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
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.
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
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
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
@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
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