>>1911930 lb
whoa that is a good one.
JFK 5:5 Q , wow amazing coincidences.
5
6
i think its just saying that if one part of the
"contract" is unconstitutional, it does not
make the contract void, that the rest of the
contract holds.
i suppose it's possible.
Did POTUS know the ruling already?
Only way to use it as an attack type?
This is a very old case. Hmmm. Not a law type.
US v Reynolds.
extension of presidential power.
Was the affirmation proper?
Justice cannot be served when beneath
secrecy.
How could be sure of justice otherwise?
That's a hard decision.
Can exposed secretes hurt us to no return?
That they be protected by law against the ppl?
If such a secret exist, who holds the power
to deny access besides the President and
those that know by result of operations.
Or should the people know all.
Taxpayer information.
How can ppl control the government,
if they can't see it's operations?
How fight war without secrecy.
Hard decisions affecting justice.
Yes that is sly language that keeps the contract
in tact. How much more of it is unconstitutional?
Useable against the people?
"He is, after, the Greatest Shitposter Master Troll that uses twaat to perfection to achieve his goals & communicates directly to us, and then Q posts here to show the correlations in their comms."
anon, 6/26/18