Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @eyeslasho @realDonaldTrump @eyeslasho PLEASE CONSIDER: In th

    RT @curtdoolittle: @eyeslasho @realDonaldTrump @eyeslasho
    PLEASE CONSIDER:
    In the english constitution “the monarchy is above the law in t…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-16 00:20:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1890919207417663584

  • @eyeslasho PLEASE CONSIDER: In the english constitution “the monarchy is above t

    @eyeslasho
    PLEASE CONSIDER:
    In the english constitution “the monarchy is above the law in the restoration of the law”. This is the last necessary function of our monarchies. They overcome the limitations of oligarchical, republican, parliamentary, and democratic governments.

    If the choice is between civil war, insurrection, internecine conflict, decline, conquest or collapse vs a constitutional restoration followed by voluntary abdication, is to do so as the least of all evils. As we have seen repeatedly and successfully especially during the Roman era, then this is the obligation of kings – and lacking one, a president – if, done by restoring the constitution, including natural law, the sovereignty of the people, the sovereignty of the court in their defense from the state, the sovereignty of the states within the federation, the empiricism of the common law, the empiricism of concurrency between classes, regions, and states in voting and in legislation. We have a purely empirical system of federal government – a market between states. And it has been usurped in the war era by ideologists, and in the postwar period by credentialists and their ideology – all of which violate the above listed principles: a science of political decidability.

    Depending upon how you count them, our constitution and bill of rights have between eight and two dozen holes. They were the product of Blackstone, the long development of the natural law of cooperation through enlightenment empiricism – and as stated by the founders, dependent upon a moral population, and the unstated traditions they carried with them. So while their theory of cooperation was in fact scientific, they did not capture its entirety and in doing so left it open to seditions – seditions we have seen manifest and most aggressively since the end of the world wars, reaching their peak in the lawfare of the sixties, and the capture of education, media, and the state since then.

    I have been working for the majority of my adult life, and so has our organization, to prevent the rather deterministic outcome of these many abuses, which we, like others before us, anticipated would culminate in a civil war before the end of the next decade. But as so many august authors have noted, americans can adapt faster than all other nations combined. What began as the Reagan revolution, expanded to the Tea Party, and has become the foundation of the Trump movement, was to historians of civilizational cycles, as predictable as the seasons.

    So, if it has come to pass that the lower courts have been captured as thoroughly as the bureaucracy, the media, the academy, and the international financial sector – then let us have our peaceful revolution by political restoration of the law, rather than the bloodshed that would result otherwise.

    The world has changed more than we had expected as our failure to completely defeat the remaining agrarian empires during the world wars, gave sustenance to their survival, and our long project to end empires in favor of sovereign nation states, federations around a core state, and the transformation of landed conflict to economic competition – a virtuous cycle – has not survived our the dissipation of our population, our culture, our scientific and technological advantage, our institutional advantage, and the economic and military result that made our efforts at domesticating man for the new era possible.

    Do not presume pour choice is between continuing the past and a political reformation, when the past is no longer possible and our choice is between that reformation or civil war, decline, and possible collapse, in a world of empires reemergent – let loose by our folly.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    BURNHAM’S FAILURES OF DEMOCRACIES
    Burnham presents a realist analysis of politics, arguing that democratic governments tend to converge on bad decisions due to the inevitable dominance of elite rule and the structural incentives that undermine genuine representation and accountability. This tendency arises from several interrelated principles:

    1. The Iron Law of Oligarchy (Michels)
    All political organizations, including democracies, inevitably develop an elite ruling class.
    This elite, once in power, acts in its own self-interest rather than in the interest of the public.
    Over time, democratic institutions become facades for oligarchic rule, where elites manipulate democratic processes to maintain their dominance.

    2. Political Myth and Manipulation
    Public opinion is shaped by myths, slogans, and ideology rather than rational decision-making.
    Elites use these myths (e.g., ‘the will of the people’) to justify their rule while making decisions that serve their own interests.

    3. The Circulation of Elites (Pareto)
    Societies experience a continual replacement of elites, but new elites adopt the same self-serving behaviors as their predecessors.
    Elites use both force and persuasion (‘lions and foxes’) to retain power, leading to policies that prioritize elite survival over public welfare.

    4. Democratic Degeneration into Mass Bureaucracy
    As democracies expand and become bureaucratic, decision-making shifts from accountable representatives to unaccountable administrative and technocratic elites.
    Bureaucrats and entrenched interest groups create policies that protect their own power rather than optimize for societal well-being.

    5. Short-Term Incentives and the Decay of Responsibility (Owner vs Renter incentives, political tragedy of the commons)
    Democratic leaders prioritize short-term electoral success over long-term governance.
    Policies that provide immediate political gain (e.g., welfare expansion, deficit spending, demagoguery) tend to be chosen over difficult but necessary decisions.

    6. Majoritarian Pressure and Mediocrity
    Democracy incentivizes appealing to the lowest common denominator rather than promoting excellence.
    Politicians must cater to mass sentiment, which often favors simplistic, emotional, or expedient solutions over sound governance.

    These principles explain why democratic governments tend to make systematically poor decisions: they are captured by oligarchic elites, shaped by mass manipulation, driven by short-term incentives, and constrained by bureaucratic inertia.

    Reply addressees: @eyeslasho @realDonaldTrump


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-16 00:20:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1890919175717265408

  • READ AND UNDERSTAND 😉 The differences in applying your work on Natural Law and

    READ AND UNDERSTAND 😉

    The differences in applying your work on Natural Law and Decidability, Common Law, Constitutional Law, and Case Law arise from their respective methods of determining reciprocity, resolving disputes, and producing decidability. Each of these frameworks applies different tests of truth, authority, and precedent.

    1. Your Work on Natural Law and Decidability

    Method: Operationalism, Testifiability, Reciprocity, and Constructive Decidability

    Your framework is based on universal commensurability, ensuring that all claims are operationally constructible, testifiable, and reciprocal in their effects.
    Natural Law is a system for determining whether an action or claim violates reciprocity, which is the necessary condition for continued cooperation.
    Your approach does not require prior precedent but rather derives decidability from first principles, particularly demonstrated interests, sovereignty, and reciprocity.
    You provide a strict scientific method for falsification, ensuring that claims can be tested not just in courts but in all domains of knowledge where claims must be warrantable (truthful, reciprocal, restitutable).

    ✅ Best Used For:
    Testing all claims against an absolute standard of reciprocity.
    Addressing moral, legal, economic, and social disputes where precedent is insufficient or corruptible.
    Developing new legal standards, laws, or policies that maximize cooperation and minimize parasitism.
    Applying strict epistemic standards to legal, scientific, and economic claims.

    2. Common Law

    Method: Empirical Precedent & Dispute Resolution by Demonstrated Consensus

    Common Law emerges organically from a long history of case resolutions, where judges determine outcomes based on previously successful resolutions of similar disputes.
    The focus is on practical precedent, meaning that while Natural Law seeks ideal reciprocity, Common Law seeks the best available historical solutions that maintain social order.
    Its primary concern is restoring symmetry (restitution) in cases of harm or contract violation.

    ✅ Best Used For:
    Resolving private disputes where precedent provides a clear, functional resolution.

    Ensuring consistency and predictability in legal outcomes.
    Maintaining order in a decentralized, judge-driven system of dispute resolution.

    ⚠️ Limitations:
    Can drift from Natural Law if bad precedents accumulate due to biased or politically influenced decisions.

    Not absolute—depends on prior cases rather than direct falsification of claims using epistemic tests.

    3. Constitutional Law

    Method: Foundational Contracts for Governance & Rule-Limitation

    Constitutional Law codifies the highest-level principles that govern a polity, defining rights, responsibilities, and state powers.

    Unlike Natural Law, which determines truth from first principles, Constitutional Law is an agreement among the governed.
    The Constitution sets boundaries for state power, often rooted in a mix of Natural Law principles (reciprocity) and historical common law practices.

    ✅ Best Used For:
    Defining state limits, sovereignty, and procedural constraints on power.
    Providing a fixed framework for governance that stabilizes legal interpretation over time.

    Acting as the highest legal authority, under which Common Law and Case Law must operate.

    ⚠️ Limitations:
    Requires interpretation, leading to legal manipulation by those in power.
    Can be modified or ignored through political pressure, often violating Natural Law principles.

    Does not always guarantee reciprocity, as some constitutional provisions may allow asymmetries (e.g., unequal taxation, affirmative action, etc.).

    4. Case Law (Judicial Precedent in the Modern System)

    Method: Legal Interpretation by Courts

    Case Law refers to past judicial decisions that shape how laws are applied.

    Unlike Common Law, which is decentralized and empirically derived, Case Law is shaped by courts within a statutory system.

    It is binding in many cases, even if it violates reciprocity or Natural Law, due to political and institutional constraints.

    ✅ Best Used For:
    Establishing legal consistency in a statutory system.
    Determining how written laws apply to new, complex situations.

    ⚠️ Limitations:
    Judges often engage in judicial activism, creating new law rather than interpreting existing law.
    Courts can become politicized, rendering precedent arbitrary rather than reciprocal.
    Does not necessarily follow Common Law, Constitutional Law, or Natural Law, and often reflects political ideology rather than truth-seeking.

    Decision Tree for Application
    1. If the question involves testing a claim for truth and reciprocity → Apply your framework (Natural Law & Decidability).
    2. If the question is about resolving private disputes within an existing legal tradition → Apply Common Law (precedent-based resolution).
    3. If the question concerns state power, government authority, or rights of citizens → Apply Constitutional Law (binding legal contract over governance).
    4. If the question concerns legal precedents in a statutory system → Apply Case Law (judicial interpretations and prior rulings).

    Final Summary
    Natural Law & Decidability seeks absolute, testifiable truth based on reciprocity and operational validity.
    Common Law is an empirical system that records practical solutions but can drift from truth.
    Constitutional Law is a formalized contract but is subject to legal and political manipulation.
    Case Law is precedent-based, but susceptible to judicial activism and politicization.

    Your framework offers the most rigorous and falsifiable method of producing decidability. The others are institutional adaptations that balance truth-seeking, stability, and governance constraints, often at the cost of reciprocity.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-14 04:14:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1890253375209652224

  • You are clearly using your own judgement instead of that of the people with vast

    You are clearly using your own judgement instead of that of the people with vastly more experience with the consequences of leaks, and you’re also apparently ignorant of the legal problem of prescedence in this matters – in that the company cannot allow a minor violation (the “jaywalking problem”) to give opportunity to imitators, and from imitators to scale.

    In other words, you stepped over a line you should not have and it’s because you placed too much weight on your own personal judgement when that judgement was made in ignorance.

    You should have understood you do not have the right to put information into the ‘commons’ when you are an employee or contractor of an organization.

    It’s almost certainly in either your employment agreement or an employee handbook or equivalent.

    Reply addressees: @BenjaminDEKR @oalexdoda


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-12 19:45:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1889762892012199937

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1889623002553192476

  • RT @ThruTheHayes: THE LAW IS BEING IGNORED The law emerged as something everyone

    RT @ThruTheHayes: THE LAW IS BEING IGNORED

    The law emerged as something everyone heeded. This precisely because the common law is an emerg…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-11 14:57:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1889328002150142110

  • A baker has to make a cake, but a doctor doesn’t have to care for a patient? (I’

    A baker has to make a cake, but a doctor doesn’t have to care for a patient?

    (I’m sure someone will jump on this before we do but I’d love the press coverage for filing that suit. 😉 ) https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1889165106187284617

  • Unclear. Instead, blocking policy is different from blocking access to a departm

    Unclear. Instead, blocking policy is different from blocking access to a department overseen by the executive branch. I don’t see how that stands nor have I seen an argument that survives basic scrutiny. We should keep in mind that the judges sometimes buy time because either they don’t feel competent to rule with the arguments presented or they want an excuse to pass it up the judicial hierarchy. Judicial competence in these matters is limited to the federal appeals and Supreme Court. As such while its increasingly true ideology is the origin, it’s equally true that education even in the legal profession has been equally subject to decline and expanded incompetence as it has been elsewhere. The number of people with sufficient iq and knowledge declines with average iq, and the USA is hurting.

    Reply addressees: @RichardArion1


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-10 23:13:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1889090251592994816

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1889088146236658102

  • this might be the case we are looking for. I suspect the pres will act first but

    this might be the case we are looking for. I suspect the pres will act first but our effort would be limited and could be argued in parallel.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-10 23:06:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1889088594666831965

    Reply addressees: @ThruTheHayes

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1889082791436190051



    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    Very smart.
    If this doesn’t happen in the next few days our organisation might consider an action either directly or in parallel. https://twitter.com/RealDanHuff/status/1888975398299435477

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1889082791436190051

  • RT @ThruTheHayes: EQUILIBRATION ISN’T FOUND ON BALANCE SHEETS Justice requires b

    RT @ThruTheHayes: EQUILIBRATION ISN’T FOUND ON BALANCE SHEETS

    Justice requires being served to balance scales.

  • RT @ThruTheHayes: THE LANGAUGE OF LAW The language of the law requires it be cal

    RT @ThruTheHayes: THE LANGAUGE OF LAW

    The language of the law requires it be calculative and operational, actionable at human scale, decip…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-02-08 22:53:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1888360418365837619