Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • The 14th Amendment debt clause DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT DOES. And the Sup

    The 14th Amendment debt clause DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT DOES. And the Supremes will absolutely positively overturn any attempt to pretend it means other than what it was intended to mean. It means that a debt incurred by the USA prohibits the federal government from denying debts incurred, particularly in the civil war. It says nothing about paying them or debt ceilings. It merely prevents court or legislative action to escape a debt incurred by the federal government.

    –“The primary purpose of this provision was to ensure the federal government’s commitment to repaying the debts incurred during the Civil War while simultaneously preventing the payment of any debts or claims associated with the Confederacy or slaveholders. By doing so, it helped to protect the financial stability of the United States and prevent any political or legal attempts to undermine the Union’s efforts during the Civil War. In summary, Section 4 of the 14th Amendment aimed to reaffirm the legitimacy of the public debt incurred by the United States during the Civil War, deny any financial claims from the Confederacy or slaveholders, and strengthen the financial foundation of the country during the Reconstruction Era.”–

    EXPLANATION:
    https://t.co/Qbdge6eTNn

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-08 17:23:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655624573478481948

  • THE ORB? The orb is presented to British monarchs during their coronation. Datin

    THE ORB?
    The orb is presented to British monarchs during their coronation. Dating back to Charles II’s coronation in 1661, this piece of regalia is golden and has a cross perched on top to symbolize heavenly power over the world. It is mounted with emeralds, rubies, sapphires, diamonds, pearls and one amethyst.

    TRANSLATION
    The British invented the modern rule of law state, that completed the 2000-year project of governing by Natural Law (science of cooperation) being the application of ‘God’s Law’ with the monarchy as judge of last resort (highest court), parliament (political court), King’s Courts of the common law ( for serious matters ), shire courts (for commercial matters), and church courts (for moral matters), creating a hierarchy of courts and appeals or what is more correctly understood as a hierarchy of markets for justice by the law of man, nature, and nature’s god. 😉

    Silly (ignorant really) people who don’t understand the problems of evidence, testimony, reciprocity, tort (natural law), the problems of decidability, the fallibility of humans, in both criticism and fashion, and the need for a hierarchy of courts culminating in the monarchy as the judge of last resort, and the monarchy being above the law in the restoration of the law, nor the genius of the innovation the english people brought by their invention of the modern rule of law state, fail to grasp the value and importance of the british monarchy – or any european monarchy – and underestimate the importance of rule of law by the natural, common, and concurrent law, and underestimate the harm that comes from sovereignty of parliament (opinion) instead of sovereignty of natural law (science of cooperation), and underestimate the defense the Americans have from such follies of parliament by our constitution and sovereignty of natural law, nor the follies of the americans by use of a president instead of prime minister and monarchy.

    We always take for granted what we are ignorant of. The monarchy is our last line of defense of european civilization, and we made a drastic mistake of listening to the folly of Rousseau and the French fantasies, versus the thousands of years of our natural, common, concurrent, law as the most empirical system of government every designed by man, with the greatest possibility for continuous innovation, adaptation, evolution the prosperity that results.

    Cheers
    Much Love
    God Save the King.

    #Coronation

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-06 17:46:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654905511240777728

  • I don’t say otherwise. I say that all people are capable of gradually evovlving

    I don’t say otherwise. I say that all people are capable of gradually evovlving rule of law and polities that produce comons desired or necessary for their development.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-05 21:14:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654595339750453251

    Reply addressees: @antigg860413

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654578776985022464

  • If that’s true shanon then why is canceling people for their political biases no

    If that’s true shanon then why is canceling people for their political biases not illegal. Especially given that the research is pretty clear that political biases are as are all other traits, more than half genetic in origin. And worse, that the differences in those biases is feminine short term empathizing to avoid self regulation and search for status by hyperconsumption while evading responsibility for defense of the private and common versus masculine long term systematizing demanding self regulation and search for status by capitalization by pursuing responsibility for private and common.

    The question is why would you teach progressive ‘values’ when they are universally reducible to the reduction of responsibility and the production of dependency and incompetence, resulting in conflict between the productive and none, and the feminine consumptive and male capitalizing, and a credentialed elite lacking demonstrated competency in any means of production that is subject to adversarial competition and therefore falsification?

    You may not be intelligent enough of educated enough to understand this, nor grasp history enough to understand it, but there is a reason there are and never will be feminine equalitarian empathic hyperconsuming irresponsibility seeking governments or civilizations. Because it’s an evolutionary impossibility despite that it’s the false promise of progressivism.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-03 19:08:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653838895237177351

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653744828486758405

  • If that’s true shanon then why is canceling people for their political biases no

    If that’s true shanon then why is canceling people for their political biases not illegal. Especially given that the research is pretty clear that political biases are as are all other traits, more than half genetic in origin. And worse, that the differences in those biases is feminine short term empathizing to avoid self regulation and search for status by hyperconsumption while evading responsibility for defense of the private and common versus masculine long term systematizing demanding self regulation and search for status by capitalization by pursuing responsibility for private and common.

    The question is why would you teach progressive ‘values’ when they are universally reducible to the reduction of responsibility and the production of dependency and incompetence, resulting in conflict between the productive and none, and the feminine consumptive and male capitalizing, and a credentialed elite lacking demonstrated competency in any means of production that is subject to adversarial competition and therefore falsification?

    You may not be intelligent enough of educated enough to understand this, nor grasp history enough to understand it, but there is a reason there are and never will be feminine equalitarian empathic hyperconsuming irresponsibility seeking governments or civilizations. Because it’s an evolutionary impossibility despite that it’s the false promise of progressivism.

    Reply addressees: @EvilShanon @ACLU

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-03 19:08:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653838895115542537

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653744828486758405

  • Sort of. Given that most conflict between Natural Law (tort), the common law, th

    Sort of. Given that most conflict between Natural Law (tort), the common law, the constitution, concurrent legislation, (arbitrary) regulation, competing findings of the courts, and arbitrary commands, is due to a relatively small number of properties and requirements missing from the common law and constitution that are relatively easily fixed. As such we can identify (a) divergence from decidability and (b) conflicts, exposing the complexity that results such that those divergences and conflicts are open for discussion and decision. The truth is that we’ve tested about 130 of the top questions of legal decidability (topics) and all are decidable. Now, what you might say is that some positive law is necessary even if it is in fact illegitimate. But I’d respond with ‘find a way of achieving it that isn’t illegitimate’. Education, bussing, force association, interference in marriage and divorce, the withdrawal of shrilling and minimization of defamation, and worse the right of ‘free false, unethical, immoral, and seditious, speech’, and the absence of necessity of legislation to pass a court’s test of legitimacy, have all been catastrophic positive law policies that could have been achieved by alternative means with less harm done.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-02 18:41:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653469848104517658

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653464803803840517

  • Sort of. Given that most conflict between Natural Law (tort), the common law, th

    Sort of. Given that most conflict between Natural Law (tort), the common law, the constitution, concurrent legislation, (arbitrary) regulation, competing findings of the courts, and arbitrary commands, is due to a relatively small number of properties and requirements missing from the common law and constitution that are relatively easily fixed. As such we can identify (a) divergence from decidability and (b) conflicts, exposing the complexity that results such that those divergences and conflicts are open for discussion and decision. The truth is that we’ve tested about 130 of the top questions of legal decidability (topics) and all are decidable. Now, what you might say is that some positive law is necessary even if it is in fact illegitimate. But I’d respond with ‘find a way of achieving it that isn’t illegitimate’. Education, bussing, force association, interference in marriage and divorce, the withdrawal of shrilling and minimization of defamation, and worse the right of ‘free false, unethical, immoral, and seditious, speech’, and the absence of necessity of legislation to pass a court’s test of legitimacy, have all been catastrophic positive law policies that could have been achieved by alternative means with less harm done.

    Reply addressees: @laurencediver @stycksintern @functi0nZer0

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-02 18:41:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653469847932530688

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653464803803840517

  • While unintuitive, it is possible to produce a formal logic of decidability in t

    While unintuitive, it is possible to produce a formal logic of decidability in the law, that will eliminate all but ‘collisions’ of policy, and over time may prevent collisions of policy, thereby constraining the precision of policy, and preventing ‘lawfare’ to circumvent the people and the legislatures. While I’m not sure Scalia himself understood the full meaning of what he was advocating, and while I’m uncertain that it was possible to do so before the cognitive revolution produced by the introduction of programmatic logic, it is at present possible to complete the natural law (science) of decidability, and then test the deviation of that decidability from that ‘optimum’.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-02 16:36:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653438411691130881

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653431404980469763

  • While unintuitive, it is possible to produce a formal logic of decidability in t

    While unintuitive, it is possible to produce a formal logic of decidability in the law, that will eliminate all but ‘collisions’ of policy, and over time may prevent collisions of policy, thereby constraining the precision of policy, and preventing ‘lawfare’ to circumvent the people and the legislatures. While I’m not sure Scalia himself understood the full meaning of what he was advocating, and while I’m uncertain that it was possible to do so before the cognitive revolution produced by the introduction of programmatic logic, it is at present possible to complete the natural law (science) of decidability, and then test the deviation of that decidability from that ‘optimum’.

    Reply addressees: @laurencediver @stycksintern @functi0nZer0

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-02 16:36:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653438411603050511

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653431404980469763

  • If you want to see what a revolution looks like and 30M dead bodies then that’s

    If you want to see what a revolution looks like and 30M dead bodies then that’s what it will take.
    Never happen.
    The court can in fact deny stacking the court is constitutional (it is). 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-02 16:33:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653437577410510852

    Reply addressees: @RepAdamSchiff

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653148073714139138