Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • ADVICE FOR CANADA: Our organization suggests the following. 1) The Canadian cons

    ADVICE FOR CANADA:
    Our organization suggests the following.

    1) The Canadian constitution made the parliament not the people sovereign – the same mistake made in the rest of the anglosphere. The American constitutions makes the people sovereign over the parliament. This simple failure to preserve the sovereignty of the people is the origin of the undermining of Canadian people.

    2) The people and the parliament are limited by three properties rarely understood, and almost never understood in the States: That the constitution is EMPIRICAL:
    (a) Natural Law (Citizenship as mutual guarantee of Self determination by self determined means, sovereignty in demonstrated interests, reciprocity in display word and deed: tort) as the basis and enumerated rights as enforcement of natural law,
    (b) Concurrency across regions and classes – not majority – in voting and Legislation.
    (c) Common Law: commonality in findings of the court, under natural law and concurrent legislation, producing a government that does not rule, but that serves as a market for the production of commons between states(provinces) and classes.
    If you do not have both popular sovereignty, natural law, concurrency and commonality the people are subjects not sovereigns. They are RULED. Not Governed.

    3) In an information age, there is no value to representatives – they merely create a vehicle for ideology, conspiracy against the people, purchase by special interests, a race to the bottom (tyranny), and corruption. Direct democracy eliminates this vulnerability. Yet direct democracy still requires houses for the classes (Senate(provinces), Upper House (contributors), and a lower house (dependents).)

    4) Please do not give up the Monarchy. Despite centuries of propaganda the solution to government is expansion of the division of labor of governing, not replacement of it. The British Crown requires reinforcement not debasement or elimination. “The purpose of monarchy is to function as a judge of last resort, and above parliament (houses) and legislation in restoration of constitution, natural law, concurrency, and commonality. Our monarchies are constitutionally too weak to protect us from the failings of democratic and government and it’s capture by ideology and credentialism and corruption. And as we have seen overwhelmingly, democratic institutions always fail at the margins. Canada is an example. The USA is an example. Every postwar government outside of liechtenstein and switzerland has been an example.

    5) As many participants in today’s X Space have stated, you must fully integrate and conform and demonstrate loyalty to that culture (informal institutions) and its formal institutions. Or they must exit. As such skepticism to immigrants and skepticism to seditionists (take Quebec for example) must be defended against through education, formal, and informal institutions.

    Affections
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Reply addressees: @JohnnyNash77


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 22:25:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876394573687300096

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876365732109312017

  • RT @AutistocratMS: @ThruTheHayes @curtdoolittle If you were innocent, you wouldn

    RT @AutistocratMS: @ThruTheHayes @curtdoolittle If you were innocent, you wouldn’t need mercy, you’d only need justice.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 21:04:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876374205836693917

  • RT @ThruTheHayes: @curtdoolittle @AutistocratMS {claiming innocence and begging

    RT @ThruTheHayes: @curtdoolittle @AutistocratMS {claiming innocence and begging for mercy is more often than not a display of cunning; you…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 21:02:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876373912470360370

  • Criticism: Curt: –“Separate houses for women? That won’t work!”– Houses of gov

    Criticism: Curt: –“Separate houses for women? That won’t work!”–

    Houses of government formed under western individual (or at least familial) sovereignty and subsequent limits on authority for the purpose of developing concurrency between the classes as a means of creating a market for the production of commons between the classes without violating that sovereignty those limits.
    Women are not a mindless mob – they have priorities counter to the purpose of government which is the production of the capital of the commons which produces reduction in costs for all.
    Your argument is that women cannot be educated, courts established, legislation imposed, laws discoverted to limit the female as much as we have the male instincts and intuitions that are counter to the production of commons.
    Women are environmentally susceptible more so than men, But it’s quite clear that we can create environments. ANd women are more adaptive to such things than men.

    The net is whether we want to pay the cost of domesticating women as thoroughly as we have men, so that their political participation is possible. That cost depends upon the personality and IQ distribution of women in the polity and therefore their adaptability. If IQ declines further the possibility becomes irrelevant. If IQ returned to 115 (pre-industrial revolution) then I think such a thing is possible. In the meantime we merely have to make the choice. I would prefer institutionally domesticating women and limiting political participation to those demonstrating responsibility for the commons and its ever expanding capitalization.

    But it would require an experiment. The reason being that the value of femininity is very high and is a capital we fail to account for like much of social capital. And if we were to lose femininity in exchange for their domestication and integration into politics (which appears to be the case)then personally I would say the trade off doesn’t appear a worthy one.

    I work on solving problems, not admitting defeat just because those who came before me were defeated. 😉

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @RichardArion1


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 20:54:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876371668819652608

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876367042606928214

  • Curt: Accusation:”1) You seem pretty confused. 2) Government stopping leftists f

    —Curt: Accusation:”1) You seem pretty confused. 2) Government stopping leftists from supporting whatever would violate the 1st amendment. 3) that has nothing to do with using the government & taxpayer money to interfere in a foreign country’s domestic politics. Tax and spend imperialism.”— @findfredhampton

    Well, of course, I agree with the second statement.

    Although, regarding the first, I am very likely one of the least confused people living at the moment – something I can say with reluctant confidence, and a great deal of sorrow and frustration.

    But your third statement is false. Musk doesn’t use government and taxpayer money. He doesn’t have to. He’s the richest private citizen in the world (despite lagging far behind Putin.) He only uses his own money, and even then it’s not money he uses so much as his intelligence, credibility, and his platform.

    Just like every other person in the media, every other public intellectual, every other private citizen some percentage of the population looks to for understanding and advocacy.

    Given it’s part of my job, I write criticisms of the UK government and population and certainly public intellectuals with some regularity. Just like many other countries. And, despite reaching millions in the past, only reach tens of thousands today. And much of my work is dense if not incomprehensible to many.

    Instead, Musk is very good at saying the obvious – what many others are thinking – with clarity and parsimony. In doing so he gives legitimacy to those many people who think the same thing but are uncertain of the commonality of their thoughts.

    Cheers,
    CD

    Reply addressees: @findfredhampton @eyeslasho


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 19:46:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876354644584390656

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876348473915871431

  • RT @elonmusk: That is why the founders of America made freedom of speech and the

    RT @elonmusk: That is why the founders of America made freedom of speech and the right to bear arms the first two amendments


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 18:33:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876336287336251803

  • RT @feeonline: “The lust for power outside the law is a recurring danger, and it

    RT @feeonline: “The lust for power outside the law is a recurring danger, and it is confined neither to monarchies nor to the past.”

    – Phi…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-05 21:43:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876021812360065496

  • RT @SamanthaTaghoy: When I came forward about my abuse, I remember being asked b

    RT @SamanthaTaghoy: When I came forward about my abuse, I remember being asked by a detective from the CSE team whether I had “consented” t…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-03 01:04:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1874985168601321811

  • RT @pearlythingz: In this country so many men live quiet lives of desperation in

    RT @pearlythingz: In this country so many men live quiet lives of desperation in the family court system. 12 men committed suicide every da…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-02 03:08:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1874653909484220449

  • (NLI) This is how it’s done. 😉 “Discovery is weaponry”

    (NLI)
    This is how it’s done. 😉
    “Discovery is weaponry” https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1872751758491214282