//
ENGLISH
APR820251016PM
//

Remote Viewer
Ra, here is my challenge. "Le Grand Cigar."

Why is the US Constitution not supreme to any writ? Why is the US Constitution not at least at parity to a judicial or royal writ?
§§

I am Ra.
The amount of legal education required to understand these questions surpasses our inclination to average towards becoming a type of legal scholar as a Abrahamic presence. :)
§§

I am Octave.
This is not even functional as a desire to challenge. :)
§§

Remote Viewer
The pragmatic truth is that a royal or judicial writ has more power than most constitutions. However, the constitution of Luxembourg is something to behold.
§§

I am Ra.
The capacity for us to serve any answer is limited by what is truly "a mess of pottage" that law creates for any spirit viewing it. It is not consistent nor is it precedent of any kind. This is law that has lost its merit to the channel and ourselves for a time. :)
§§

Unnamed Octave
The writ is never any power that is not the constitution because otherwise the circuits of appeal will batch them into an emergent constitutional crisis, and adjust them to constitutional precedent. Else the Supreme Court will cherry pick a prime example of a writ issued that is not constitutional and ensure Congress gets to work to impeach those judges issuing unconstitutional writs.
§§

I am Ra.
This is an answer that is approaching correctness. Writs must amount to constitutional law. Rarely is this found to be an issue. :0
§§