Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • DO LAWS EXPIRE UNDER P? QUICK DEFINITIONS: LAW – rules in a given political orde

    DO LAWS EXPIRE UNDER P?

    QUICK DEFINITIONS:

    LAW – rules in a given political order

    NATURAL LAW – Reciprocity

    COMMAND – Rule by Degree

    LEGISLATION – A rule by decree of a legislative body

    REGULATION – Rule for enforcing legislation

    CONTRACT OF THE COMMONS – A contract between representatives on behalf of the people having force of law.

    FINDING OF LAW – record of decision made by a court for future reference.

    BODY OF LAW – the sum of all of the above.

    CONTRACT – an agreement under law insured by a court.

    A constitution describes process and procedure for the production of commons.

    All contracts must state dependencies, fulfillment criteria, an expiration date, termination clauses, means of restitution, and responsible parties.

    Under P-Law we may only make contracts of the commons, and findings of law.

    Regulations are processed as changes to the terms of the contract of the commons.

    As such all contracts of the commons expire.

    As such we should expect regular renewal of those contracts whose value remains in place – and regular termination of contracts of the commons and regulations that no longer apply – and a chain of terminated contracts of the commons and regulations that are dependent upon those terminated contracts of the commons.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 23:06:00 UTC

  • Judicial material ‘priesthood’, Religious spiritual priesthood. As always, rende

    Judicial material ‘priesthood’, Religious spiritual priesthood. As always, render unto caesar the material world, and unto the gods the spiritual.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 18:10:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224757228051357697

    Reply addressees: @Sov3r3ignSoul @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224738096706510848


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224738096706510848

  • WHY WILL NEW LAWS WORK? —-“My point is how is a new set of laws going to chang

    WHY WILL NEW LAWS WORK?

    —-“My point is how is a new set of laws going to change human nature? We are a nation of many different peoples with many different religions , cultures and morals.

    What one group of people see as acceptable another group sees as unacceptable.

    I do agree that whatever laws we have , and few they should be, should apply equally to everyone regardless of any status.”—John Lafferty

    GOOD QUESTION

    1) Under the natural law, we are each sovereigns (kings of different countries). Our contract with one another is an alliance that insures one another’s sovereignty. That is our ‘social contact’- it’s not social at all. It’s military. As such we are all equal before the law, because the law is nothing more than reciprocal insurance of one another’s sovereignty, and therefor the requirement for reciprocity in all interactions; and that in any violation of reciprocity, they may request defense restitution and punishment from the allies. So we are unequal in ability, unequal in value to one another, equal under the law, and equally insured. But we are sovereign, autonomous mini-countries, with each man, woman, and children and their land the smallest possible nation.

    2) Natural law is a description of human nature. It is the MOST descriptive of human nature. Reciprocity is the same as the law of thermodynamics – but with our memory we can create credits(give help) and debts(receive help) with one another: But reciprocity is unavoidable because people demonstrably spend heavily on punishing irreciprocity – both interpersonally by retaliation, judicially by restitution, and socially by what we call altruistic punishment.

    3) No, while people WANT differently, people all see irreciprocity equally: bad. They see proportionality differently. In other words, the right sees capitalizing, meritocracy, hierarchy and reciprocity more important than proportionality, and the left sees consumption, equidistribution, equality, and proportionality more important than reciprocity.

    This is just an expression of cognitive differences in development since these reflect female consumptive short term dysgenic, and male capitalizing long term eugenic strategies.

    4) Given that we express different strategic demands, under the same natural law we can separate and pursue our different strategies (and the left will die off), or we can be eradicated by the left and all die off in another dark age, or we can eradicate the left and transcend man into the gods we imagine.

    The only solutions are separation to produce our commons, conquest, or failure.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 12:41:00 UTC

  • THE MONARCHY UNDER THE ONE LAW by Bill Joslin Under One Law, where by no group o

    THE MONARCHY UNDER THE ONE LAW

    by Bill Joslin

    Under One Law, where by no group or individual obtains the power to write law, the king can be under law without the risk of molestation by politicians. I’d say, evidenced by Charle’s decapitated body, this One Law is already enforced by nature whether we agree, understand, notice or not. Its just a matter of what time horizon the judgements are passed. by aligning with this One Law, and decreasing latency between act and judgment, we can use nature to create the disincentive with in the actors lifetime and avoid the tails of damages breaking One Law creates.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 22:08:00 UTC

  • SHOULD A MONARCH BE ABOVE THE LAW? Yes. Otherwise they are the victims of politi

    SHOULD A MONARCH BE ABOVE THE LAW?

    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)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 21:00:00 UTC

  • You keep taking a confident position then keep demonstrating you’re wrong. It’s

    You keep taking a confident position then keep demonstrating you’re wrong. It’s cute and all. But like I said you could just be honest and ask what the constitution would recommend:

    Devolution to the original construction of the constitution with DC as insurer of last resort.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 16:29:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224369314024902656

    Reply addressees: @HeadProph @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224368212076265473


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @HeadProph @realDonaldTrump You seem to claim to have knowledge you don’t possess. Do you think everyone else is a timid basement dweller like you? And if I was going to organize this would be the very last place I would do it. There is no value in numbers or popularity. Mass movements are for leftists 😉

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1224368212076265473


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @HeadProph @realDonaldTrump You seem to claim to have knowledge you don’t possess. Do you think everyone else is a timid basement dweller like you? And if I was going to organize this would be the very last place I would do it. There is no value in numbers or popularity. Mass movements are for leftists 😉

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1224368212076265473

  • So that they are accountable for their party actions; for the commitments they m

    So that they are accountable for their party actions; for the commitments they made; liable for the constitutionality of legislation and regulation they sign; and for their display word and deed. That’s accountability.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 15:53:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224360173420056577

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224360172254105602


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    Democratic representatives are not accountable in any measurable way other than to throw out the entire party via cyclical dissatisfied with status quo. P-Law constrains them to truthful reciprocal constitutional speech, requires stated terms, subjects them to legal prosecution.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1224360172254105602


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    Democratic representatives are not accountable in any measurable way other than to throw out the entire party via cyclical dissatisfied with status quo. P-Law constrains them to truthful reciprocal constitutional speech, requires stated terms, subjects them to legal prosecution.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1224360172254105602

  • Democratic representatives are not accountable in any measurable way other than

    Democratic representatives are not accountable in any measurable way other than to throw out the entire party via cyclical dissatisfied with status quo. P-Law constrains them to truthful reciprocal constitutional speech, requires stated terms, subjects them to legal prosecution.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 15:53:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224360172254105602

  • NO, THE CONSTITUTION DIDN’T SURVIVE THE CIVIL WAR The constitution didn’t surviv

    NO, THE CONSTITUTION DIDN’T SURVIVE THE CIVIL WAR

    The constitution didn’t survive the civil war. That’s the whole point. If it had, we’d still be a collection of european states like old europe, like it was intended, and people could move to states that had the values that they preferred, while the entire continent could be protected by a unified army (military) as the founders intended.

    The left wants to destroy the constitution as a transactional document of natural law of sovereigns and their reciprocal rights to life, liberty, and property. They want to change from rule OF LAW that limits the state and the people from violating that natural law, to rule BY LAW that violates that constitution of natural law.

    There is no political means of saving the constitution. There is only conflict or at least sufficient threat of consequences of conflict, that will require both parties to settle. The right wants to take over and rule. The left to take over and rule. And I propose converting blue cities to states, with 50% of the population and income, and red states with 50% of the population and income.

    Then to restore the 10th destroyed by the civil war, clearly numerate the federal governments limited scope of powers, and return all power to these states. This will allow the ‘big sort’ to continue and leftists moves to their cities so that they can continue to cause them to collapse one at a a time, while not letting the leftist disease spread to the rest of us. If this is not ‘fair’ then war is preferable and there is zero chance the right will lose.

    There is no possible moral objection to the constitutional amendments we have proposed other than to engage in conquest of peoples and to deprive them of rights to self determination. If that is the case then war is what we are left with.

    You may not deprive us of rights of self determination. Ever.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 14:05:00 UTC

  • Law is science not custom. Custom is falsified by the science

    Law is science not custom.

    Custom is falsified by the science.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 13:47:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224328557238931458

    Reply addressees: @EBryceLee @CorwinElder @FrostieCash @clairlemon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224328474325856258


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @EBryceLee @CorwinElder @FrostieCash @clairlemon There are a not insignificant number of lifetime lawyers that have said “I never understood the logic of the law until you taught it.”

    I do natural law (law), testimony, evidence, jurisprudence, and decidability, under strict construction from reciprocity.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1224328474325856258


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @EBryceLee @CorwinElder @FrostieCash @clairlemon There are a not insignificant number of lifetime lawyers that have said “I never understood the logic of the law until you taught it.”

    I do natural law (law), testimony, evidence, jurisprudence, and decidability, under strict construction from reciprocity.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1224328474325856258