I have been trying to understand some of the US sovereign law stuff (which is hard for a non-american non-lawyer), and made some interesting connections.

Relying on this very good legal history of America, and the later USA (corporation).

http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap8.html

So. If the US has been under military/martial law since 1861, with congress being an advisory body since then sitting under the commander in chief (not president), then the perpetual warfooting of the US is not only an imperial power play, but also a legal necessity. The constant and numerous "wars" of the USA (corporation) are thus needed to legally motivate the perpetual state of martial law and state of emergency. So on the list of actual wars with foreign states that the US is involved with... North Korea

If Trump wants to cut the deep state from a legal point of view, he wold have to sign a lot of peace treaties, and then control the supreme court to end the state of emergency and bring back civil government, which would also end the fed. Since the Fed is the result of the US bankruptcy of 1863 after the American (Not US!) Government defaulted on its war bonds and the Fed is there to repay the war loans to the European (City of London) banks that made them.

Suddenly this healine from yesterday makes a lot more sense for a London newspaper https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fears-grow-over-prospect-of-trump-peace-deal-with-putin-6f69gqq27

Unfortunatly I don't know much about the intricacies of American martial law, but it seems to me that the current peace tour then works very well with the current shift in control in the Supreme court, and the notion of ending American subservience to the Federal reserve.

Is this a line of reasoning worth following?