I mentioned in last Wednesday’s article that I fell down an interesting rabbit hole, more like a rabbit warren, when looking in my notes for info on the John Maynard Keynes link to the Fabian Society.

This is the comment in my notes that started my latest journey.

jdseanjd says:

March 6, 2014 at 6:13 am

Nicely done, Gail, very neat. The nail rapped smartly on the head 3 times. 🙂 I’ll raise you 137 years. 🙂

1st May, 1776, Rothschild commissioned a report on how to secure world domination:
Go to youtube & put in their search box : Whistleblower Head of FBI tells all from NWO 1 hr 4 mins.

Or try the ref, it might work :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do_swOstGaI [It still does work surprisingly. – GC]
Ted L. Gunderson, ex head of FBI in LA, would not shut up about what he’d learned.
He wound up poisoned with arsenic.

Is the plan coming apart?
http://www.usawatchdog.com
& scroll down to the article: US Currency Weak and About to Crash. 02/12/2014 371 comments. ( which I haven’t had time to read. Karen is ex Chief Legal Counsel for the World Bank.

Is this lady the real deal, or is she full of it? Anyone?

(She is full of it.)

Jdseanjd References U.S. Currency Weak and About to Crash—Karen Hudes.

In the comments on that article is this link from 2014, Philosophy of Metrics which looks interesting.

ABOUT

Philosophy of Metrics is the methodology of understanding the world through patterns and processes.  From the ancient philosophy of primitive man to the stock market today, there is a pattern in everything and anything.  We but need to observe and recognize the macro and micro of it all.

One of the biggest patterns is the one of ignorance.  We are subjected daily to methods of misdirection and direct obfuscation which serve to keep us blind to the realities that surround us.

Our modest intent is to lift the fog on the mysteries and allow some of these patterns to become visible, whereby we may better understand the world and our place within it.

I bring that comment up because it is the patterns and threads I am trying to follow since we now know our history as taught is bull schiff.

Back to Karen Hudes:

The video in that USA Watch Dog article is gone but I found this Utube: Karen Hudes on 1871 US Corporation, Gold, Homo Capensis, JFK Murder, Global Debt Facility & Bitcoin

I would say she is a Limited Hangout ⁽¹⁾ given the blurb from this Utube:

In 2007 Karen warned the US Treasury Department and US Congress that the US would lose its right to appoint the President of the World Bank if the current American President of the World Bank did not play by the rules. The 66 year old Gentlemen’s Agreement that Europe would appoint the Managing Director of the IMF and US would appoint the World Bank President ended in 2010
http://www.imf.org/external/np/cm/201… Karen Hudes studied law at Yale Law School and economics at the University of Amsterdam
.

She worked in the US Export Import Bank of the US from 1980-1985 and in the Legal Department of the World Bank from 1986-2007. She established the Non Governmental Organization Committee of the International Law Section of the American Bar Association and the Committee on Multilateralism and the Accountability of International Organizations of the American Branch of the International Law Association.

1871 US Corporation??? 😜

(30) Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement Dist., 298 U.S. 513, 56 S.Ct. 892 (1936):

State governments and their political subdivisions can’t use bankruptcy.
NOTE: A popular argument in movement circles contends that this whole nation was placed into bankruptcy in 1930 and Roosevelt devised a plan to get judicial approval of the “bankruptcy” via the decision in the 1938 Erie Railroad case. But how can such a legal theory fly in view of the decision in this case? — LIMITS OF CONGRESSIONAL POWERS – Constitution Org

A bit from the transcript of : Karen Hudes on 1871 US Corporation, Gold, Homo Capensis, JFK Murder, Global Debt Facility & Bitcoin (2015)

5:15 to 6:40

“…at a town hall meeting I said since John F Kennedy was assassinated by the Jesuits, and we know this because Gambino when he got out of jail said that the mafia were told by the Jesuits to fire the kill shot. There was a a mafioso hidden in a sewer so as the limousine drove by that’s that’s the shot that killed John F Kennedy.

Did you know for example that we had a second constitution in 1871 after the debts for the Revolutionary War came due and we couldn’t meet those obligations?That’s when we got a second Constitution. So that the United States is incorporated as a company. The president of the United States is the chief executive officer and the Congress acts like managers of the company rather than representing the constituency. Rather than respecting our first Constitution. This is understood by a number of people. There’s a lot of documentation on this. Now people are starting to spread the world word. You’re not going to get this in your universities. You’re not going to be taught this in the schools…” 

She is spouting chaff meant to divert attention away from the CIA in my opinion. Why? I think it is because of these two whistle-blowers getting traction and because of the rise of the Tea Party Movement.

Mr. Budhoo’s Bombshell: A people’s alternative to Structural Adjustment

Summer 1995

“Today I resigned from the staff of the International Monetary Fund after over 12 years, and after 1000 days of official fund work in the field, hawking your medicine and your bag of tricks to governments and to peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa. To me, resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind’s eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. Mr. Camdessus, the blood is so much, you know, it runs in rivers. It dries up too; it cakes all over me; sometimes I feel that there is not enough soap in the whole world to cleanse me from the things that I did do in your name and in the name of your predecessors, and under your official seal. “

With those words, Davison Budhoo, a senior economist with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for more than 12 years, publicly resigned in May, 1988. A native Grenadian, Budhoo received his degree from the London School of Economics. He joined the staff of the World Bank in 1966 and later shifted to the IMF, where he was responsible for designing and implementing Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) for African, Latin American and Caribbean nations. His 100-plus page open letter to Michel Camdessus, managing director of the IMF, titled “Enough is Enough,” sent shock waves around the world, making front page headlines in many countries (but not in the US).

Budhoo was the first person to break the IMF’s code of silence regarding internal affairs by exposing extensive statistical fraud carried out by the fund in Trinidad and Tobago during 1985-1987….

The other was Confessions of an Economic Hitman – describing how as a highly paid professional, John Perkins helped the World Bank. cheat poor countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars by lending them more money than they could possibly repay and then take over their economies. Also note that the finger is pointed at the USA (to generate hatred of the USA) and not the REAL culprit, the globalists.

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man:

How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions

“….He was an amazing man, Torrijos. And so, he died in a fiery airplane crash, which was connected to a tape recorder with explosives in it, which—I was there. I had been working with him. I knew that we economic hit men had failed. I knew the jackals were closing in on him, and the next thing, his plane exploded with a tape recorder with a bomb in it. There’s no question in my mind that it was C.I.A. sanctioned, and most—many Latin American investigators have come to the same conclusion. Of course, we never heard about that in our country.…” Democracy Now Org 2004

The IMF/World Bank uses Structural Adjustment Policies, SAPs, to open up countries to exploitation by corporations. Instead of a British Empire overtly colonizing the world — heavily criticized by a voting public — we have Corporate and Banking interests united in the covert control of whole nations in the name of profit….

Structural Adjustment Program 2000

(There have been 249 captures of this article by the Wayback!)

Structural Adjustment Policies are economic policies which countries must follow in order to qualify for new World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans and help them make debt repayments on the older debts owed to commercial banks, governments and the World Bank. Although SAPs are designed for individual countries but have common guiding principles and features which include export-led growth; privatisation and liberalisation; and the efficiency of the free market.

SAPs often result in deep cuts in programmes like education, health and social care…

By devaluing the currency and simultaneously removing price controls, the immediate effect of a SAP is.. that riots are a frequent result….

“…privatisation and liberalisation; and the efficiency of the free market...” Those are just the feel good words the Global Cabal uses to hide what they are actually doing. I will get into that in the next article.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The second rabbit hole warren from this comment, — Ted L. Gunderson, Whistleblower Head of FBI — deserves its own separate article so I will address it next week.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Rabbit hole #3

The Lord moves in mysterious ways. He even drags an agnostic such as myself, to the truth, on Sunday no less.

I remembered an article talking of the Supreme Court case that allows the bureaucracy to MAKE law. The federal Register and 30 day comment period was the fig leaf for “consent of the governed” blessed by that Supreme Court case. A few days ago I went looking for that info and all I could find was the happy horse schiff from the Federal Reserve, March 14, 1936 — March 14, 2006

On December 10, 1934, at the Supreme Court, the Assistant Attorney General of the United States had been grilled during oral arguments in the first case to reach the Court challenging the constitutionality of the centerpiece of President Roosevelt’s “New Deal” — the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA). The critical constitutional issues at stake were mostly ignored that day while the Justices focused on the fact that the defendants, two Texas oil companies, had been charged with violating a provision of regulations that technically did not exist at the time the companies were charged. 
The defects in the case highlighted a fundamental problem facing a democratic government that was exploding with new agencies and new regulations. Amidst the ferment of orders and codes issuing from agencies, even individuals working at the highest levels of government found it difficult or impossible to keep track of all of them. And for the regulated public, this new body of “executive legislation” was inaccessible and virtually hidden. The next day, at the White House, 
where the great men of the New Deal [You mean Commie TRAITORS don’t you?…] had been arguing over the value of publishing a gazette containing the orders issued by Executive Branch officers, President Roosevelt laid aside his misgivings about possible misuse of the publication for propagandistic purposes and appointed a committee of the National Emergency Council to make a special study of the idea. Meanwhile, behind-the-scenes maneuvering by lawmakers and influential legal minds, including Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, culminated in the publication on December 11, 1934 of a Harvard Law Review article by, Ervin Griswold entitled “Government in Ignorance of the Law – 
A Plea for Better Publication of 👉Executive Legislation.👈” 
The arguments Griswold made for orderly publication of the official actions of the Executive Branch were underlined when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Panama Oil case and forced the hand of the committee studying the issue for President Roosevelt. Congress passed legislation to create the Federal Register, and the President signed it into law (Pub. L. 74-220, July 26, 1935). The Act created a lasting partnership between the National Archives and the Government Printing Office. The Archivist of the United States, acting through a Division in the National Archives, was charged with custody of and, with the Public Printer, prompt and uniform printing and distribution of public documents in a publication designated the Federal Register…

In those notes on the Fabians, I had this but not the Utube I got it from:

Min 1:00 — 3:38

On the interpretation of two main clauses of the constitution, the first is the commerce clause which delegates to congress the authority to regulate commerce among the states. The second is the necessary and proper clause which provided for the congress to have the powers that are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the other powers, the explicit powers and unfortunately those words have been given a broader interpretation than was intended by the framers.

On my website constitution.org and on my blog constitutionalism.blogspot.com

I have a number of articles that examine the problems arising from this misinterpretation and the arguments and evidence for why the clauses should not be interpreted in that way. But this evening I’m going to focus on the line of supreme court presidents that led to where we are today. There are 44 main supreme court presidents. There are many more cases than that, but most of those others cite one or more of these 44 cases. So if one were to overturn these 44 cases, and in fact you wouldn’t need to overturn all of them, if you overturned the first few the rest would fall because the later ones are based on the earlier ones. But for the sake of completeness if one were to propose amendments to the constitution to overturn these bad precedents, which are about the only way they are going to get overturned, then it would be necessary to unravel them fairly specifically. And the way to word such an amendment is not at all obvious, it requires a good deal of analysis and thought and i hope to assemble teams of experts to work out the wording. For how to do that in the meantime i have proposed my own wording if on constitution.org you will find a link to constitutional amendments…

So I tried to find the video but could not and instead I fell down a very interesting rabbit hole leading to

Jon Roland: (Civic Curriculum Vitae)

 His blogs

• Sociedad Bastiat
• Constitution

His videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/JonRoland1787

Gee! I think those are the Droids I was looking for! 🤗 And WOW what a treasure trove of information on the Constitution. Linked below are just two of the goodies at that website.

Abuses and Usurpations

“𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕤𝕥 𝕚𝕤 𝕟𝕠𝕥 𝕓𝕖𝕥𝕨𝕖𝕖𝕟 𝕌𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕋𝕙𝕖𝕞, 𝕓𝕦𝕥 𝕓𝕖𝕥𝕨𝕖𝕖𝕟 𝔾𝕠𝕠𝕕 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝔼𝕧𝕚𝕝, 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕚𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕖 𝕨𝕙𝕠 𝕨𝕠𝕦𝕝𝕕 𝕗𝕚𝕘𝕙𝕥 𝔼𝕧𝕚𝕝 𝕒𝕕𝕠𝕡𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕨𝕒𝕪𝕤 𝕠𝕗 𝔼𝕧𝕚𝕝, 𝔼𝕧𝕚𝕝 𝕨𝕚𝕟𝕤.”

Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. — Frederick Douglass, civil rights activist, Aug. 4, 1857

Any power that can be abused will be abused. — Tyranny Law #1

Abuse always expands to fill the limits of resistance to it. — Tyranny Law #2

If people don’t resist the abuses of others, they will have no one to resist the abuses of themselves, and tyranny will prevail. — Tyranny Law #3

Usurpations

Usurpation is the exercise of powers by an agent which have not been delegated to him by the principal. In a constitutional republic like the United States of America, acts by officials are legitimate only if they are consistent with and based on a constitution, a body of laws which are superior to all subsequent statutes and other acts of officials, which embodies all delegations of power, and which may recognize certain rights to further define the limits on the powers delegated. It is a fundamental principle that all acts of officials not derived from the delegated powers of the constitution are null and void from inception, not just from the point at which a court may find them unconstitutional. Every person who has an encounter with the acts of officials has the duty not only to obey legitimate official acts, but to help enforce them, but, when there is a conflict among acts of officials, to enforce the superior one, which, when an act of an official is in conflict with the constitution, means enforcing the constitution and not the act in conflict with it. Judges and other citizens do not decide constitutionality, but discover it, and every person who is involved with any act by an official has a nondelegatable duty to make a determination of the constitutionality of that act. This determination is called constitutional review, and, when exercised by a judge in a case, judicial review.

Since the ratification of the Constitution for the United States and each of its properly ratified amendments, there have been numerous acts by officials, including statutes, regulations, executive orders, court rulings, and ordinary decisions and actions taken while on duty and under color of law, which have been unconstitutional, and in many cases, in violation of civil rights of persons and of constitutional laws. We will try to identify some of the worst of such violations of the Constitution, and discuss how compliance with the Constitution can be restored.

Then follows over 50 links to other articles and documents.

….
His Constitution.org site also had this with 25 articles referenced:

Nondelegation and the Administrative State

The doctrine of nondelegation is explicit or implicit in all written constitutions that impose a structural separation of powers. It is usually applied in questions of constitutionally improper delegations of legislative powers to executive branch officials, but may be more broadly applied to questions of improper delegations of legislative powers to judicial officials, improper delegations of judicial powers to legislative or executive officials, improper delegations of executive powers to legislative or judicial officials, improper delegations of legislative or judicial powers to clerical subordinates within their branches, or improper delegations of legislative, judicial, or executive powers to private parties, or improper delegations of private powers to public officials. Although it is usually constitutional for executive officials to delegate executive powers to executive branch subordinates, there can also be improper delegations of powers within an executive branch.

Finally, there is the broadest application of all, the nondelegation from the people of a power to any officials in a constitution, the principle of which is set forth in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

An example of one of the documents referenced in this article:

Reviving the Sleeping Nondelegation Doctrine — USLaw.com

Congress sometimes has a habit of passing laws with very broad mandates, then leaving it up to administrative agencies to fill in all of the policy details later.

In the 1930s, the Supreme Court blew the whistle on this practice, finding several times that Congress could not give away lawmaking powers vested in it by Article I of the Constitution. In 1935 in Schechter Poultry Company v. U.S., for example, the court struck down parts of the National Industrial Recovery Act, which essentially delegated legislative powers to administrative agencies and private parties to write rules to govern the American economy. Congress had given only the vaguest guidance as to how to do it–ensuring “fair competition.”

The principle that Congress could not delegate away its Article I lawmaking powers to administrative agencies came to be known as the “nondelegation doctrine.”

Six Decades of Dormancy

For six decades the nondelegation doctrine has pretty much been asleep. In 1980, in Industrial Union Dept AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, then-Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist summarized the three main functions of the nondelegation doctrine: it guarantees that key social policy decisions will be made by Congress, it ensures that administrative agencies get an “intelligible principle” by which to exercise their discretion, and it guarantees that courts reviewing administrative actions will have ascertainable and meaningful standards against which to judge them.

But no court has dared question a legislative enactment as a violation of the doctrine for a long time –that is, until the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rendered its decision last year in American Trucking Association v. Environmental Protection Agency. There, the court found that the EPA’s “construction of the Clean Air Act. . . in promulgating the NAAQS (National Air Ambient Quality Standards) effects an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.” The court said that, in delegating so much power to the EPA to decide clean air rules, “it is as though Congress commanded EPA to select ‘big guys,’ and EPA announced that it would evaluate candidates based on height and weight, but revealed no cut-off point. The announcement. . .is fatally incomplete. The reasonable person responds, ‘How tall? How heavy?'” With this vivid analogy, the nondelegation doctrine sprung back to life.

Revived or Put Into Deeper Sleep?

Or did it? The problem with the D.C. Circuit’s so-called “revival” of the nondelegation doctrine is that it looks a lot more like a burial. The court’s tortured formulation of the problem makes no sense. It is not the EPA’s construction of the statute that effects an unconstitutional delegation; it is Congress’ statute itself. EPA’s construction of the statute cannot determine, much less cure, its constitutionality. Yet, having made this fundamental error, the court follows through on it by remanding the case to the EPA to come up with an “intelligible principle” that will, amazingly, somehow magically cure the statute of its unconstitutionality. But how can an agency rewrite a congressional statute to make it constitutional?….

Another interesting reference is:

LEGAL ORIGINS OF THE MODERN AMERICAN STATE   by William J. Novak1

 Between 1877 and 1937 (between the formal end of Reconstruction and the formal constitutional ratification of the New Deal), the American system of governance was transformed with momentous implications for twentieth-century social and economic life. Nineteenth-century traditions of self-government and local citizenship were replaced by a modern approach to positive statecraft, individual rights, and social welfare very much with us today…. By “The Creation of the American Liberal State” I mean to suggest that the period from 1877 to 1937 was not just an “age of reform” or a “response to industrialism” or a “search for order” (Hofstadter 1955; Hays 1957; Wiebe 1967). Rather, it was an era marked by the specific and unambiguous emergence of a new regime of American governance — the modern liberal state….  the very origins of modern social-scientific inquiry in the United States were wholly coincident with and participatory in the construction of the new state-centered socio-economic policies of the progressive era… 

The Progressive Discovery that Law Obstructs Politics

It is easy amid the rapid shifts in contemporary intellectual fashion to forget the long and pervasive hold of “progressive historiography” on American thought during the first half of the twentieth century (Hofstadter 1968; Benson 1960; Horwitz 1984). From the turn-of-the-century through the late New Deal, American political and economic development was interpreted primarily through the filter of intellectual categories developed in contests over progressive reform in the early twentieth century….

The confrontation between FDR’s New Deal legislation and Supreme Court constitutional review breathed new life into the progressive critique of law. In 1938… Benjamin Twiss began his Lawyers and the Constitution: How Laissez Faire Came to the Supreme Court (1942) as a direct response to the “revolution of 1937″ and as a direct attack on the “Four Horsemen” of anti-New Deal judicial apocalypse: Justices Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland, and Butler. Twiss’s story about law and the New Deal re-deployed the stock figures and simple morals of a mature progressive historiography…

𝔸𝕞𝕖𝕣𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕟 𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕘𝕣𝕖𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕧𝕖𝕤 𝕗𝕖𝕝𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕚𝕣 𝕝𝕖𝕘𝕚𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕧𝕖 𝕒𝕘𝕖𝕟𝕕𝕒 𝕨𝕒𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕟𝕖𝕕 𝕓𝕪 𝕒 𝕊𝕦𝕡𝕣𝕖𝕞𝕖 ℂ𝕠𝕦𝕣𝕥 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝔸𝕞𝕖𝕣𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕟 𝕛𝕦𝕣𝕚𝕤𝕡𝕣𝕦𝕕𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕚𝕒𝕝 𝕥𝕣𝕒𝕕𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕤 𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕝𝕖 𝕥𝕠 𝕣𝕖𝕘𝕦𝕝𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟, 𝕣𝕖𝕕𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕚𝕓𝕦𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟, 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕣𝕖𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕞. 𝕀𝕟 𝕣𝕖𝕤𝕡𝕠𝕟𝕤𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕒𝕤𝕤𝕖𝕞𝕓𝕝𝕖𝕕 𝕒𝕟 𝕦𝕟𝕡𝕣𝕖𝕔𝕖𝕕𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕕 𝕡𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕣𝕗𝕦𝕝 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕝 𝕒𝕤𝕤𝕒𝕦𝕝𝕥 𝕠𝕟 𝔸𝕞𝕖𝕣𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕟 𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕥𝕦𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕞.

Behind the progressive mythology of negative laissez-faire constitutionalism lies an alternative story of law’s positive force in producing a modern state in America. And contrary to oddly influential European proclamations of the weakness and incompleteness of that state, the obvious empirical reality is that the story of the twentieth-century American state is about the creation of a most powerful geo-political entity. That entity, which has wielded staggering global influence in the twentieth century, was patently not the simple outgrowth of possessive individualism or the protection of private rights of property and contract or a governmental willingness to “leave alone.” It was the product of a continuous and energetic process of statebuilding…

“..the obvious empirical reality is that the story of the twentieth-century American state is about the creation of a most powerful geo-political entity… It was the product of a continuous and energetic process of statebuilding….”He leave out the tiny little fact that the USA was transformed into the British Empire’s Front Man and Cannon Fodder after the passage of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. We have been fighting Banker Wars ever since.

“All Wars Are Bankers Wars” (45 minutes)

One of the references cited in the above article is this 1938 book:

Court over Constitution: A study of judicial review as an instrument of popular government by Edward S. Corwin 1938.

I am not about to buy the book but I did find this thanks to Yandex. Brave only had one pointer. It was to “Good Reads’ with no info. Not even a review. 🤔

In trying to find more about that book I was led to:

FEDERALIST NO. 78 AND BRUTUS’ NEGLECTED THESIS ON JUDICIAL SUPREMACY 

It is noteworthy that whenever Marbury v. Madison is discussed in works on constitutional law, text books or case books, reference is invariably made to Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of judicial review in Federalist No. 78 as an early indication that the principle was regarded as a fundamental part of the system of government set up under the Constitution. Surprisingly, these works, almost without exception, fail to refer to the Antifederalist Letters of Brutus to which this number of the Federalist Papers constitutes a response. This is a regrettable omission since No. 78 cannot be properly understood except in the context of Brutus’ charge that the Constitution provided, not only for judicial review, but for judicial supremacy….

What concerned Brutus, in the first instance, was the use to which the court would apply judicial review in the service of national consolidation and how this would threaten the independence and survival of the states. 👉The judicial power, Brutus warned, would operate to affirm and legitimate all the invasions of state power committed by the national legislature.👈 “The real effect of this system of government, will … be brought home to the feelings of the people, through the medium of the judicial power.”

….Brutus went on to point out another crucial distinction between the British and American systems of government – the ability of Parliament to severely restrict the broader impact of an unwarranted and inappropriate judicial interpretation of the constitution – a power entirely lacking to the U.S. Congress.

The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void; and therefore in this respect their power is superior to that of the legislature. In England the judges are not only subject to have their decisions set aside by the house of lords, for error, but in cases where they give an explanation to the laws or constitution of the country, contrary to the sense of the parliament, though the parliament will not set aside the judgment of the court, yet, they have authority, by a new law, to explain a former one, and by this means to prevent a reception of such decisions. But no such power is in the [U.S.] legislature. The judges are supreme-and no law, explanatory of the constitution, will be binding on them.

The end result was that,

(t]here is no power above them to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.

Thus one can understand why George Soros targets judges and state attorneys general. People who fly under the radar of most people but who wield tremendous power.

Rights, Powers and Duties

On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. — Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. — George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

I am going to again post the URL of another Constitutionalist, “Publius Huldah” the nom de guerre of Joanna Martin, J.D.

⁽¹⁾ Footnote: LINK to article about Victor Marchetti, former senior CIA official, who wrote a book exposing CIA deceptions. The CIA  remove 399 passages, nearly a fifth of the book.  That article defines ‘Limited Hangout’ thus: