Bill Joslin,
Seems minor but is the hardest problem of training a core: what do men need to learn to change from hopeful and moral, to resigned and legal frames. YOu stated your change of frame. I watched it happen. How can we EXPLICITLY state this objective as a goal of educating ‘men’ so that we rule by reason rather than wishful thinking?
Thanks.
Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence
-
A Goal of Educating ‘men’ so That We Rule by Reason Rather than Wishful Thinking?
-
The Transition We All Must Make: Restoration
THE TRANSITION WE ALL MUST MAKE: RESTORATION
by Bill Joslin
(read this) I’ve changed my mind – norms social commons be damned – these are a bit nebulas and wishy washy. LAW – when law is formalized a civilization coheres – when law breaks down it falls…. Law. Law is the answer. Now look at the state of our legal systems – codified special rights, discretionary legislation…. Looking at a civilization from the basis of its laws makes it obvious that the civilization our forefathers created IS NOT the civilization we live in today. -
Because the law says I can’t cross that line. I can talk about how a revolution
Because the law says I can’t cross that line. I can talk about how a revolution will play out and how I think it will be successful, and what tactics I think will be used. I can state the demands. But crossing the line in to advocating violence is a crime.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-08 20:28:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060630132900151296
Reply addressees: @readomain
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060625687084711936
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/1060625687084711936
-
“TRUMP OPENS THE DOOR TO NATURAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE: A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE BIRT
“TRUMP OPENS THE DOOR TO NATURAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE: A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE BIRTHRIGHT MANOEUVRE
By Zachary Miller, Esq.
The drafter of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause was Jacob Howard, a Senator from Michigan. On the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1866, Sen. Howard said this of his intent regarding that amendment’s Citizenship Clause:
“THE AMENDMENT Which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of ***natural law*** and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
Of course, the currently dominant Scalian originalist legal philosophy does not extend to the contemplation of the intent of the drafter of an amendment; it stops short at the plain language of the document. Trump’s maneuver here is to ask the Supreme Court to go beyond originalism and inquire into Senator Howard’s intent when he drafted the amendment. And if successful, the result will be nothing less than the explicit enshrinement by the United States Supreme Court of the great and ancient natural law into American Constitutional Jurisprudence.” – Zachary Miller
(via Brandon Hayes )
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-08 07:01:00 UTC
-
“Anti-discrimination laws were one erosion of standards by giving immunity from
—“Anti-discrimination laws were one erosion of standards by giving immunity from standards to an entire class of the public. It forced everyone to avoid holding a double standard – you can’t fairly enforce standards on anyone outside of that class if they see you not enforcing it against the protected class (out of legal fear).”—Steve Pender
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-08 06:45:00 UTC
-
Anti-Discrimination Laws
—“Anti-discrimination laws were one erosion of standards by giving immunity from standards to an entire class of the public. It forced everyone to avoid holding a double standard – you can’t fairly enforce standards on anyone outside of that class if they see you not enforcing it against the protected class (out of legal fear).”—Steve Pender
-
Rump Opens the Door to Natural Law Jurisprudence:
“TRUMP OPENS THE DOOR TO NATURAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE: A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE BIRTHRIGHT MANOEUVRE By Zachary Miller, Esq. The drafter of the 14th Amendmentâs Citizenship Clause was Jacob Howard, a Senator from Michigan. On the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1866, Sen. Howard said this of his intent regarding that amendment’s Citizenship Clause: “THE AMENDMENT Which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” Of course, the currently dominant Scalian originalist legal philosophy does not extend to the contemplation of the intent of the drafter of an amendment; it stops short at the plain language of the document. Trump’s maneuver here is to ask the Supreme Court to go beyond originalism and inquire into Senator Howard’s intent when he drafted the amendment. And if successful, the result will be nothing less than the explicit enshrinement by the United States Supreme Court of the great and ancient natural law into American Constitutional Jurisprudence.” – Zachary Miller (via Brandon Hayes )
-
Anti-Discrimination Laws
—“Anti-discrimination laws were one erosion of standards by giving immunity from standards to an entire class of the public. It forced everyone to avoid holding a double standard – you can’t fairly enforce standards on anyone outside of that class if they see you not enforcing it against the protected class (out of legal fear).”—Steve Pender
-
Rump Opens the Door to Natural Law Jurisprudence:
“TRUMP OPENS THE DOOR TO NATURAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE: A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE BIRTHRIGHT MANOEUVRE By Zachary Miller, Esq. The drafter of the 14th Amendmentâs Citizenship Clause was Jacob Howard, a Senator from Michigan. On the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1866, Sen. Howard said this of his intent regarding that amendment’s Citizenship Clause: “THE AMENDMENT Which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” Of course, the currently dominant Scalian originalist legal philosophy does not extend to the contemplation of the intent of the drafter of an amendment; it stops short at the plain language of the document. Trump’s maneuver here is to ask the Supreme Court to go beyond originalism and inquire into Senator Howard’s intent when he drafted the amendment. And if successful, the result will be nothing less than the explicit enshrinement by the United States Supreme Court of the great and ancient natural law into American Constitutional Jurisprudence.” – Zachary Miller (via Brandon Hayes )
-
“Does anyone have rights outside of what the observer fails to or chooses not to
—“Does anyone have rights outside of what the observer fails to or chooses not to challenge?”—Anne Summers
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 23:12:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059946643888500736