Donald Trump's plan to purify the US legal system

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.

That is our next topic.

The Importance of Understanding the Three Levels

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.