RT @LukeWeinhagen: @bryanbrey @TexasNatMov @curtdoolittle @ThruTheHayes @StevePender Separate and Federate
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-24 18:58:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750231533728723166
RT @LukeWeinhagen: @bryanbrey @TexasNatMov @curtdoolittle @ThruTheHayes @StevePender Separate and Federate
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-24 18:58:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750231533728723166
RT @bryanbrey: @TexasNatMov Good to see secession discussion becoming mainstream. @curtdoolittle @ThruTheHayes @LukeWeinhagen @StevePender
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-24 18:54:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750230709162139707
RT @WerrellBradley: >>>>>> SOVEREIGNTY <<<<<<
Sovereignty must be insured to be assured, by those who would ensure it.
Men associat…
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-23 23:07:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749932012448657868
RT @ItIsHoeMath: @RealJoeDee1 @ZubyMusic It’s not just culture but also legally what defines a people, a citizen, what defines who belongs…
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-22 21:33:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749545931832483872
We are not in any way attempting such a thing. And even if we were we would not seek to engage in treason against our people and our constitution – only to defend our people and restore and expand our constitution so it is no longer vulnerable to this means of sedition.
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-21 19:29:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749152170866245874
Reply addressees: @CarmelloM
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749150974831210519
THE DURABILITY OF OUR ACTS: NATURAL LAW CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT LEGISLATION REGULATION AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT
–“It’s not “a law.” It’s an amendment to the Constitution”–
I’m increasingly astounded by the presumptions of the common folk, and their overestimation of their knowledge and comprehension – and worse their capacity for deduction. I’m aware just how rapidly cognition declines, but the rate at which it declines and the severity of it, depresses me whenever I encounter it.
While the term ‘law’ should of course apply only to the natural common concurrent law of cooperation it is, both in the field, and colloquially, used to cover the entire body of laws of nature, and the text of the constitution, amendment, legislation, regulation, findings of the court, and even in some cases ‘commands’ (orders) – and as such the term refers to the totality of rules of decidability at the court’s disposal in the resolution of conflicts.
While at present we have (unfortunately) no sunset dates for via-positivas of legislation and regulation, and of course sunsets are unnecessary for foundational premises such as the natural law, constitution, amendments, and findings of the court. The natural law is unchangeable, the constitution reflects the natural law such that it requires little other than clarification (though there are about six or eight holes in it at present), amendments need changing infrequently as demographics, strategy, and knowledge evolve, and the findings of the court are subject to continuous revision as our demographics, strategy, and knowledge evolve.
Reply addressees: @EvanPlaskett @zeidman1 @NoahBookbinder
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-20 15:04:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748723243198902272
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748497812763951517
I MAY BE WRONG BUT IT’S HARD TO IMAGINE THE COURT WILL DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN “LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE”
I may be wrong in how the court will decide (I think it unlikely unless it’s very close). If I am then I will read the decision and the resulting opinions and determine if they used sound reasoning or erred.
IMO they are only taking on this case because the constitution is unclear in this matter and so is the law, and the consequences of ‘creating new law’ that allowed social construction of a claim of insurrection (court of public opinion constructed by media and political factions), would mean that the court would license future abuses on top of the present one.
In reality if they were to allow these matters to stand, the chance of civil war will have crossed the threshold, and the millions waiting for their opportunity will decide they have moral license.
I don’t see how the court can do anything but let the people decide.
Reply addressees: @MaziZachary @NoahBookbinder
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-19 18:46:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748416552637026304
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748414983820414994
That is an assumption. It would mean that we could do the same to Biden for his insurrection of opening the border to invasion – heck, forget insurrection it could be treason for that matter. Or we could say that the failure of biden to suppress the insurrections by BLM and ANTIFA were an act that disqualifies him. (There are in fact suits underway making both of these claims as a vehicle for demonstrating the possibilities to the high court.)
You have opinions. But you’re an average person. The average person feels or intuits everything but thinks little, and when he does so, thinks poorly. In matters of causal density in a causal hierarchy, the average person – meaning all but a few people – merely justify their intuitions given their limited knowledge, and their limited knowledge is selected to confirm their priors.
Courts need criteria of decidability regardless of opinion and whether an insurrection existed or not at present is a social construction not a decision that survived adversarial competition between parties by the facts in a court competent to make such a decision.
Reply addressees: @xjadewarrior @NoahBookbinder
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-19 14:28:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748351647812595712
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748348318718005669
No noah. The court will state that only the congress or the supreme court may convict someone of insurrection, and further that the states, in matters of the presidency, serving the people not the state,may not override a population’s choices only determine whether sufficient…
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-19 04:10:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748196103902650439
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748091766065041782
MATT: FALSE
“The monarchy is above the law in the restoration of the law”
This applies to the president. It’s a purely via negativa license.
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-19 01:11:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748151155744477344
Reply addressees: @mattyglesias
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748062555992420708