Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • Should a Monarch Be Above the Law?

    Should a Monarch Be Above the Law? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/should-a-monarch-be-above-the-law/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 06:58:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264450605235359746

  • Should a Monarch Be Above the Law?

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:00 PM Yes. Otherwise they are the victims of politicians.

    1. There is one way to remove a monarch. It requires revolution.
    2. There is one way to remove a parliament. it requires voting.
    3. There is oneway to remove those who would violate our constitution – the court of the commons.
    4. There is one way to remove those who would violate laws against crimes – the criminal court.

    We have a rather interesting but odd system in that unlike the continent we have no court of the commons (for claims against the state)

  • Should a Monarch Be Above the Law?

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:00 PM Yes. Otherwise they are the victims of politicians.

    1. There is one way to remove a monarch. It requires revolution.
    2. There is one way to remove a parliament. it requires voting.
    3. There is oneway to remove those who would violate our constitution – the court of the commons.
    4. There is one way to remove those who would violate laws against crimes – the criminal court.

    We have a rather interesting but odd system in that unlike the continent we have no court of the commons (for claims against the state)

  • The Question Whether One Generation of Men Has a Right to Bind Another

    The Question Whether One Generation of Men Has a Right to Bind Another https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/the-question-whether-one-generation-of-men-has-a-right-to-bind-another/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 06:57:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264450403300769794

  • The Question Whether One Generation of Men Has a Right to Bind Another

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:10 PM

    (taken from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to James Madison) “I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish to develope a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general dispatches. The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.—I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of it’s lands in severality, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee, or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be the reverse of our principle.”

    (CURT: In other words, (a) debt/inheritance (b) prohibition on dependency collateral (c) the tragedy of renters, (d) the tragedy of the commons )

  • The Question Whether One Generation of Men Has a Right to Bind Another

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:10 PM

    (taken from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to James Madison) “I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish to develope a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general dispatches. The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.—I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of it’s lands in severality, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee, or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be the reverse of our principle.”

    (CURT: In other words, (a) debt/inheritance (b) prohibition on dependency collateral (c) the tragedy of renters, (d) the tragedy of the commons )

  • The Sovereign Is Above Earthly Powers Under Law, Not Above Natural Law

    The Sovereign Is Above Earthly Powers Under Law, Not Above Natural Law https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/the-sovereign-is-above-earthly-powers-under-law-not-above-natural-law/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 06:52:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264449050243403778

  • The Sovereign Is Above Earthly Powers Under Law, Not Above Natural Law

    Feb 3, 2020, 10:07 PM by Scott De Warren A sovereign is above the law in the sense that there is no earthly legal power above him in his kingdom. He is not above natural law, however, in the sense that his sovereignty is not inalienable. For example if he seeks to destroy his kingdom and people or other crimes similar in kind to high treason (selling his sovereignty to a hostile foreign sovereign and thus stripping his people of their liberties) he can lose his sovereign rights in a just revolution (but not his legal heirs already born).

  • The Sovereign Is Above Earthly Powers Under Law, Not Above Natural Law

    Feb 3, 2020, 10:07 PM by Scott De Warren A sovereign is above the law in the sense that there is no earthly legal power above him in his kingdom. He is not above natural law, however, in the sense that his sovereignty is not inalienable. For example if he seeks to destroy his kingdom and people or other crimes similar in kind to high treason (selling his sovereignty to a hostile foreign sovereign and thus stripping his people of their liberties) he can lose his sovereign rights in a just revolution (but not his legal heirs already born).

  • The Monarchy Under the One Law

    The Monarchy Under the One Law https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/the-monarchy-under-the-one-law/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 06:51:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264448845888598016