(Hence why I use the term “restoration” but ‘revolt’ is the only means of achieving it. and the anglo tradition has a long history of success using it. revolutions change people but retorations change laws and institutios.)
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-18 16:23:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748018177919848932
Reply addressees: @mustangeroo
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748014421052637212
RE: The Court: Prohibition on Guns in the Post Office Is Unconstitutional
–“Federal law first barred guns in government buildings in 1964 and post offices in 1972. These precedents are apparently not old enough to be considered a part of America tradition of historical tradition of firearm regulation. No historical practice dating back to the 1700s justified the ban, she said.”–
The judge is correct. The post office is a place of work. The court is a place of conflict resolution where the court seeks resolution and settlement and some people are highly dissatisfied with the court’s attempt at resolution and settlement. And as such seek to use violence to contradict the court, the coury, and it’s processes. As such the court is condition different from all other conditions other than war.
In the broader context the court sees itself as correcting the mistakes of the positive law era where the court overstepped it’s responsilities.
As such the court continues to restore originalism (words are a system of weights and measures at the time of the writing, not open to putting the thumb on the scales to alter the meaning of words) and as such all extensions of the law must pass the concurrency of the people by the concurrency of the legislature to prevent circumvention of the people by the circumvention of the legislature. That’s the court’s objective. To return decisions to the people rather than legislate from the bench – which violates the entirety for the purpose of the system of government.
In europe, under continental law, the people are not soverign, the state is. In the states, by design, the people are sovereign, not the state. The only limit upon the people is what we would call the natural law as undersetood at the time and represented by blackstone.
If you are overly convinced that your interpretation of human nature is correct then you may interpret the court’s defense of the right to bear arms as folly. If you have the opposite interpretation of human nature, then you consider the court’s position wise and correct.
As far as I know, the left is wrong about human nature almost universally, and actively engages in denial and science denial as a core tenet of it’s political position. The right consists of at least three factions, and only one of those factions, the religious, engages in science denial. The (cognitively feminine) left tends to deny the nature of man, and the (cognitively masculine) right tends to deny the nature of the universe. Unfortunately, the left causes more damage than the right.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-15 17:35:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746949180902297600
True. Worse it apears that genetically non europeans can only function as europeans in small numbers – single digits of the population. So we are goint to put through constitutional reforms that restore the nation and limit the use of the nation’s capital to the benefit of the…
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-15 01:18:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746703471288500277
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746651426133049446
RT @WerrellBradley: @RealFrankFloyd UNFORTUNATELY, Mr. Floyd,
The Constitution has failed us to date, and we, at The Natural Law Institute…
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-15 01:12:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746701916162097453
There is no such as eighth amendment in Ukraine, Russia, or in fact, anywhere other than the west.
Please stop behaving as a naive ignorant western privileged nitwit. 😉 They refer to you as the russian equivalent of ‘suckers’ by the way. In islam the refer to you as the arabic equivalent of ‘victims’ because you’re so naive that you’re easily taken advantage of. In fact, you don’t realize it, but they’re also calling you effeminate by implication.
The world doesn’t care about your naive kindergarden morals. The rest of the world consists of grownups with serious problems and serious scarcity in an environment of low trust.
Reply addressees: @MrWiggles64
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-13 18:18:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746235358797238273
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746233504839434686
Why do you think democracy means violating the law?
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-13 03:12:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746007236843876418
Reply addressees: @debthecohost @ShreeShindore7 @TuckerCarlson
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746006406715629690
“ANCHOR BABIES” ARE NOT US CITIZENS?
And how we have proposed fixing many other problems
–“This 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… https://twitter.com/ryanswalters73/status/1745787550277505406
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-12 21:29:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745920852204408996
It’s rather clear that the law must only via negativa, what not to do. the constitution what to do and not to do. And policy what incentives to produce to bring about a good. And that most difficult of challenges, is that one cannot bring about a good directly, only as a…
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-11 04:24:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745300576882028672
ANGLO NATURAL COMMON LAW VS EVERYONE ELSE – (ESPECIALLY YOU KNOW WHO
–“Among contemporary common-law legal practitioners and Anglophone legal philosophers, “natural law” often simply refers to any approach that treats law as necessarily having a connection to morality.
This meaning is essentially the converse of “legal positivism,” which is often defined, minimally, as the contention that law has no necessary connection with morality.”–
So there exist those of us who hold to the rule that if it is not moral it is not law as we may not be bound to that which is not moral. And there exist those of us who hold that morality does not exist, or is not relevant to the law, and as such law is whatever they say it is. WHne in practice they mean only that a law must be produced by some pretense of legitimacy, not that it must be moral.
This is of course, because they have no means of judging what is moral -for reasons I’ve explained exhaustively elsewhere.
The purpose of my work, is, in part, to produce a science of morality so that we can render attempts at positive law illegal even to propose.
Cheers
CD
PS: In my world it’s smart and moral people vs dim and immoral peole but, hey…. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-11 04:03:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745295391082393600
ANGLO NATURAL COMMON LAW VS EVERYONE ELSE – (ESPECIALLLY YOU KNOW WHO
–“Among contemporary common-law legal practitioners and Anglophone legal philosophers, “natural law” often simply refers to any approach that treats law as necessarily having a connection to morality.
This meaning is essentially the converse of “legal positivism,” which is often defined, minimally, as the contention that law has no necessary connection with morality.”–
So there exist those of us who hold to the rule that if it is not moral it is not law as we may not be bound to that which is not moral. And there exist those of us who hold that morality does not exist, or is not relevant to the law, and as such law is whatever they say it is. WHne in practice they mean only that a law must be produced by some pretense of legitimacy, not that it must be moral.
This is of course, because they have no means of judging what is moral -for reasons I’ve explained exhaustively elsewhere.
The purpose of my work, is, in part, to produce a science of morality so that we can render attempts at positive law illegal even to propose.
Cheers
CD
PS: In my world it’s smart and moral people vs dim and immoral peole but, hey…. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-11 04:03:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745286965396639744