reforming the U.S. legal system. Attempts have been made to address issues like campaign finance, term limits and a balanced budget. Now, with the plan for the international government being opened to debate, and the entire world watching to see how we function, we must start to address reforming the U.S. legal system. By realizing that a thousand years of history is watching us, like we watch our founding fathers, it is in everyone's best interest for this to be resolved. Now is the time for the United States to make its choice to go up, down or straight ahead.
Our founding fathers had very different perspectives on how the government should function, and they even fought duels, but when they came to their conventions and opened the ideas to debate, they built on each others ideas to the point where they reached a very high level.