Curt Doolittle

Theme: Constitutional Order

  • 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

  • POWERS OF THE BRITISH MONARCHY (as of 2003) (via a friend) Summary. If the queen

    POWERS OF THE BRITISH MONARCHY

    (as of 2003) (via a friend)

    Summary. If the queen has the loyalty of the armed forces she can do anything she wishes. The only practical means of her action is in crisis, if the government fails.

    The Monarch is Sovereign

    People are her subjects (family, wards)

    Above the law and immune from prosecution

    Diplomatic immunity anywhere on earth

    Exempt from FOI requests

    No passport nor driving license

    No taxes

    Commander in chief of all armed forces, who are sworn to her, not the state

    The making of treaties

    Declaration of war

    Deployment of armed forces overseas

    Recognition of foreign states

    Accreditation and reception of diplomats

    Appointment of Queen’s Counsel (Cabinet)

    The appointment and regulation of the civil service

    The appointment and dismissal of ministers, including the prime minister.

    The summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament

    Royal assent to bills (or veto)

    Consent before any law that affects the monarchy can be even discussed.

    BUT!!! …. Cannot create law, only assent or veto – this is the cornerstone.

    (And can bring in the army if she wants to enforce it)

    Issue and revoke passports

    Arrest, seize, anything commander anything at will

    Administer punishments at will prerogative to keep the peace

    Creation of corporations by Charter

    Granting honours

    Prerogative of mercy

    Even over their souls – head of the church.

    Only revolution can replace her.

    Which is how it should be.

    Devoted to public service

    Limits her opinions to saying nothing

    Specializes in ‘soft power’.

    Most powerful woman in the world.

    The commissioning of officers in the armed forces

    Directing the disposition of the armed forces in the UK

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 16:15:00 UTC

  • 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

  • There are a not insignificant number of lifetime lawyers that have said “I never

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 13:47:09 UTC

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

    Reply addressees: @EBryceLee @CorwinElder @FrostieCash @clairlemon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224327745150377985

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @EBryceLee @CorwinElder @FrostieCash @clairlemon (I also find it somewhat humorous when people in the profession – the equivalent of craftsmen – debate me on matters of truth, constitution, and jurisprudence. Debate me on procedure and legislative and regulatory matters (local custom) sure. These are pragmatisms not truths.)

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1224327745150377985

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @EBryceLee @CorwinElder @FrostieCash @clairlemon (I also find it somewhat humorous when people in the profession – the equivalent of craftsmen – debate me on matters of truth, constitution, and jurisprudence. Debate me on procedure and legislative and regulatory matters (local custom) sure. These are pragmatisms not truths.)

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1224327745150377985

  • (I also find it somewhat humorous when people in the profession – the equivalent

    (I also find it somewhat humorous when people in the profession – the equivalent of craftsmen – debate me on matters of truth, constitution, and jurisprudence. Debate me on procedure and legislative and regulatory matters (local custom) sure. These are pragmatisms not truths.)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 13:44:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224327745150377985

    Reply addressees: @EBryceLee @CorwinElder @FrostieCash @clairlemon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224327002422943744

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @EBryceLee @CorwinElder @FrostieCash @clairlemon Boards, Executives, Shareholders, Employees, have limited liability for the Ward (corporation). That’s the purpose of corporations. I am kind of surprised that Platonism, against which legal education should protect, is something you cannot seem to avoid – or even comprehend.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1224327002422943744

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @EBryceLee @CorwinElder @FrostieCash @clairlemon Boards, Executives, Shareholders, Employees, have limited liability for the Ward (corporation). That’s the purpose of corporations. I am kind of surprised that Platonism, against which legal education should protect, is something you cannot seem to avoid – or even comprehend.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1224327002422943744

  • DEMOCRACY DOES NOT PRODUCE ACCOUNTABILITY Democratic representatives are not acc

    DEMOCRACY DOES NOT PRODUCE ACCOUNTABILITY

    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.

    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 13:36:00 UTC

  • THEY ARE UNFIT FOR SERVICE – AND THE CONSTITUTION Western Civilization has been

    THEY ARE UNFIT FOR SERVICE – AND THE CONSTITUTION

    Western Civilization has been since its foundation, A militia. An army. A militarized society. We gain harmony from doing our duty, and sovereignty for having done it. Sovereignty is harder that liberty by permission, and freedom by promise.

    And all those who have come to us postwar to undermine that civilization are unfit for service.

    They are unfit for service. That is why they resist our constitution our natural law our markets, our responsibility – because they are not capable of sovereignty.

    Therefore we have choices: to lose our sovereignty.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 12:36:00 UTC

  • You mean, that as a specialist in natural law, strict construction, constitution

    You mean, that as a specialist in natural law, strict construction, constitutions, jurisprudence, particularly american jurisprudence, that I won’t cross the line until it’s time to cross the line. And as we see, I make ideas that others use. As was always our plan.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 03:48:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224177747959996418

    Reply addressees: @HeadProph @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224176861309210624

    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/1224176861309210624