[#3Fan]

Let's come to an understanding of terms. There is a hierarchy of levels in the law, many of which we never deal with. The highest level is sovereign acts, the kind that can be reviewed only by Who Am. These are acts of will by the Sovereign, who in England is the King or Queen.

What's with this British crap again? The Constitution is the supreme law of our land, not some British document.

The next level is constitutional and treaty law. They are made by the Sovereign and obeyed voluntarily by the Sovereign. They can also be broken by the Sovereign, by sovereign acts.

Not when they ratified the Constitution.

Under the Constitution is statutory law passed by the Government created by the Constitution. Beneath that is regulation lawfully created by bodies created by statute and reviewed by them -- by e.g. administrative law judges and inspectors general. And below that, there are other rules and guidelines that lawyers and regulators can describe in better detail than I. My point here is that under the logic of subsidiarity, a creature of the Constitution, i.e. the United States Government or its branches (Supreme Court, Congress, President) cannot review an act above its pay grade, i.e. above its level of competence. When the People sit in convention assembled, they take up the rods and axes of the Sovereign and become not objects of government but take on their awful aspect of Sovereign, and in that capacity, the People answer to nobody who isn't God Himself. Capiche?.

And God says in Romans that He sanctions the powers that be (if they be of Him), so you just can't break a law when you feel like it and the Constitution is our law.

[nolu chan]

That would be the constitution that held that slavery was lawful.

[lentulusgracchus]

The Constitution is the supreme law of our land, not some British document.

Fallacy of distraction: straw man. The Constitution is not the supreme law of the land. The supreme law of the land is whatever the People say it is. The People made, and can unmake, the Constitution. The People (alone) are above the Constitution, and the Constitution is their creature and therefore is not above the People.

I think you're just resisting the point -- which is called "slothful induction" and a reason for awarding a debate on the spot.

[You, quoting me] The next level is constitutional and treaty law. They are made by the Sovereign and obeyed voluntarily by the Sovereign. They can also be broken by the Sovereign, by sovereign acts.

[You, resisting the obvious] Not when they ratified the Constitution.

Oh, yeah, when they ratified the Constitution. Before they ratified the Constitution. And after they ratified the Constitution. For as long as the People draw breath, bucko, they are the Sovereign, which is the alpha principle of American government. The People are the ontological Power in this country -- legally, and every other way. If you say differently, you're a traitor and a renegade.

And God says in Romans that He sanctions the powers that be (if they be of Him), so you just can't break a law when you feel like it and the Constitution is our law.

By quoting God, I take it that you recognize the paramountcy of the People -- but here is where you again employ a fallacy of distraction. I wasn't talking about breaking the law, I was talking about unmaking the law -- which the People have the right and power to do at will.

People, up here.

Constitutions, laws, governments, and officialdom, down there.

Get it?

I don't normally speak to people like this, but you are showing signs of mulish obduracy, rebellion, slothful induction, and plain old bad faith in argument.

But I won't wait on you, nor cater to you.

Point!