>"Gödel's Loophole is an "inner contradiction" in the Constitution of the United States which Austrian-German-American logician, mathematician, and analytic phi

>"Gödel's Loophole is an "inner contradiction" in the Constitution of the United States which Austrian-German-American logician, mathematician, and analytic philosopher Kurt Gödel claimed to have discovered in 1947." [...] >"Since the exact nature of Gödel's Loophole has never been published, what it is, precisely, is not known." Gödel was a brilliant, brilliant Mathematician. There is no doubt, no question about that! In fact, he's one of my personal "Mathematical Heros". In the same league as Ramanujan, Gauss, Euler, Newton, etc. But, while he was all of this, he was also "rank amateur" in terms of finding contradictions in what is commonly called "The Law" (even though this article might have you believe otherwise). Wow, he found one contradiction in the Law! And of course, they don't tell you what it was exactly, leaving you guessing, leaving you wanting to know more -- a common trick used by Hollywood (and book authors) for getting and keeping the audience's attention! One has only to study the Law, or what is commonly called "The Law" -- for a few years, with the mind of a Logician or Computer Programmer -- to discover many, and I mean, many, contradictions... Here's a "fun one" to "whet your whistle": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause >"The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.[1][2][3] [...] >"Text The Equal Protection Clause is located at the end of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Now, compare this equal protection of the laws, with the extremely unequal way that Covid-19 lockdown laws were implemented, State to State, in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdowns#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdowns#United_Stat... >"Stay-at-home orders in the United States have come from several states and a large number of local jurisdictions, sometimes leading to conflicts between different levels of government and a patchwork of inconsistent dates and rules.[610][611][612]" Sometimes leading to conflicts, Wikipedia? ? Try more like ALL OF THE TIME! That is all of them -- are in conflict, contradiction, with the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. You see, for a State's Laws to be valid under the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, it's an all-or-nothing deal. That's because all Laws are like half-filled glasses of water; that is, they have a filled part, and they have an unfilled part. If half of a Law is what protects people, it's like the filled part of the glass of water. The other half of a Law is what encroaches on other people's freedoms and liberties; it's like the unfilled part of the glass of water. If the Laws which protect people (and simultaneously encroach on other peoples freedoms and liberties) are not exactly equal, in each and every State, all of the time, then this would not be unlike each State having its own glass of water -- that was filled to a different level -- than each of the other States... In other words, no longer are individuals in similar situations -- treated equally by the law. The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution -- has been violated -- by these asymmetric, contradictory "Laws". They are therefore, at least according to the Constitution, at least according to the Equal Protection Clause -- fully and thoroughly Unconstitutional (or contradictory, phrased another way) -- yet that hasn't seemed to have been much of an impediment to the groups and parties that implemented them, nor does it seem to be an aspect of things that was discussed or talked about much in the mass media... But, long story short -- there are many contradictions in Law -- if one but studies the subject matter with the mind of a Mathematician, Logician, or Computer Programmer...