I believe our issues spring from a disagreement over the most basic principles of government.
I personally believe that because any government draws power from the consent and good-will of the people, that the people's direct will supersedes federal law. And this belief is found at the very heart of my proposal.
You no doubt believe governments have the natural right to exist and to have power, so they then supersede the individuals or the masses.
So under my logic and interpretation of government, my proposal is very much legal, whereas your philosophy disregards it completely as crazy.
Once again the PEOPLE surrendered certain things when they agreed to the Constitution. One of them is that Federal law supersedes State and local laws and authority. Acts of Congress and acts of the Executive that are legal under the Constitution are the law of the land. And the Constitution, which the people agreed to, stipulates HOW one challenges Federal law and statute. That is either through another act of Congress or through the Courts.
Your logic is wrong, the people already surrendered the power you are questioning.
So you believe one surrender of power in the belief of a just and somewhat fair government warrants the theft of our rights and freedoms now?
So you believe the myth that we have immutable rights and freedoms?