Another admirable & moral concept that leftists are trying to destroy: natural law. We need to hold onto correct meanings. “Natural law” is a concept that law is grounded in moral ideas that are universal because they are inherent in being human. /1
So you have legal rights *because* you are a human being, like the right to freedom of conscience. The right is inherent in you- given to you by God or nature or life, etc. Natural law is contrasted with “positive law,” which is law based on rights given by government. /2
There is also “divine” law, which is law- rather than rights -that is given by a god. The kosher laws would be an example.

A great deal of American law, especially constitutional, is based on the idea of “natural law.” /3
Leftist lunatics are now trying to say that “natural law” is a racist dog whistle - because they are historically illiterate. They apparently think “natural law” is part of an idea called “the natural order” which was a bastardization of Darwin’s theory used to justify slavery./4
Racists used Darwin’s evolutionary theory in a simplified form (survival of the fittest) to say that competition between races had shown some races were superior & some inferior & that was therefore “the natural order.” That has zero to do with “natural law,” however. /5
I mean, they both have the word “natural” in them, I’ll give you that. But, redhead & redbird both have the word red in them too so . . . 🤷🏻‍♀️

So as usual it’s not knowing things that leads them to claim a legal theory formed on the inherent dignity of each human is “racist.”🙄/6
In philosophy, which predated the bastardization of Darwin, the “natural order” is the moral basis for “natural law.” So, for example, the natural order is that humans are free, evidenced for 1 thing by the fact that people fight enslavement. Thus, the right of liberty exists./7
This form of “natural order” has nothing to do w/survival of the fittest or racial ideas. It is grounded on observation of, some would say idealized, but others would say inherent, human nature. We require security, freedom, self-actualization. Thus, natural law protects those./8
Now obviously, I’ve simplified a lot of this to get the ideas across in a short thread, so if you want to know more about natural law, you should read Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Spinoza & Jefferson. /9

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Leslie McAdoo Gordon

Leslie McAdoo Gordon Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @McAdooGordon

12 Jul
This is mostly correct. Very technically, however, Curzio was not charged with all misdemeanors only. He was charged with 2 counts that can be either felonies or misdemeanors & 2 that are only misdemeanors. His case was docketed as a felony case.
His actual conduct doesn’t rise to the level needed to make the first two counts into the felony variety, however. So the govt is dropping those two counts & one of the misdemeanors & he plead to the other misdemeanor, which is a 6 month maximum misdemeanor - by statute.
Some misdemeanors carry up to a year in federal court, which is the traditional max on a misdemeanor. But the Congress can create misdemeanors that have a lower max, which they’ve done for the “parading” misdemeanor.
Read 6 tweets
1 Jul
People who know me at all will be unsurprised that I admired the tough, get-your-shit-together, no-excuses, tell-it-like-it-is Donald Rumsfeld. RIP American Patriot. 🇺🇸🙏🏻 Thank you for your service; God speed. I salute you. /1
I greatly admired his logical approach to problem solving & planning. My favorite story is how he dressed down the top Pentagon brass because they literally had no plan for a response if N.Korea used nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula. To him that was complete dereliction./2
I would have thought the same: “no plan” is a plan to do nothing or be completely confused when it happens anyway or flying by the seat of your pants & all for no good reason. You can always adjust or even scrap a plan, but elements of it will almost always still be useful. /3
Read 5 tweets
21 Jun
So you know. Some people have asked (me or others) why it’s allowed to not use names in indictments at all. Usually when I see a question a few times like that it means others wonder too, but don’t want to ask.

Prior to about the early 70s, unindicted people *would* be named./1
This would be other people the govt thought was guilty or just a witness sometimes. This practice was roundly condemned as abusive because it publicly accused people of crimes, but afforded them no opportunity to clear their names. /2
Like a lot of things, a lot of criminal law & procedure changed quite a bit after 1970. DOJ eventually changed it’s official policy to what it is now -that except in exceptional circumstances- DOJ doesn’t name people it thinks is guilty of crime unless it indicts them. /3
Read 5 tweets
21 Jun
Some people aren’t getting what I said about FBI infiltrating groups (not the UCC part) because they’re making assumptions about my position, they reacted to earlier tweets first & I hadn’t expected so many people on the right to have a certain mindset. It’s about these. 👇🏻/1
Where we seem to be is that the Left thinks the govt should be routinely infiltrating these groups regardless of criminal conduct - see Greenwald’s article - & the Right thinks the FBI routinely IS doing so because FBI doesn’t follow the law anymore. THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM. /2
As Americans we should all agree that political or ideological groups can only be infiltrated or investigated by the govt if there is some evidence of criminal activity underway & even then not necessarily the whole group. This is what the law is. /3
Read 11 tweets
18 Jun
@CSpenc32683 @factsMa22309408 @DonLew1s @youreyeondenver @shipwreckedcrew It says in longer form what I said about how FBI investigations into political groups are actually supposed to & do usually work -there are requirements, tho they’re sometimes evaded, & then people have to explain what the hell they were doing if it goes wrong. /1
@CSpenc32683 @factsMa22309408 @DonLew1s @youreyeondenver @shipwreckedcrew It also makes clear what I was saying about the backdrop- that since the COINTELPRO scandal & the Church Commissioner, the govt is reluctant to initiate investigations of groups that are clearly not criminal per se & are exercising First Amendment rights. /2
@CSpenc32683 @factsMa22309408 @DonLew1s @youreyeondenver @shipwreckedcrew They know there will be shit to pay if they do & they get it wrong. That’s basically what Wray told the Senate in March - the Bureau can’t just investigate groups whose ideology isn’t popular. No less than Andrew Weisman was COMPLAINING about exactly that today in WaPo.👇🏻/3
Read 4 tweets
16 Jun
NONE - I repeat - none of the unindicted co-conspirators in the Jan 6 cases will turn out to be undercover agents/informants. The law doesn’t consider them “conspirators” whether they’re indicted or not - they’re not legally agreeing to the offense. /1 revolver.news/2021/06/federa…
There may be undercover agents or informants in the cases -I’ll get to how likely that is in a minute- but they WILL NOT be identified in DOJ pleadings as unindicted co-conspirators. If DOJ knows they are cops/informants, they can’t put them in charging docs as co-conspirators./2
The ONLY way that happens is if DOJ doesn’t know the person is undercover/an informant, or if the AUSA has gone completely off the rails in violation of the law & Dept policy. Any AUSA who’s done that will be in SERIOUS trouble, as will any LEO who may have misled DOJ about it./3
Read 19 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(