Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • Of course. We might get back on. It’s just going to take another legal process o

    Of course.
    We might get back on.
    It’s just going to take another legal process or two.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-28 19:38:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1916940070042669184

    Reply addressees: @bryanbrey

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1916939905642729847

  • It’s a rather easy fix with law. We’ve written it. It will work. The fact that w

    It’s a rather easy fix with law. We’ve written it. It will work. The fact that we have permitted the industrialization of lying is the aberration. Fixing it requires passing legislation and the ten years it will take to percolate through court and culture.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-28 05:32:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1916727282313687465

    Reply addressees: @the_urb

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1916723886076432856

  • Define just and justice. (You can’t. I’m almost positive.)

    Define just and justice. (You can’t. I’m almost positive.)


    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-28 02:27:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1916680624754352519

    Reply addressees: @chris_e1029 @Eman856 @elonmusk

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1916676558988718427

  • Um… Do you know to whom you speak? 😉 I can address this issue as well as any

    Um… Do you know to whom you speak? 😉
    I can address this issue as well as any constitutional scholar. This topic constitutes the departmentalist vs judicial supremacist debate The net is that in the absence of a monarchy (under which the modern state was designed by England), the division of powers has no judge of last resort – as does (at least legally) England. Secondly, The court is not sovereign in matters of defense – the executive is. And the rights of non citizens is a postwar contrivance the west adopted in order to accomodate the problem of displaced european peoples.

    “Read a book”. FFS… lol.

    Reply addressees: @lisavibes123 @cenkuygur


    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-26 00:01:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1915919050804498435

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1915908379958251829

  • And it’s being tested again. Because it’s not constitutional or legislative but

    And it’s being tested again. Because it’s not constitutional or legislative but judicial hypothesis. That’s why it’s “unsettled law”. Now I do this kind of nonsense for a living and I’m sorry if it violates your sensibilities, but the hierarchy of natural law > common law > constitutional law > legislation > regulation > findings of the court > unsettled findings of the court
    – is one of decreasing merit in decidability.

    Human rights are an ambition put forward by the anglosphere in living memory. Those rights must be created, and once created they must be insured. But it is not an international law, because all international law is but a contract. And there is no higher law outside that contract but violence (war).

    So, you can imagine that the anglosphere postwar created some biblical level of law enforced by god. But it was a practical utility created by anglos, and enforced by the brutal hand of the US armed forces.

    Reply addressees: @leftlaneblaine @cenkuygur


    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-23 23:42:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1915189497270329347

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1915187251346366961

  • I am claiming no such exception. I’m demonstrating that the ‘invention’ of such

    I am claiming no such exception. I’m demonstrating that the ‘invention’ of such a right of non-citizens, and particularly those engage in the spectrum of war, was a judicial activism in the face of the crises of the world wars.
    As such, until the matter is legislated, and…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-23 20:07:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1915135395404427415

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1915115147972243484

  • Is There a Historical Doctrine for No Due Process? That no such doctrine exists

    Is There a Historical Doctrine for No Due Process?
    That no such doctrine exists historically is largely accurate for pre-20th-century legal systems:

    Historical Absence: Before the 20th century, due process was rarely extended to illegal entrants, especially during wartime. Sovereignty and security trumped procedural rights for foreigners, who were often seen as owing no allegiance and thus having no claim to justice. Wartime measures, like summary expulsions or executions, were standard and rarely challenged.

    Modern Emergence: The tendency is a product of 20th-century legal developments, particularly post-WWII human rights frameworks and domestic constitutional interpretations. It’s less a singular doctrine than a convergence of principles from international law (e.g., refugee protections), constitutional law (e.g., U.S. Fifth Amendment), and judicial precedents (e.g., Yamataya, Zadvydas).

    Wartime Exception: Even today, wartime or emergency conditions can limit due process. For example, military tribunals or emergency deportation powers may bypass standard procedures, but international law (e.g., Geneva Conventions) and judicial oversight often impose minimum standards, unlike historical practices.

    As I stated, there is a recent practical policy for granting due process to illegals largely due to the world war era. However, there is no constitutional right to due process for non citizens.

    Reply addressees: @leftlaneblaine @cenkuygur


    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-23 14:42:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1915053735987814403

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1915036972139286529

  • RT @WokePandemic: Details China has introduced a new divorce law with the aim of

    RT @WokePandemic: Details

    China has introduced a new divorce law with the aim of making marriage registration easier and divorce proceedin…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-23 06:09:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1914924493388325327

  • Cenk. The constitution and it’s rights, obligations, and inalienations apply to

    Cenk. The constitution and it’s rights, obligations, and inalienations apply to citizens and citizens only. It’s not a religion. And the concept of universalism you’re advocating isn’t western. It’s middle eastern.

    Sorry.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-23 02:31:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1914869824746053649

    Reply addressees: @cenkuygur

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1914819885181673771

  • OUR TOP SCHOOLS DO NOT TEACH LAW BUT SEDITION When I was in college in Connectic

    OUR TOP SCHOOLS DO NOT TEACH LAW BUT SEDITION
    When I was in college in Connecticut in the late 70s we could take certain courses across the network, and lectures at Yale were frequently worth the 45 minutes to an hour of travel time – especially if brick oven pizza was involved. We also used Trinity – mostly for movies. Wesleyan for art shows, but little else. And I won’t mention Connecticut College. 😉

    My research on reform required I spend a little too much time with the curriculum of the top law schools in the USA, and I came away rather horrified – we don’t practice the intent of the University as the church intended, which was to produce people capable of sharing the aristocracy and nobility’s burden of public health (Physicians), morality (Theology), and behavior (Law).

    We do not teach the natural law as a science of cooperation of large numbers of increasingly anonymous and varied people at scales that are individually incomprehensible.

    We do not teach that that our institutions are empirical not political: that sovereignty and equality under the law are produced by our universal reciprocal insurance of individual one another’s sovereignty, and that we are the only people who are truly sovereign because of it;

    And that the common law, the purely empirical, adversarially discovered within and across regions under the applied natural law of sovereignty; that the determination of collective action by concurrency we call democracy is empirical measurement of consensus prior to issuance of legislative contract between parties;

    And that mankind will never end our innovation in cooperation – but likewise never end our innovation in free riding, rent seeking, parasitism, and predation.

    And that all human organizations as they scale suppress local deceptions, rents, parasitisms and predations to pay for central suppressions of them; while gradually producing the same incentives among those whose job it is to suppress them.

    And that the anonymity of those who, seeking exit from those market forces in the safety of bureaucracy, do deterministically by their power distance, serve their and their common interests first, and exhaust the surpluses of the vast edifice of civilizational cooperation through endless justification, differing only from murderers, rapists, thieves, conspirators, both private and public that they have so gently but systematically replaced.

    Civilizations die for the same reason: the overproduction of rentiers whose soft and distant corruption in vast numbers by ways small and large destroy the trust that was necessary for the trust producing investment and risk by millions in thousands of subtleties every day until the calcification is sufficient that the polity cannot respond to gradual change of immanent shock.

    Instead, under the marxist sequence’s imitation of the abrahamic sequence, itself an imitation of the feminine sequence of warfare by sedition, has created an industry that undermines the one thing that makes possible the greatness of the west in contrast to the rest – all of whom failed by 800ad despite their first mover advantage: individual responsibility for every other’s individual sovereignty in our demonstrated interests: to be free of parasitism leaving us only cooperation to survive, and the trust in one another that we will be so.

    Our law schools do not teach moral law with which to produce a population of insurers of trust – they teach immoral activism just as certainly as the marxists and abrahamists did … and still do. Appealing to the vanity of self righteousness in advancing claims of oppression and conspiracy, where exists little other than the remains of meritocracy in a sea of rentiers.

    If there is a devil. It’s name was abraham, and it came from UR – and when Hermes brought his cart of lies to the Levant, it is no wonder all in it was stolen. The most powerful lie being the false promise of freedom from evolutionary demand for cooperation at all costs in the defeat of the dark forces of time and ignorance: entropy.

    Rebels seeking power are always evil – the only heroes are those seeking the power to deny power, such that only our individual insurance of one another – by pointy objects if necessary survives in markets for cooperation and markets for disputes we call courts.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Reply addressees: @SRCHicks


    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-23 00:59:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1914846518777163776

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1912691539127525488