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.
Mr Chin is the Attorney General for the State of Hawaii:
Insights on your Travel Ban Case:
I am the founder and principal of a nonprofit organization
that is working to create an international government based on the US
Constitution, and before our constitution can be used as the basis for the
proposed international government, we must purify the US legal system to keep
laws and practices that create chaos within our legal system from spreading the
chaos onto the international level.
May I offer you some insights on your travel ban case?
We believe misunderstandings have been introduced that create
chaos, and one of the most important is that there are three levels of the
Universe [not two]—the Principles, the Power and the Projects—and in our legal system,
they are Universal Law, Constitutional Law and Federal Law. In religion, they
are the Father, the Mother and the Son.
Universal Law fixes our legal system on a very high level
because it is based on seven principles of equality, liberty, freedom,
compassion, abundance, capacity and tolerance. Universal Law is immutable, and
every atom in the Universe is subject to Universal Law. If this level is
omitted from the laws and practices, the laws become contradictory, on either
the letter of the law, which is a narrower perspective, or the intent of the
law, which is wider.
Constitutional law is evolutionary, and it is the Power
level, so it can be abused when people rely on power games, and in that case,
our nation devolves.
Federal Law is the combination of both Universal Law and
Constitutional law, so imagine what occurs when Universal Law is omitted and
Constitutional Law is based on power games.
The seven principles Universal Law is based on bring
disputes back to what religions call “the straight and narrow.” For example,
when one individual, culture or nation is intolerant to others, the proverbial
pendulum starts to swing, and a series of crises starts to devolve, leading to
the extremes of wars, genocides and terrorism. The principles bring the
pendulum back to the center point. Another way to look at it is the principle
that ends a war is equality—or for a fair trial, both sides must be considered
The knee-jerk reaction that ends a war makes a genocide
worse. People who have been dragged into a genocide lack their unalienable
In the case of the president’s travel ban, his attorneys are
relying on Constitutional law to support his case, and your case is based on
federal law, which makes the Supreme Court more likely to rule in the favor of
the president. But, his travel ban is not based on Universal Law, which
supersedes constitutional law, especially in cases that are international in
nature. Every major religion is based on Universal Law, and Muslims stand in
protest when they see someone who is not being treated fairly and equally, so
this travel can that affect Muslims is making the United States less safe
rather than more safe. They are not being treated fairly and equally, and are
being denied their unalienable rights.
I cannot say how average Muslims will respond to the travel
ban, but the director of the CIA has stated that there are ISIS
sleeper cells in every nation, and the director of the FBI has stated that
there are ISIS sleeper cells in very state, so banning Muslims from any nation
will not stop them from waking up. As I said, people who have been dragged into
a genocide, lack their unalienable rights, and it comes from a sense of
judgment. By denying Muslims their unalienable rights, that can trigger a
Genocides are based on the power game known as Envy, which
comes from a sense of judgment, and it is based on weaving an illusion. Once
the Grand Lie is told, the truth doesn’t overcome the lie, it just reaches the
point where no one knows who to trust, so fair trials are difficult to achieve
when no one knows who is telling the truth. When the president of the United
States talks about fake news, that is an indication that there is either a
genocide devolving, or slavery—the other power game based on weaving an
illusion. Character defamation is an individual form of genocide.
By standing on Constitutional law, laws can be
determined to be legal by the Supreme Court, as part of the responsibility of
the president, but are not necessarily lawful, based on Universal Law because
no one has the right to deny others their unalienable rights. Under Universal
Law what you do to another will be done to you, so there is always a backlash
to the games. The president of the United States can “legally” set foreign
policy practices that lead to genocide. They can be used to deny the people our
unalienable rights to be able to live our lives without interference, to be
treated fairly and equally, and to have a voice in our government.
The US Constitution has evolved from when our founding fathers first opened debates on writing a document that established a new nation, when federal rights and States rights discussed. The majority of them were ready to sign the document until Patrick Henry stood up and raised the question of individual rights. That debate led to the Bill of Rights--the first ten amendments of the US Constitution.
The sixth amendment covers our rights to a fair trial. It lists the criteria for a fair trial, such as it must be speedy, and conducted by impartial "judges," but what is missing from the list of criteria are the principles that ends the dispute and allows everyone involved to function on a higher level,
Universal Law has been forgotten within our legal system as laws are written to benefit the few over the whole nation. The focus is on our Constitution, not Universal Law, as what fixes America on a very high level, and the constitution evolves based on where our nation is at the time. Nations can evolve or devolve based on fears, and on the compensatory power games that arise from the fears. The squeezing forces are not bad, it is how you react to them that is important.
Universal Law is based on seven principles that allow mankind to walk the straight and narrow--that bring the proverbial pendulum back to the midpoint where dilemmas are resolved. They are equality, liberty, freedom, compassion, abundance, capacity and tolerance.
The world is facing the worst case scenario. A global genocide has started, and genocides are based on weaving an illusion. The truth is being twisted and turned to the point where no one knows who to trust. Even the most honorable and truthful people can be twisted and turned to the point of mental illness and lost in the illusion. Under the circumstances, how can anyone have a fair trial?
Our Exit Strategy for Iraq establishes the protocol that is based on all seven principles and allows for a fair trail so that everyone can function on a higher level. This proposal has associated books and booklets that address the principles and the application of the principles, and in "A Manual for Peace" and in "A Manual for the One World Government," Seth addresses these issues. Then, he empowers those who are interested in going deeper into the issue to do so.
Our project to purify the US legal system will include dinner parties with group channeling sessions to senators, Supreme Court justices and even the president of the United States can ask past kings, queens and presidents, including our original founding fathers about how to purify our legal system, and they can speak from personal experience, and then turn responsibility back onto the shoulders of the people in office today to apply what they have learned.
I am not an attorney or very knowledgeable about our legal system. I am a channel, and my gift from our Creator is to be able to channel anyone "on the other side." My guides are the past kings, queens and presidents, and we all share the goal of world peace by taking their creation to the global level.
Text of our November 8, 2017 letter to the U.S. Supreme Court:
Our organization is working to create an international government based on the U.S. Constitution and the principles of the cooperation of nature. Before our Constitution can be used as the basis for the international government, laws and practices that have caused chaos in our legal system must be purified to prevent the chaos from spreading onto the international level. One of our exempt purposes is to purify the U.S. legal system.
Misunderstandings have led to laws and practices that are based on the letter of the law rather than the intent of the law. Our legal system has three levels, not two. The three levels are the Principles, the Power and the Project--or in the case of our legal system, they are Universal Law, Constitutional Law and Federal Law. When any law or practice is based on only the Power and the Projects levels, it leads to the letter of the law rather than the intent of the law, and it leads to chaos.
Universal Law is immutable, and fixes our nation's legal system on a very high level. It is where our unalienable rights come from, and it stands on the principles of Equality, Liberty, Freedom, Compassion, Abundance, Capacity, and Tolerance. It applies to every atom in the Universe, and so it will be the basis for the international legal system. It is the only legal basis that can unify the entire planet.
Constitutional Law is the application of Universal Law within the United States, and it is evolutionary, but when Universal Law is omitted, laws are based on power games rather than principles, and our nation devolves. Laws and practices can be considered constitutional, and therefore, lawful, but they are unlawful based on Universal Law. Foreign policy decisions that lead to war is a prime example of this because the unalienable rights of other nations are disregarded, and then we face the backlashes of Universal Law of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Federal Law must be based on both Universal Law and Constitutional Law or it leads to chaos. Federal Law cannot supersede Universal Law. It cannot be used to justify denying any citizen of the United States, or even the entire planet, our unalienable rights to be able to live out lives without interference--meaning to fulfill our purposes in life--and to be treated fairly and equally, and to have a voice in our government.
We have two plans to purify the U.S. legal system, and we will introduce a government proposal through two senators in the near future.
People all over the world are watching President Trump attempt to undo President Obama's legacy from his eight years in office. He declares an act, like the JCPoA--the Iran nuclear deal--or the ACA--the Affordable Care Act, is the worst deal ever, and announces he will "repeal and replace" it with something much better, but his plans have met resistance from Congress or through the courts. He doesn't have a viable alternative that addresses the root cause of the problem, so he turns the issue over to Congress to sort out. The Republican's efforts have failed, and so Donald Trump and Steve Bannon are now waging war on the Republican Party.
Under the US Constitution, legislation is passed by Congress, and signed into law by the president. While Congress is responsible for the legislation, the bills can be flawed, but it is not always possible to predict what problems will arise. When you create a plan, one step in the planning process is to resolve the glitches of the plan, and in "A Manual for the One World Government," Seth explains how bills can be clarified, purified and simplified to improve them.
One act that Trump intends to purify is NAFTA, which came into law before President Obama's administration. Trump wants to redo the trade agreement to greater benefit the United States. In our book, Seth addresses NAFTA, and says that the North American Free Trade Agreement was so huge that no one really understood what they were signing into law. Seth offers a solution for fair and equitable trade agreements through the economic departments of the One World government.
Today, let's consider an overview perspective of our way to purify the US legal system, which is one of our organization's exempt purposes.
We have looked at how laws may or may not stand on the three levels of the Universe, and how they can be based on the letter of the law or the intent of the law. When those laws that stand on the letter of the law are used in court, they can contradict the laws that stand on the intent of the law, which is the wider perspective. Judges know through experience which laws should come up for review, because they see the contradictions in court.
Then, who better to assume responsibility for purifying the laws than the legislators who wrote the legislation and then voted for it to become law? Our goal is to bring retired legislators back to address the glitches of their legislation. This sense of a future commitment to resolve the glitches may encourage the legislators to write better legislation.
Finally, who better to point out the actual flaws in any law than the people whose lives are affected by the law? They should have a voice in what changes must be made, and then once the changes are made, to once again have a voice in whether the changes had the desired effect. Our plan involves working with the students of five US law schools to review the laws that are up for review.
The US Constitution allows the United States to function on a very high level, but practices and laws based on misunderstandings have entered into our legal system and have created chaos, and before the Constitution can be used as the basis for the international legal system, we must purify these laws and practices. Each of our government proposals includes a stage in the planning process when we will focus on the failed practices. Our first proposal addresses what got us into the Iraq War, and what is now leading to conflicts with North Korea and Iran.
How many people believe the United States should wage a preemptive strike on North Korea? We are looking at the policy of preemption, which goes against the one of the basic premises of our legal system, that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The vast majority of the population of the planet believe the exiting structure is adequate to solve the problems, and are content to allow it to function as it is. When it becomes apparent the existing structure is not working to solve the problems-- when the proverbial dark cloud appears on the horizon-- those who know how to solve the problems, from their own area of expertise, will come up with a plan. Every plan goes through the glitches segment, where it is purified. The plan must evolve, or if the glitches are impossible to solve, then the plan collapses.
After the glitches--the Crisis in the Family segment, which relates to equality--comes the Conflict Resolution/Security segment of the planning process. For conflict resolution, the first requirement is that everyone must be considered equal.
At this time, the vast majority of the planet depends on the United Nations to be the hope for world peace, but the UN Charter has five main flaws, and attempts to reform it have failed. No nation will willing give up its power. The five permanent members of the Security Council will not agree to reform. With the conflict between North Korea and the United States, the United Nations is proving that it cannot end or prevent wars, and mankind is now on the edge of the abyss.
How did we get there, and what can happen next?
If we step back and consider the three levels, mankind always has three choices. We can stand on the principles and function on a higher level, and we can evolve. We can ignore the crises and pass them on to future generations, and it will take seven generations to undo the damage we have done. We can choose to go down into the power games, and devolve as a planet--we can annihilate ourselves.
If we want our future to be one where wars are no longer tolerated, then we must all come together to ensure that everyone is considered equal, and no one is considered more important than another.
The three levels of the Universe are the Principles, the Power and the Project, and in religion, they are the Father, the Mother and the Son. In the US legal system, they are Universal Law, Constitutional Law and Federal Law.
If you have a family that has a father than stands on the principles and fixes the family on a high level, a mother who uses the power the family has to draw the family to a higher level, then the children will also function on higher level. If the father is not standing on the principles, the mother is getting revenge, then the children will not function on a higher level. The children cannot dictate to the parents, or it causes chaos in the family. If the father is unfairly judged by the mother, and driven out of the family...
Now consider that our Founding Fathers stood on the principles of Universal Law, and declared that "we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." They wrote a Constitution that is the application of Universal Law within the United States, but over the years, the Supreme Court has been packed, and laws have been written that are deemed constitutional but they do not stand on the principles of Universal law, and the unalienable rights of the people have been trampled. Foreign policy, such as waterboarding, has been declared to be legal, and most recently, the question of whether a nuclear preemptive strike on North Korea is constitutional. Does Donald Trump have the right to wage a preemptive strike on North Korea?
By standing on the principles of Universal Law, mankind is able to evolve. By relying on the existing structure, mankind climbs onto the slippery slope, and reaches the edge of the abyss when it becomes evident that it is no longer able to solve problems, and if it cannot be reformed, it passes the crises on to future generations unless a plan that allows mankind to function on a higher level replaces it. If those who rely on power games and function for their own interests have supreme power, then mankind devolves into conflict, and we are at the point where the conflict is existential for the entire planet. World peace is at stake.
The question remains, does a plan stand on the principles or on power games? Does it treat all fairly and equally?
As the UN demonstrates it cannot end or prevent wars, what will take its place? The plan must be in existence for it to be accepted, no matter how far along it is. The plan for the international government based on the US Constitution and the cooperation of nature, which is based on Universal Law, now has passed cultural review, because people in 85 nations support the plan. It is a viable plan.
People will stand in protest about the plan for the international government, out of fear and out of prejudice and ulterior motives. Our plan must enable everyone on the planet to function on a higher level, and leave no one out of its benefits, so once the plan is accepted, we must start to address how it benefits each segment of society, all the way down to the individual level.
The first global issue is that disputes between nations will be resolved in court rather than the battlefield. The three options that we have now is that the UN has its courts, but a nation does not have to be a signatory of the courts, and so disputes are not resolved, and they are passes on to future generations. That leaves mankind on the edge of the abyss, and the other two choices are to work together to create an international government whose legal system is based on Universal Law, and it treats all nations fairly and equally, and disputes are settled in court rather than the battlefield, and the monies wasted on war will go to the people instead. This option benefits everyone. The other option is for mankind to devolve into a global conflict, which will kill millions or even billions of people.
Let's assume that it is in everyone's best interest for disputes to be resolved in court, and come together to make it a reality.
I have been working to introduce the idea that there are three levels of the US legal system, but the Supremacy Clause in the Second Article may seem to contradict that idea. Which is right?
Both are right, and it is a matter of perspective, looking up or down. No nation functions alone. A constitutional creates a government. Our nation is sovereign, but also is equal to all other nations.
There are always three levels to the Universe, and everything that is in it. We can look at the three levels of our legal system as Universal Law, Constitutional Law and Federal Law in regards to our unalienable rights and how we relate to our Creator and other nations, as a sovereign nation, or we can focus only on what is within our nation, with Constitutional Law, Federal Law and Treaties, which have supremacy over State law.
The three levels are the Principles, the Power and the Project, so in the case of the Supremacy Clause, the project level is the States. They went from being colonies to states when the Constitution was being voted into existence. At this time, Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, and its people are voting to become the 51st State. They must petition Congress as part of the process, which makes them a project of the constitutional level and the federal level.
The Constitution grants individuals our unalienable rights, but also each level has rights, duties and privileges, but is subject to Universal Law. No project-level entity can dictate terms to the principles level or the power level or it creates chaos. The principles are equality, liberty, freedom, compassion, abundance, capacity and tolerance. The power level cannot dictate principles to the principle levels or it creates chaos also. These principles allow mankind to walk the proverbial "straight and narrow" and to maintain peace.
No laws can be written to justify breaking Universal Law. This week, the Supreme Court focused on the Westfall Act, which declares that any federal employee is free from litigation that arises from acts that occurred as a part of their employment. That law was also used in Saleh v Bush to protect George W. Bush from being sued by an Iraqi woman for damages that occurred during the Iraq War. It is a federal law that superseded her constitutional right to redress Congress for grievances, and her (and mankind's) unalienable Universal rights to be able to live her life without interference, to be treated fairly and equally, and to have a voice in her government. Universal law must be reintroduced into our legal system to prevent chaos within every level of our legal system.
In the future, once the plan for the international government becomes a reality and mankind has passed the test of world peace, we will be invited to participate in a wider government. At this time, according to Seth in "A Manual for Peace," there are 80 alien species on the Earth, There is a galactic government, another layer of government, and its basis is also Universal Law, which applies to every atom in the Universe.
If we expand our awareness, we may even be able to imagine that there is a Universe within a Universe--just like was imagined in the ending scene of the movie, "Men in Black," as the camera continues to pan out. This "stretch of the imagination" concept will be addressed in our book, "The Prime Universe Speaks," which explains the final destination of mankind's evolution, and every level is based on the same Universal Law.
Imagine that one nation does not speak for the entire planet when it comes to the choice to join the galactic government. There are stories that aliens have gone to governments and powerful individuals around the world, but one nation and one individual does not have the right to dictate terms to any other nation or any other individual. Only when the international government based on Universal Law is in existence can we consider voting to join the galactic government.
Our organization has an agenda, and each of the government
proposals is a point in our agenda. The first is Equality Under International Law.
The first requirement for conflict resolution is that all parts must be considered equal. There is conflict across the planet because the existing international structure doesn't treat all nations fairly and equally. Logically, the existing structure cannot bring peace.
If all nations are not considered equal within the existing structure, that sets the stage for wars, which are started by people who believe they are more important than others, and therefore have the right to put others down.. People who are dragged into wars lack equality, and it is the principle so that when instated, it ends the war.
Wars are based on the power game of Pride, which sets the first stage of revenge.
Mankind is therefore looking at the fact that for peace to come, all nations must be treated fairly and equally. That is one of the unalienable rights granted to us by the Creator of us all, who has created this planet based on Universal Law.
The legal system of the proposed international government is based on Universal Law, and therefore must treat all people fairly and equally, and leave no one out of the plan, or we leave ourselves out of the plan.
In our surveys, the first question is always, "is the existing structure adequate?" Is it solving the problems? Is there need for change or is what we already have working?
Does the existing structure treat all people fairly and equally? If not, what will? Is our plan better than other plans that are being debated? How many of the plans grant equality under international law?
Every plan goes through the same planning process, starting with a rationale for its existence. It must be able to solve the crises it was meant to solve, so when the existing structure has proven it cannot end the crisis, it must address the glitches that arise or be replaced by a new plan that functions on a higher level.
The existing international structure has proven it cannot end or prevent disputes between nations, or there would not be so many existing conflicts or disputes between nations that are potential and imminent wars.
The Iraq War started a genocide, but the accepted definition of a genocide is based on ethnic cleansing. How can the Iraq War fit that definition?
All of our government proposals have associated books that explain the principles, the application of the principles, and the planning stages and steps that allow mankind to find a middle ground and to move forward in our progress to create the international government and our evolution.
Each government proposal addresses a US government policy or practice that is being purified to prevent the same chaos that it has caused from spreading to the international government, starting with the Iraq Genocide caused by the policy of preemption, which went against Universal Law, constitutional law, federal law, and international law.
When the Grand Lie has been told, the Truth doesn't overcome the lie. It just reaches the point where no one knows who to trust. The only thing that you can trust under this point is Universal Law. That is the basis for our international court system. At this point, every person on the planet has been exposed to Universal Law, and therefore, it is possible to create an international court system based on it. Every atom in the Universe is subject to this law of Cause and Effect, and even the scientists understand it--"for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
Now it is possible to settle disputes that are based on genocides in court, and it explains why the existing structure cannot end or prevent disputes.
If you break Universal Law, what are the ramifications? That is the next step to address.
The title of this post does not imply that we are storming the White House. Storming the mountain is a type of brain-storming technique our founding fathers used in their conventions to ensure the highest good came from their efforts.
We think of our founding fathers as statesmen, and they were in the highest sense, but they were humans with strong emotions, and they disagreed over every point, and some disagreements even devolved into duels. One duel was so illogical--between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr--that duels as a tool for conflict resolution fell out of favor. They were liberals and conservatives when they quarreled over every point, but they were statesmen because they "stormed the mountain," and built on each other's ideas when a great idea was offered. They set politics and games of one-up-manship aside and spoke from the heart--from their own experiences. Imagine what you would say if you knew history was watching you.
The election process has become the lessor of two evils because of all the politics and power games. A choice like that is not based on the highest good for all people. The pendulum has swung so far off the midpoint that the American people are being denied our inalienable and constitutional rights.
It is time for change in our government. The ideas are going out and being debated, but when the time comes, America must storm the mountain.
Our founding fathers knew history was watching them, and they chose their words carefully. As America debates the creation of the international government, not only will history watch us for the next thousand years, but the entire planet is watching us, and they are storming the mountain to demonstrate that the international government will function on a higher level than the United States.
Will addressing the constitutionality of the Westfall Act lead to the end of the two party system?
It may be a contributing factor.
What could make the U.S. Supreme Court divided over an interpretation other than party perspective? The Supreme Court is considered tied now, with four conservative justices and four liberal justices, and the winner of the 2016 presidential election had the capacity to sway Supreme Court decisions for decades. The decisions made by the Supreme Court are political, which means that the court is evolutionary, based on where America is along the evolutionary scale, and we can evolve or devolve based on their decisions.
For America to evolve to the next level, we must start to address a higher form of electing our government officials, and let go of the two party system. Candidates for any elected position must be functioning based on what is in everyone's best interest.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District has finally released their decision on the Saleh v. Bush case, and I was sorry to see the judges decided for the Bush administration. I had hoped this court case would open the debate in our country that the Iraq War was illegal, just as the Chilcot Report has in the UK.
The judges based their decision primarily on the Westfall Act. Basically, the Westfall Act gives government employees immunity from prosecution if they are doing their job. It originated with the idea that "the king can do no wrong," that the president and other government employees must be able to act without fear of being prosecuted for any errors he or she makes. My thought was, whoever believed this never read the Declaration of Independence.
I am not an attorney, but as I read the document, I started to see major glitches in that law, and decided this is a good place to start looking at how laws have the potential to create chaos in the U.S. legal system.
The idea of an infallable king goes against the presumption of innocence, which is a basic premise of our legal system, included in it because you cannot defend yourself from prejudice and ulterior motives. George W. Bush, justifying the preemptive strike on Iraq, declared "after all, he tried to kill my father." The Iraq War was a personal issue, an act of revenge.
My next thought was that the Westfall Act is not constitutional. It goes against the rights we have to redress our government for grievances. Can we expect to have our grievances respected?
The Westfall Act goes against Universal Law, which guarantees our inalienable rights to be able to create our life without interference, and to be treated fairly and equally, and to have a voice in our government. Universal Law fixes our legal system at a very high level, and it is unchanging. Constitutional law can evolve or devolve based on our choices, and to declare the Westfall Act as Constitutional is to choose to go down into the power games. That leads to the next glitch.
By granting government employees--including the president--immunity from prosecution, this has the capacity to swing the proverbial pendulum out and to trigger acts of aggression, which is what Sundus Saleh's complaint is against George W. Bush. The pendulum starts swinging because of power games, which are oppressive to the people. As the pendulum swings, it will eventually reach its ultimate conclusion. The exact opposite effect is reached, and an innocent person is sacrificed.
The Westfall Act is now reaching its ultimate conclusion. During his first speech to the CIA, President Trump hinted that he intends to go back into Iraq to take their oil. That is the ultimate conclusion of U.S. foreign policy related to Iraq. How many innocent people will be sacrificed in order to gain control of a sovereign nation's natural resources? Does President Trump have the right, under the Westfall Act, to wage war with impunity in Iraq?
As Donald Trump assumes responsibility as president of the United States, I have heard many times that the most important role the president has is to defend our country. I disagree with that. He is now the Commander in Chief of the military, but his most important role as defined by the Constitution is to decide whether laws written by Congress are executable. He is the head of the Executive Branch, and each of the branches of our government is considered equal, and the Constitution includes Checks and Balances to ensure they stay balanced.
The presidents of the international government will not have the power to wage war. There won't be any wars. Disputes will be resolved in court rather than the battlefield, and the Department of Defense will also facilitate disputes so no blood is shed before it makes it to court.
If your plan stands on all seven principles--Equality, Liberty, Freedom, Compassion, Abundance, Capacity and Tolerance, you are unbeatable. That is how to defend your country. These seven principles return the pendulum to the straight and narrow.
I welcome honest debate on this. I am not an attorney, and my perspectives on this law are entirely my own. During our sessions, I will channel the past kings, queens and presidents, including Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, and James Madison, and it will be interesting to hear what they have to say about how laws can be purified.
This afternoon, President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch for the vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. This court decides whether something is Constitutional. Filling this vacancy on the Supreme Court has been controversial because it has become a political battle between the Republicans and the Democrats. President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland, but the Republicans have the majority in the Senate and they refused to confirm his appointment. The decision was delayed until the next president was elected and took the oath of office. I would like to look now at how this process has become so contentious to prevent the chaos from spreading onto the international level.
The Universe has three levels.* They are called the Father, the Mother and the Son--or, the Principles, the Power and the Project. Every aspect of the Universe has the same three levels. When speaking of the U.S. legal system, they are Universal Law, Constitutional Law, and Federal and State Law.
The Universal Law level fixes our legal system on a very high spiritual level. It is unchanging. This is law that applies to every atom in the Universe. Religion is an application of Universal Law, and is a narrower perspective. In this Universe, we have twelve Universal Laws, but our focus now is on "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." At this time, every person on the planet has been exposed to the Universal Law of Cause and Effect, but not every person applies this law in his or her life. To get peace, you must give peace.The Universal Laws apply to our Creator also. We are guaranteed our inalienable rights because our Creator must guarantee them to us to keep their inalienable rights.
The Mother level is the power aspect of the law, and it is evolutionary. The U.S. Constitution has been amended to reflect where we are at the time. It can evolve or devolve, or stay the same. We rise and fall by the choices we make, and so does our Constitution. It is the application of Universal Law. If you put our Constitution into any country on the planet, after 100 years, there would be 200 or so different applications of the Constitution, just like religion.
Federal and State law is the application of both the Principles and the Power aspects. This is where the chaos enters into the picture, when the Principles are ignored and the Power aspect devolves.
Because we are focusing on the Exit Strategy for Iraq proposal, an example of this crisis is when President George W. Bush went to Congress to get permission to wage war on Iraq. His case did not stand on the principles of Universal Law, and so it was a power grab. The ultimate conclusion of any power grab is that you lose power. Congress voted to invade Iraq, which made the War legal in the eyes of many people, but it was the letter of the law rather than the intent of the law. It was the narrower perspective--an act of revenge. The protester's voices, people who saw the wider perspective, had no voice in the matter, and the United States ended up in a quagmire in Iraq.
In the Bible, it says, "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord!" That is because it is not up to mankind to judge another person, and revenge does not stand on all three levels of the Universe. It is not based on Universal Law. It is also not strictly Constitutional, because it is based on five power games.
Governments play the five power games related to revenge, and they all go against Universal Law. They are oppressive to the people and deny the people our inalienable rights granted to us by our Creator. The symbol for revenge is the pentacle, which is shaped like a five pointed star with the points removed. The Pentagon is shaped like a pentacle, and while our Constitution allows us to defend our nation, we do not have the Universal or Constitutional rights to wage war.
*Using a capital U, I am including the frequency dimensions of the Universe, not just spacial dimensions. Both are infinite.