Comparative Analysis and Outcomes: In practice, mainstream constitutionalism provides procedural and institutional safeguards against abusive military force, but can falter in crises. For example, mainstream doctrine would demand that those detained by the military have access to courts (habeas corpus) unless legally suspended, and it would view long-term military governance as unconstitutional. Yet, mainstream courts might initially defer to executive claims of necessity – as history shows (e.g. Korematsu or lesser-known incidents), courts are sometimes reluctant to intervene during the emergency itself, and only later correct course. Under the hypothetical, a mainstream court would likely scrutinize the President’s actions: Were the statutory conditions for the Insurrection Act truly met? Did the President usurp state authority or violate Posse Comitatus restrictions? If protesters sue, the court might uphold the deployment if genuine widespread violence existed, but it would strike down excesses (like trying peaceful demonstrators in military courts or holding people without charges for long periods). Mainstream reasoning is inherently cautious and case-by-case: it seeks a balance between public order and civil liberties, and much depends on the factual showing of necessity. By contrast, Doolittle’s Natural Law approach yields a more binary outcome based on moral legitimacy. If the unrest in our hypothetical is, say, a violent sectarian riot tearing apart cities, both approaches could authorize forceful suppression: mainstream on public safety grounds, Doolittle on reciprocity grounds. The difference is in the scope and subsequent accountability. Mainstream law would require that normalcy (civilian courts, due process) be restored as soon as possible, and individuals punished under martial law could later challenge those actions in court (as Milligan did in 1866). Doolittle’s approach would also insist that as soon as the aggressors are neutralized, force must stop – because any further coercion would become a new aggression. However, Natural Law might in some ways be more draconian during the actual conflict: since it does not fetishize procedural rights for those deemed aggressors, a Natural Law response might involve more immediate and unforgiving force against rioters (viewing them as “outlaws” in the old sense). For instance, if looters are considered to be violating property rights, Natural Law might endorse even lethal force on the spot to stop them – whereas mainstream law, while allowing deadly force in self-defense or to prevent grievous felonies, generally prefers arrest and trial if possible. On the flip side, if the government’s target is not clearly aggressors (imagine the military is used to round up political dissidents or enforce a controversial policy), a mainstream analysis might at first parse statutes and precedents, possibly giving the government some benefit of the doubt, whereas Doolittle’s analysis would outright label it tyranny and morally license resistance. Another way to frame it: mainstream constitutionalism relies on formal legitimacy (was the action authorized by law? is it within constitutional powers? are rights formally suspended or not?), whereas Natural Law demands moral-legitimacy (is the action an act of reciprocal defense or an act of predation?). The outcomes under both can align when genuine threats exist – e.g. quelling a true armed insurrection would be acceptable under both. But they diverge strongly in edge cases: a preemptive or preventive use of military power (without immediate provocation) might squeak by under mainstream doctrines if courts defer to executive claims, but Natural Law would condemn it. Conversely, a popular rebellion against a corrupt regime finds no comfort in positive constitutional law (there’s no mainstream legal right to rebellion), yet Doolittle’s philosophy might view it as justifiable or even obligatory if the regime violated Natural Law principles. In summary, mainstream reasoning about domestic military force is characterized by legal checks and balances and a cautious blending of originalist fear of tyranny with pragmatic trust in government in emergencies, while Natural Law reasoning is characterized by an uncompromising moral algorithm: force is for defense of the people’s rights only. Any other use of force is by definition illegitimate – a stark rule that, if applied, could either restrain tyranny more effectively or lead to very swift cycles of violent resistance. The Natural Law approach thus injects a moral clarity (deciding right vs wrong use of force in principle) that mainstream law might avoid in favor of procedural nuance. Ultimately, both approaches seek to prevent unjustified violence, but they do so through very different mechanisms – one through institutional process and constitutional structure, the other through ethical reciprocity enforced by the community (or its warriors).
-
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) – clear and present danger test for restricting speech.
-
Curt Doolittle writings on speech: Doolittle, Natural Law and the Logic of Morality – advocates replacing a right to free speech with a requirement of truthful speech.
-
Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) – limits on martial law: “Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open…”.
-
Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849) – recognition that quelling insurrection is a political question left to state judgment.
-
Curt Doolittle on force: Doolittle, Propertarian Institute manuscripts – on using military, police, courts, and cultural institutions in concert to “suppress evils” and uphold reciprocity.
-
Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889) – the Chinese Exclusion Case, establishing Congress’s plenary power to exclude aliens as an incident of sovereignty.
-
Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) – upholding travel ban; Court defers to facial national-security justifications and applies rational-basis review.
-
Curt Doolittle on immigration: Doolittle, Natural Law Overview – describes mass immigration as a deliberate strategy to dilute and undermine the host nation’s genetic and cultural fabric.
-
Equivalence of individuals and groups despite evidence of cognitive, temperamental, and behavioral group differences.
-
Denial of sexual and reproductive differences in moral and political choice-making.
-
Suppression of reciprocity as the basis of moral constraint in favor of Christian and Marxist altruism.
-
Obfuscation of truth and decidability in favor of moral consensus, social harmony, or political utility.