First some disclaimers. The guy you are hearing talk sounds incredibly racist. You need to understand , as I've been following him a long time , he's basically a signpost of the american constitution. You could call him obsessed (like clinically obsessed, like autistically hyper-focused). And he basically embodies it.

Following the constitution is racist. Both in black letter law and spirit of the law. The codes are no different. Following the codes becomes not only racist but semantically deceitful. And instead of the nation adding to discovery and an emancipation through knowledge, the opposite has been happening. A gradual enslavement of everyone, by adopting its own racist laws into modern chicanery. The key word being when you call yourself "US person" or "US citizen"

If this, in tandem with epstein files, is not cause for a new change I don't know what is.

Is it an ultimate rejection of the constitution? Possibly. But you have to ask yourself: the modern empire that has latched onto America as a parasite to a host (the parasite is the Crown. The Crown is not talking about a hat, it represents a crown of horns) - the Crown is waiting for people to bubble with hatred toward the constitution so that they can swoop in with their new "modern" solution that semantically converts everyone to a slave instead of by a "racist" enslavement (but really an ethnicist) standard.

There are two directions to take as I see it.

*An outright rejection of Law, including Common Law which is another term for constitutional law. I hope I'm wrong: I don't see that happening without civil war. The same civil war that happened in America just before the 13th amendment, but it was ended in a moot conclusion that compromised with the south. The next civil war would be a full rewrite, and it would probably look a lot like the black liberation front with supporters of undocumented immigration on one side vs trumpers (not fundamentally racist but they're put to the test over the constitution) and yes even kkk (but these two groups are not aligned. More like an indirect relation).

*A focus on Trust Law and micronations. If you don't want a bloody horrific exigency, I recommend this route. If you don't take some mechanism of law that already exists, my presumption is that there is too much social cohesion that depends on law like a security blanket.

Outright rejection of law isn't a terrible thing. But you simply won't find the traction to support it. You will end up with some eventual violent conflicts.

Trust Law is powerful enough to be constitutionally recognized. And is enough of a deviation to perform like a soft coup. "I'm not breaking the law. I'm forming a new nation."

Or troll this, and troll the man who is basically living his entire life to make you understand real history. I don't care.

His tactic is at the same time clever as it is ridiculous.

We take the real law and history for what it is, and rather than convolute it as the statanists do: expose, celebrate, and humiliate it all at the same time. He wants big pictures of every race and creed dressed up in nazi uniforms. He wants men with skin black as ebony show up in court identifying as free white men of the union.

Historical law is not a virtue of universal order. It's a fulcrum.