Theme: Constitutional Order

  • That is false. 0 The West has always practiced trifunctionalism: a balance of po

    That is false.
    0 The West has always practiced trifunctionalism: a balance of power between masculine state and feminine faith mediated by our traditional law of reciprocal isnurance of self determination by self determined means by tests of individual sovereignty, interpersonal reciprocity, and responsibility(duty) to defend all of the above. There is NO monoply here. No demand for equality. It is a means for cooperation between the classes and their elites whether preisthood, commerce and law, or state and war.

    1. Marxist (lower class marxism): Lower class monopoly/equality: seeks to avoid all individual responsibility.

    2. Libertarian (middle class marxism): Middle class Monoply/Equality: seeks to avoid all individual responsibility for the commons.

    3. NeoConservativism (upper class marxism): Upper Class (Globalist) Monopoly: depriving others peoples of self determination by self determined means.

    The transformation of Trotskyism to neoconservatism is a complex and nuanced topic that has been the subject of much scholarly debate. While not all neoconservatives have roots in Trotskyism, there is a notable intellectual lineage that connects some early neoconservative thinkers to Trotskyist ideas. Here’s a detailed exploration:

    Historical Context
    Trotskyism: Originating from the ideas of Leon Trotsky, a Marxist revolutionary and theorist, Trotskyism was a form of communism that differed from Stalinism. Trotsky advocated for “permanent revolution,” emphasizing the need for an ongoing, worldwide revolution of the proletariat.

    Post-WWII America: After World War II, the United States entered a period of ideological struggle against communism, particularly the form of communism represented by the Soviet Union. During this time, many intellectuals who were originally sympathetic to socialist or Trotskyist ideas began to reconsider their positions.

    Intellectual Shift
    Disillusionment with Communism: The exposure of Stalin’s atrocities, the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, and other events led many leftist intellectuals to become disillusioned with communism.

    The New York Intellectuals: A group of scholars and writers based mainly in New York, many of whom were originally Trotskyists or socialists, began to shift rightward. Figures like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz were instrumental in this intellectual migration.

    Realpolitik and Pragmatism: As these intellectuals moved away from Marxism, they began to adopt a more pragmatic approach to politics, influenced by the realpolitik of the Cold War era. They started to see American power as a necessary counterbalance to Soviet influence.

    Core Tenets and Transformation
    Democratic Capitalism: Many of these former Trotskyists came to see democratic capitalism as the most viable system for the promotion of human freedom and prosperity.

    Moral Clarity: Borrowing from their Trotskyist roots, the neoconservatives maintained a kind of moral absolutism. They believed in the existence of good and evil in international relations and felt that the United States had a moral duty to combat tyranny.

    Interventionism: The idea of spreading democracy and combating totalitarian regimes remained, albeit now aligned with American rather than communist revolutionary fervor.

    Criticisms and Controversies
    Overemphasis on American Power: Critics argue that the neoconservative belief in American exceptionalism and moral duty can lead to reckless foreign policy decisions, as seen in the Iraq War.

    Ideological Rigidity: The moral absolutism that neoconservatives inherited from their Trotskyist roots is often criticized for lacking nuance, leading to a binary worldview.

    Social Conservatism: As they moved rightward, many neoconservatives also adopted socially conservative positions, which have been criticized for being exclusionary or regressive.

    In summary, while not all neoconservatives have Trotskyist roots, the intellectual journey from Trotskyism to neoconservatism for some key figures involves a complex interplay of historical events, ideological shifts, and pragmatic considerations. Would you like to delve deeper into any specific aspect of this transformation?

    Reply addressees: @antipartison @desilva_frank @JoshEakle


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-27 01:11:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706838970028511232

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706835018587513026

  • You accused me of misunderstanding a triviality rather than a profound differenc

    You accused me of misunderstanding a triviality rather than a profound difference between majority preference and minority defense – thus a democracy is a majority tyranny and a republic is designed to prevent it.

    So that’s not what you said. In fact, your statement misses the whole point, and seeks to justify democracy rather than a republic. Even if you don’t think that’s what you’re doing.

    Whenever someone treats me with dismissal, disrespect, or arrogance, it’s simply pattern recognition to assume that the person is either an enemy of our people and a danger to the republic and rule of law, an indoctrinated ignorant imbecile NPC bot doing the work of the enemy, or very rarely someone who is merely communicating poorly.

    How should I have interpreted your response?
    I’d prefer to engage in mutually beneficial reciprocal and intellectually honest discourse, but then this is social media and most people who know me treat me with a bit of respect and just ask questions.

    Reply addressees: @9898guitar @RadioTodd13


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-27 01:02:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706836632547000320

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706800884376551538

  • “Q: Curt: Please give examples of good agreed upon legislation”– Well, there is

    –“Q: Curt: Please give examples of good agreed upon legislation”–

    Well, there is plenty of legislation that had widespread support because it was trivial budgetary or related work.

    Let’s look for three that were popular at the time, even if they have remained disputed over time in one way or another.

    1. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Act of 1933
    This was part of the larger Banking Act of 1933, commonly known as the Glass-Steagall Act. It was enacted during the Great Depression, a time when public confidence in the banking system was extremely low due to widespread bank failures. The FDIC was established to restore trust, and it was widely supported at the time for that reason.

    2. National Highway System Designation Act of 1995
    This act had bipartisan support and was seen as a natural evolution of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which initially established the Interstate Highway System. The focus on infrastructure development and maintenance was a non-contentious issue that had widespread support.

    3. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938
    This act was passed in the wake of a public health disaster involving a toxic elixir that killed over 100 people, including many children. The tragedy led to a public outcry for stronger regulations, making the act widely supported at the time of its passage.

    Reply addressees: @Areez22 @feafij


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-27 00:56:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706835232962269184

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706809137680543841

  • EXPLAINING THE HIERARCHY OF LEGAL LEGITIMACY IN THE USA – AND REASON FOR OUR PRE

    EXPLAINING THE HIERARCHY OF LEGAL LEGITIMACY IN THE USA – AND REASON FOR OUR PRESENT CONFLICT

    QUESTION
    —“does it follow from this that court rulings take precedence over federal law and judges can ‘legislate from the bench’ as we’ve been seeing?”–

    (@feafij Are you sure you…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-27 00:46:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706832524935102796

    Reply addressees: @feafij

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706809934237569045

  • EXPLAINING THE HIERARCHY OF LEGAL LEGITIMACY IN THE USA – AND REASON FOR OUR PRE

    EXPLAINING THE HIERARCHY OF LEGAL LEGITIMACY IN THE USA – AND REASON FOR OUR PRESENT CONFLICT

    QUESTION
    —“does it follow from this that court rulings take precedence over federal law and judges can ‘legislate from the bench’ as we’ve been seeing?”–

    (@feafij Are you sure you don’t have a deep understanding of these issues and are just getting me to explain them for the audience? lol Otherwise you’re quite insightful and we need to maybe invest in training you. 😉 )

    ANSWER
    Problem 1: while the constitution is a document that assumes the common law and the natural law as stated by blackstone, which was the legal frame of reference of the age, this is not explictyly stated other than vaguely in the declaration and preamble.
    So, the people are sovereign, meaning they insure one an other’s self determination by self determined means -and sovereign within the limits of the natural law of sovereignty, reciprocity, and duty to sovereignty and reciprocity. All our laws evolve from this simple rule. And that rule is 5000 years old and the core of western civilization and the reason for our difference from the rest.

    Problem 2: the civil war, the great depression, and the communist revolution we call the civil right era, allowed the federal government to deprive states of their rights, and expand it’s powers beyond those which were granted by the constitution or the people by amendment.
    This has led to the conflict that denies that the USA is at least eleven different sub-civilizations, just as is europe, and that the federal government was designed to provide taxes for defense and dispute resolution between these civilizations and the states they are organized into, while leaving the culture and preferences to the states.
    The government is required to guarranteed the bill of rights and a republican government and rule of law, but that is all. WHat has happend is that the governmetn has been captured by activists who wish to produce a monopoly culture across these regions that leads to the natural conflict between large immigrant cities where individuals are powerless because responsibilty is impossible, and suburbs and territories where individuals are not powerless because responsibility is possible.

    SOLUTION
    The solution the present problem is the devolution of the federal government to its original design as a federation that resolved conflicts and provded defnse, but did not try to create homogeneouety of culture, especially because of this culture war against our soverignty, responsibility, institutions, law, traditions and civilization.
    This is what our organizatin is working toward. (Slowly).

    HIERARCHY
    1) The natural law, the sovereign people under that law, the constitution of those people under that law, and the common law process of discovery of agreement on wrongs, take precedent over legislation and regulation – as we have seen – except where explicitly justified by legislation.

    2) Legislation and regulation can modify even the common law, as long as it does not conflict with the constitution.

    3) Due to judicial review, the supreme court is bound by the constitution, the common law (history of law, meaning prescedent), and can invalidate legislation and regulation. Most other thinkers will not state it this way but as you can see with the court’s return to law as a science, the court is requiring that there be some common law precedent if one is to impose anything that would impose upon the constitution or the natural law.

    4) Legal activism, or ‘lawfare’ consisting of efforts to circumvent the people, and the legislature is a violation of our constitution and law, but is a hole that was abused during the 20th by boy lawfare and ‘positive law’, and betwen the federalist society and justice scalia in particular, and the trump appointments to the court that were recommended by the federalist society, the court is trying to gradually ‘undo’ the efforts at ‘legislation from the bench’, and thus return matters to the states. Most activism of the 1960s onward has been catastrophically harmful but the court needs a case before it to rule those behaviors by the court (see Abortion) or the legislature (bussing etc) and hopefully no fault divorce and ending of liability for interference in a marriage, so that these disasters will be reversed over the next decade.

    Note: our organization is trying to plug about eight holes in the cosnstitutiont hat have allowed the undermining of our constitution and law, which are for all intents and puroses and empirical and scientific method of government – and the most empirical and scientific possible for man.

    GENERAL INTERPRETATION
    While my arguments above are more accurate than the simple hierarchy that we follow in most cases – cases that are not fundamental violations of the natural common concurrent law of the US cosntitution: in the United States, that simple hierarchy of laws is generally structured as follows, from highest to lowest authority:

    Hierarchy of Laws
    U.S. Constitution: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All other laws, whether federal, state, or local, must comply with the Constitution. Any law found to be in violation of any part of the Constitution is deemed unconstitutional and is therefore invalid.

    Federal Legislation: Federal statutes, also known as acts of Congress, come next in the hierarchy. These laws must be in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. If a federal statute conflicts with the Constitution, the statute is invalidated.

    Federal Regulations: Regulations created by federal agencies are subordinate to federal legislation. These regulations must be authorized by enabling legislation and cannot conflict with either the Constitution or federal statutes.

    State Constitutions: Each state has its own constitution, which is subordinate to the U.S. Constitution. State constitutions provide the framework for state laws and must comply with both federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution.

    State Legislation: State statutes come next and must comply with both the state and U.S. Constitutions. If a state law conflicts with a federal law, the federal law generally takes precedence due to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

    State Regulations: Similar to federal regulations, state regulations are created by state agencies and must comply with state statutes, state constitutions, and the U.S. Constitution.

    Common Law: Common law, or case law, is created by judicial decisions. These decisions interpret the U.S. Constitution, federal and state statutes, and regulations. Common law is considered the “lowest” form of law in this hierarchy but plays a crucial role in interpreting and filling gaps in statutes and regulations.

    Findings of the Court: Court decisions contribute to the body of common law. Lower court decisions are binding only within their jurisdiction and can be overruled by higher courts. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions are final and set precedents that all other courts must follow.

    Key Points
    Judicial Review: Courts have the power to review and possibly invalidate government actions that violate the Constitution, federal or state statutes, or corresponding regulations.

    Stare Decisis: This is the principle that courts should generally abide by precedent. However, higher courts have the authority to overturn precedents, and even the U.S. Supreme Court has reversed its own decisions.

    Conflict of Laws: When there’s a conflict between different levels of law, the higher level generally takes precedence. For example, federal laws trump state laws due to the Supremacy Clause.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-27 00:45:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706832524243070976

  • If we are sovereign as a people and the government works for us as employees, th

    If we are sovereign as a people and the government works for us as employees, that means that no one can tell us what to do unless we have all agreed on it – either in what not to do by the discovery of what is bad in court, or the discovery of what we agreed is good in…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-26 22:47:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706802582721634569

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706800704352813469

  • Great Question. Natural Law > Common Law > Judge Discovered Law > Legislation an

    Great Question.
    Natural Law > Common Law > Judge Discovered Law > Legislation and Regulation Treated as Law.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-26 22:21:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706796043839455536

    Reply addressees: @feafij

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706794751704350966

  • Q: CURT: What’s this mean? – “commonality in negativa law” – “concurrency in pos

    Q: CURT:
    What’s this mean?
    – “commonality in negativa law”
    – “concurrency in positiva legislation”

    Curt Doolittle
    Smart question. We discover common behaviors we don’t want in the adversarial competition within courts. We discover common goods we do want in the adversarial competition in voting. What is the difference? We must unify on the bad equally. (law) We must unify on the good concurrently across regions and classes. (legislation) Because bads are a universal necessity, goods are a choice of priority among many choices.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-26 21:51:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706788707422867456

  • what is being used against us is the violation of that science. Thankfully betwe

    what is being used against us is the violation of that science. Thankfully between scalia and the federalists getting the court in place we at least have some semblance of rule of law again, and are reversing legal activism.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-26 21:12:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706778693123609018

    Reply addressees: @Call_Me_Outis

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706746298052100250

  • Smart question. We discover common behaviors we don’t want in the adversarial co

    Smart question.
    We discover common behaviors we don’t want in the adversarial competition within courts.
    We discover common goods we do want in the adversarial competition in voting.
    What is the difference?
    We must unify on the bad equally. (law)
    We must unify on the good concurrently across regions and classes. (legislation)
    Because bads are a universal necessity, goods are a choice of priority among many choices.

    Reply addressees: @feafij


    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-26 20:01:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706760845361823744

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1706759760232448278