Theme: Constitutional Order

  • NEAR UNIVERSAL IGNORANCE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM Why Don’t You Kno

    NEAR UNIVERSAL IGNORANCE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM
    Why Don’t You Know About Commonality and Concurrency – and Why Don’t Our Lawyers, Legislators, and Judges?

    Law Is Taught As Carpentry Not Architecture
    Legal education often focuses on specific doctrines, case law, and statutory interpretation rather than overarching philosophical concepts unless in a constitutional law, jurisprudence or decidability. Worse most have no understanding of behavioral economics, macroeconomics, or political economy.

    Studying the Trees And Ignoring the Forest
    The concepts of “commonality” and” concurrency” are embedded in legal principles but not explicitly labeled as such. Terms like “precedent,” “equal protection,” “due process”, and “bicameralism”, are more commonly used.

    Basic Principles Missing In Legal Education
    In the law, particularly American law, if less so British, we require Concurrency of populations (house), states (senate), legislatures (electoral college) in voting and legislation (positiva) AND Commonality of decisions across classes and regions in dispute resolution in court (negativa) to produce legitimacy of the construction of law, AND Settled Law in the population – thus ending conflicts.

    It’s Just Science
    These are both empirical processes insure both sovereignty of the people by consent of the regions and classes in voting and legislation, and commonality in the resolution of disputes, which together protect the interests of the minority against the majority and where both are required under the common law, where the people are sovereign, because there is no alternative to that empiricism.

    The Opposite of Majority Democracy
    We do NOT live in a democracy. We live under the Natural Law of Sovereignty, Reciprocity and Duty, codified in a Constitution, forming a Republic, prohibiting violations of sovereignty reciprocity and duty, and by use of concurrent voting, across classes and regions, thus protecting the minority from the majority by insuring people agree (consent) to a statute, even if by proxy through elected representatives, before the enactment of legislation and regulation (statute law) where conflicts are resolved in the Court, by findings of the Court (‘judge discovered law, but not judge made law’), by adversarial competition before a judge and jury of their sovereign peers.

    Accumulated Ignorance Because of Lack of Recording in the Constitution
    In other words, we have lost the understanding of the fact that the constitution produced an empirical (scientific) method of governance. And it is the only one extant, despite the efforts of such petty theorists as Rez, Kelsen, Dworkin, Rawls and so many others so less competent and knowledgable than their ancestors.

    The Solution
    Of course, my life’s work seeks to correct this problem with a formal science of decidability applied to law, policy, and economy. But if it was easy someone would have done it before me – instead of inventing sophistry by which to empower elites to circumvent the people, even if the people are so frustrated by the process that they might wish it – at their peril.

    Affections
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-15 23:42:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812995875469189120

  • I am not fond of the special counsel provision when the target is an elected off

    I am not fond of the special counsel provision when the target is an elected official rather than an unelected or appointed one.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-15 21:05:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812956626196046028

    Reply addressees: @bkgrady1958 @MollyTeachesFCS @tribelaw

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812955385076015530

  • Under what illusion do you assume that there is consensus on the law, particular

    Under what illusion do you assume that there is consensus on the law, particularly on constitutionality, and more particularly on the ambitions of the Court in the broader context of the consequences of legislation, regulation, and findings of the court?

    In economics we are extremely conscious of the lack of commutability between domains, yet in law, this escapes the ‘lawyering’ class, which should be obvious given the disputes over decisions, and it certainly escapes the public who for some reason confuses their personal moral intuition as unassailable substitute for the sciences, empirical evidence, and any attempt at logic.

    Reply addressees: @Luigipalazzini @Fiesty26Fiesty @tribelaw


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-15 19:59:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812940137447452674

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812937182744879586

  • and the SC will overturn the 11th. Sorry

    and the SC will overturn the 11th. Sorry.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-15 16:43:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812890714448986580

    Reply addressees: @ArtCandee @kylegriffin1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812854012108058756

  • That is both her and the broader court’s intention

    That is both her and the broader court’s intention.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-15 16:43:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812890638737699020

    Reply addressees: @kylegriffin1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812853394752618666

  • You are not acting as does the court in the broader context. And yes the preside

    You are not acting as does the court in the broader context. And yes the president may do all that. And while we normally request he document it formally, there is no law requiring so.

    I would not normally engage with common people over such things but I’m quite curious how y’all come to your conclusions and intuitions. And it’s almost always because you cannot scale your understanding to that of national matters.

    Reply addressees: @TheLastFourYea1 @rpwpb @tribelaw


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-15 16:40:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812890030966259712

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812888214207631428

  • There would need to be such evidence. There wasn’t any. First there was no organ

    There would need to be such evidence. There wasn’t any. First there was no organization to the documents nor evidence of intent. Second, if there was any intent derivable, it would consist of retaining evidence that that he was correct in his geostrategic debates, and his attempt…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-15 16:22:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812885583557009476

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812863023541055843

  • No they were’nt fine. The court has determined, (thanks to decades of work by th

    No they were’nt fine. The court has determined, (thanks to decades of work by the Federalist Society) that the use of “lawfare” to circumvent the people and the legislatures must end. And the court is gradually, incrementally, reversing the capacity for activists to use lawfare (weaponization of the law) to circumvent the people the legislatures and the constitution and its intents.

    Ending this process of circumvention by weaponization of the institutions for political purposes is the origin of the contentious decisions by the court. The court is correcting seventy or more years of abuse of the constitution and the court’s doing a rather exceptional job of it from my rather informed perspective.

    Reply addressees: @CortezRuenda @MollyTeachesFCS @tribelaw


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-15 16:20:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812885028847722501

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812863777647559020

  • THE LEGISLATIVE AND RESULTING COURT CONFLICTS SEEK SETTLED LAW NOT EXPEDIENCY Th

    THE LEGISLATIVE AND RESULTING COURT CONFLICTS SEEK SETTLED LAW NOT EXPEDIENCY
    The american method of law politics and law is messy precisely because the people and not the government are sovereign, and because the sovereignty of the people requires both rules (natural law) and processes (constitutional law, common law, and institutions of government).
    This messiness (which the world mocks us for) requires a great deal of trust that eventually we will figure things out. It does not mean we will do so quickly or coherently.

    Reply addressees: @angelbeech59 @tribelaw


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-15 16:15:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812883655116693505

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812878786930905402

  • THE COURTS ARE A MARKET FOR GRADUAL PRODUCTION OF SETTLED LAW BY FILTERING UNSET

    THE COURTS ARE A MARKET FOR GRADUAL PRODUCTION OF SETTLED LAW BY FILTERING UNSETTLED AND UNSETTLEABLE LAW
    The court will, if possible, allow the public and the legislature to work through these issues, and then the courts themselves will conduct debates if necessary. The reason being that the court was not mandated to, and wishes not to, be used to bypass the people and the legislature and therefore bypass tests of ‘concurrency’ that will result in ‘settled law’, and instead prefers to only clarify any dissonance or confusion between the BODY of law and the individual CASE or class of cases before the court.

    This is what’s called ‘common law’ or ‘the empirical method of legal discovery’ – in other words, we use science: adversarial competition using evidence and reason to create a market for the discovery of ‘settled law’ within the limits of ‘natural law’ which is the basis of our constitution.

    Reply addressees: @angelbeech59 @tribelaw


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-15 16:12:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812882828754894848

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812878786930905402