I attended a leadership conference recently, and I would like to share some of my experiences. It was with a Christian conservative organization, and its mission is to teach politics from a Biblical perspective. Their emphasis is American & Biblical values. They taught us about politics, with a particular focus on the electoral and campaigning side of things. But one of the main draws was how a legislative assembly actually works.

The event mainly took place in Indianapolis, specifically a lot of time in the capitol building itself. We got to be in the Indiana House of Representatives chamber, and the committee rooms. Ahead of time, each person had to upload a proposed bill or two onto their website. Each of us attendees could look at the others’ bills. Most people uploaded one or two bills, I had three. This specific event was focused on the youths, kids from 16 to 25. I was 26, but I asked for an exception. I also asked for said exception like the day before I turned 26. They granted it because they are nice like that.

If you are wondering how these two articles came about, they were essays I had to write to them to get accepted. I also had to get four character references.

I drove into Indianapolis in my car and parked in the hotel’s garage. I then met some of the lovely organizers when going to the check-in desk, and I was able to get my room key. I took a couple of trips to move my stuff from my car to my hotel room and get changed into formal attire. From then on, I had to wear a formal suit and jacket pretty much the whole time. They had rented a ballroom on one of the floors, and that was our main meeting place at the hotel. I got to introduce myself to some of my fellow students. There were lots of 16, 17, and 18 year olds. For those who this is their first year or second year, we were called representatives. For those who this is their third year or more, they were called senators. We didn’t have a separate Senate and House of Representatives, because we didn’t have enough people and it would have been too complicated anyways.

We then walked to the capitol building when it was time. And, wow, the Indiana Statehouse is gorgeous! It is colossal and dwarfs my State capitol building. There were 3-4 storeys, and by storey, I mean 20 ft marble columns for each one. In the middle, there was also a stained glass roof on the rotunda; and eight statues – I think they said Justice, Liberty, Law, Oratory, History, Art, Commerce, and Agriculture.

There was no food or water allowed in the House chamber, and in the committee rooms, the water must be kept away from the tables. We were told to leave things better than when we came. In the House chamber, I got to sit in Matt Lehman’s chair (79^th district).

They did a mock bill to kind of show how the process on the floor works. I think it was something about pushing California into the ocean. There was even debate as to how much manpower would be required to shove California into the pacific. The bill was voted down.

So much happened during this fun time, it is almost like a blur. It would alternate between the chaplain speaking on something, to someone else speaking on something, to committee meetings, floor sessions, to other activities like a competitive campaign, and not necessarily in that order. I apologize if I cannot convey what happened in strictly chronological order; instead, I will try to convey by subject matter.

The People

We then did a mock committee session to demonstrate how committees work. The more senior students did it while the rest of us watched. They also gave each person a golfball. The golfball represents your character – your values, your beliefs, your virtue. Just as how it is easy to lose one’s golfball, it is easy to lose your character in the world of politics. The golfball is not called a golfball, but your character. Do not lose your character. To really make this point poignant, you must hold your character at all times. The only times you can set your character down is when you are in the restroom or your hotel room. That is it, you must hold it constantly. Even when you are writing things down in your notebook or checking your computer. Even when you are eating! Constantly. Again, only in the hotel bedroom or the bathroom. If you lose your character, you have to recite a quote about character from memory. If you lose your character several times, you will have to sing “oh where is my golfball” to the tune of “oh where is my hairbrush”.

After dinner the first day, we did a competitive campaign. They talked about campaigning, and gave us papers with scenarios. Basically, there were four teams, and each team had a candidate. There was a little bio about our candidate and the candidate we were running against. There were also statistics of what turnout was for previous elections. Our team had to calculate what the expected turnout for this election would be and how many votes we would need to win. We also had to record a radio ad jingle for the campaign. My team got stuck with a lousy public school democrat (literal teacher), who was also somehow pro-life. We also didn’t coordinate that well on what we would say before the three judges. The other team did a much better job, with each person having something to say, most of them even pretended to be family members of the candidate. Least to say, the other team beat us handedly.

After this it was finally casual clothes time – for about a half hour before the bedtime curfew. This is also when I discovered that most of my peers were theatre kids who liked Hamilton songs way too much for my comfort. I decided to retire for the night because I was super tired.

I had two roommates in my hotel room. One was the Governor of this leadership conference – as in he got to veto or sign the bills once they passed. He is 16 years old, and is from northern Indiana. His mom is a county councilwoman. When she ran, her opponent spent five times as much campaign money, but she still won. He largely ran her campaign. He also has to keep her straight, because she hates being mean and saying no to people, even when spending said money is contrary to her conservative values. Thank God this kid is her son and can keep track of her. I mean, this guy is truly an amazing kid. I would not be surprised if in the future he became the Governor of Indiana. He likes Charlie Kirk a lot, but disagrees with him on sending money to Israel. He wants to conquer Israel and all the other countries that the US sends money to. Like, if you want aid, you need to be a vassal state, right? He also showed me the tiktok meme of JD Vance refusing to kiss the papal ring, but then donning a yarmulke and praying at the wall.

My other roommate was my committee chair. He is originally from Washington, but now lives in Texas. The organization is headquartered in Texas btw. Also, there were only two committees, because it was smaller than the other regional events. It was good because you could really get to know everyone there. Anyways, he was a pretty cool guy as well. I had good roommates.

The vice chair for my committee was a short girl from Washington. She looks and sounds exactly like the female detective from episode six of Death in Paradise, just not as mean. The actress is Shirley Henderson, btw; I found the similarity amusing.

One of the persons in my committee was a Hispanic woman from Tennessee. She is originally from Indiana, and later moved to Tennessee. She was born in San Diego, and she said that her dad is Mexican. She is most definitely NOT Zoomer.

There was also an autistic guy who makes tiktoks. I would humorously use the godtokker meme, but I can’t find it again, and most of you have no idea what I’m even talking about.

California guy looked Asian. What kind of Asian? No idea. Could be Chinese, could be Filipino, could be something else; I never bothered to ask. Lost his character like five times; finally forced him to sing “oh where is my golfball” at the end.

There was a mildly retarded young man from Virginia who wore a cowboy hat, and was more Southern than all the Texans combined.

The speaker was a Nordic looking girl from Washington, 18 years old. I asked her why there wasn’t a professional sports team in the Seattle area that has the killer whale1 as its mascot, and she thought that was a very excellent point.

Share The DAO

The LIFT principles

One of the things they instructed us in was the LIFT principles. The LIFT principles are the lens with which we are to view all the legislation brought before us. They stand for Limited government, Individual liberty, Free markets, and Timeless Truths. Timeless Truths meant primarily Biblical values, but can also mean whether something is Lindy or not. Yes, I can easily see how Timeless Truths can conflict with many people’s perception of Individual liberty. They also said that Limited government means limited government, not small government. They even made fun of extremely small government that you can fit in your pocket as being impractical for the third largest country in the world. I know some of you have been annoyed that “limited government” has more or less been used as a euphemism for small government, but in strictly literal terms what else would you want? An unlimited government? All non-totalitarian governments are by definition limited governments. You want the state to be constrained by higher morals and principles. One of our complaints against progressives is that they constantly try to get rid of higher morals and principles, both in relation to the state and socially.

Another thing that was drilled into us was the saying “those who know the rules, rule”. Basically, those who actually know the rules very well can better navigate them and often can dictate the others. You can outmaneuver others if you know the rules of the game very well. Also, a thing that we repeated was “socialism is bad, very bad”.

Secret Hand Signals

Another thing they taught us was some hand signals. Extending the index finger alone meant yes, I support it. Extending the index and middle finger meant no, I oppose it. You can do it publicly or discreetly. Showing your support in one direction or the other ahead of time before a vote can influence how other people vote. It also allows you to communicate quietly to another person whether you are for or against. You don’t even have to audibly speak; you can just do the hand signal.

Committee meetings

The committee meeting is where it starts. Everyone has their bills on the website for everyone else to look at. There were only two committees this time because there were fewer people at this particular conference then at the other ones. The one was named after a recent President, and the other was named after an American Founding Mother. I was thankfully in the one named after an American Founding Mother. When we travelled, we largely travelled by committee. The committee chair would shout the name of our committee, summoning us to his location, while the other committee chair did the same with her committee. Once we were gathered together, we would then move to the next location, whatever that may be.

Each committee has a chair and vice chair. They sat at one end of the table. The opposite end of that table is where you stand to speak in front of the lectern. When we start, the vice chair does a roll call to establish a quorum. She goes through the list, calling each person by “Representative [surname]” or “Senator [surname]”. Each person either says “here” or “present”. Once everyone is accounted for, we then begin the committee meeting.

The order that the bills are presented in is whatever the chair decides. He cites the bill’s serial number and the author’s surname, and if it is your bill, you are expected to get up to speak and explain your bill to the committee. The bill author speaks at the lectern first. He or she will both explain the bill and argue persuasively for its adoption by the committee. After your initial speech, you are then open for questions. If you are another committee member who wants to ask a question, what you do is raise your hand and wait for the chair to recognize you. It goes something like this:

Obviously if the person was a Senator, you would refer to him as a Senator instead of a Representative.

Now the question can vary. It could be a simple question with a quick yes or no answer from the bill author that takes less than twenty seconds. It could be a back-and-forth dialogue between you and the bill author. It could be a two-minute monologue on your part. It can result in a two-minute rant on the part of the bill author. It can be a rhetorical or softball question. As long as it is a question, it is okay to ask, but the loosest definition of a “question” will suffice. Again, you could basically rant for like two minutes, and then simply ask at the end if the bill author agrees with you or not – “do you agree (with me)?”. Each question and answer could be anywhere from a couple of seconds to several minutes. When you and the bill author are done, the chairman then waits for other questions from other committee members. Depending on the bill, and the mood, the number of questions from the committee can vary from none, to one, to many. Once the questions from the committee members are all done, then chair then asks if there are any witnesses who want to speak on the bill. You will then have witnesses from the public speak for or against the bill. What actually is going on is that one of the staff members acts out a character and speaks either for or against the bill. One time, Augusta did a Kamala Harris impersonation, and then Governor roommate did a Donald Trump impersonation. There was also a DMV employee, the representative of a lightbulb manufacturer, and many other kinds of ‘concerned citizens’. The seriousness of these witnesses did vary, some asking very insightful questions, and others were just downright silly. I also think there was a difference between a normal witness and a representative witness on behalf of an organization. After the witness gives his or her spiel, the committee members could then ask the witness questions. This pretty much follows the same procedures as asking the bill author questions. After all the witnesses are done, the bill author then concludes on the bill. This could vary from giving a two-minute closing speech to just saying “I move for adoption”. I think it was around this time that the vice chair discreetly goes around the room asking each person whether they support or oppose the bill. This is where the hand signals come in handy. She whispered discreetly at first, but once we figured out what was going on, she no longer needed to whisper at all. We just gave her the appropriate hand signal and that was effective. The reason she does this is to gauge the support that the bill has. After the bill author concludes, the chair can leave the bill as a matter of pending business. If your bill does not have enough support to be adopted by the committee, you very much want the chair to leave your bill as a matter of pending business. It will save you the embarrassment of having your bill voted down, but also if the bill is voted “NO” on by the committee, IT CAN NEVER BE BROUGHT UP AGAIN. If it is a matter of pending business, you at least have time to work on it, perhaps proposing a committee substitute. If you want to change your bill in committee, it is called a committee substitute. A committee substitute can only be made if the author is okay with that change. It is not an “amendment”, which is when changes are made on the floor, not in committee.

The very first bill presented in my committee was an unfortunate victim of not being tabled before being voted down. This was because my fellow committee members were still getting used to the process and didn’t fully understand what was going on yet; that kind of happens when you do anything for the first time. So, photographer lady is very much a strong, independent woman. I don’t mean this in a cliché girlboss way where she is just annoying and stubborn, but would breakdown and weep if there was an actual problem. I mean that she is truly a free thinker, who is feisty, aggressive, and assertive. She has a very potent personality. Likeable, but you don’t want to be on her bad side. She actually is strong, and independent. She was so independent and strong that she proposed a constitutional amendment limiting the Presidency to only men.

No person shall be eligible for the office of President unless they are a biological male.

She argued quite forcefully for it as well. Even if you didn’t agree with her proposal, the sheer entertainment value of debating it on the floor would be worth the “aye” vote. It almost passed, but was short by ONE VOTE! This meant that, due to le rules, it cannot be brought up again, even as an amendment to another bill. Boooo!!!!

So, if your bill is ready to be voted on, the vote is more or less a roll call vote. The vice chair goes in order, saying each person’s name, with that person saying either “aye” or “nay” in response.

The committee rooms were in the basement, and that is also where we had lunch. No tables. Imagine eating food, but you don’t have a table and you are holding your character in your hand.

The Floor

The floor is in the actual legislative chamber. We were fortunate enough to use the actual chamber of Indiana’s House of Representatives. We couldn’t use the microphones for some reason, so each of us had to speak reasonably loud. There is also absolutely no water or food allowed in the chamber. There is also a rule about gum. Ms. Smith was kind enough to loan a lot of us some of her gum after lunch. I chewed it for a bit, and at some point (probably going to the bathroom) I decided that I’d rather not try to speak with gum in my mouth. So, I spit out my gum in one of the trashcans before my committee went to the chamber. My compatriots were not so fortunate. It was actually kind of funny, because we didn’t realize it at first, but then some tattletale said that Representatives X, Y, and Z were violating rule 6.1. I checked the rules I printed out, and it ended with part 5, so it must have been those supplemental rules about appropriate behavior at the conference. They were then escorted outside the chamber. They later came back in, presumably because they threw away their gum in the meantime.

Each floor session began with an invocation (prayer) and the pledge of allegiance (to the US flag).

If you wanted to ask the Speaker or LegCouncil a question about what is going on, you say “parliamentary inquiry”. Then the speaker or one of the staff will answer what on earth is happening.

So, the Speaker sits atop on the chair, and then in front of her is where the LegCouncil sits. LegCouncil is short for Legislative Council. They are basically the clerks who do parliamentary stuff. They more or less ran the show. This is probably the same in actual legislative assemblies, where the show is run by the chair and parliamentarians.

So, remember the Calendars committee I mentioned earlier? They decide and make the Calendar – which is the order that the bills from the Committees are presented in. This is important because there is quite literally not enough time to go through everyone’s bills. The only two official members were the younger Hilton brother and Eyebrow man with gun, but I did see them working with staff and some of the more senior participants a lot.

In case you were wondering, no, seconding wasn’t really a thing for this conference, regardless of whatever its usage is in actual legislative assemblies.

So, your bill is now up to bat because we’ve gotten to that part of the calendar. What happens now? Well, the bill author gets up and goes to the “floor”, which is the center part in front of the aisles where you are supposed to speak. The speaker says, “HB121 X […] the Chair now recognizes Representative [surname] to speak on the bill.” The bill author then speaks on his bill, advocating for it. After he is done with his initial spiel, the Speaker then asks, “are there any questions for the gentleman”. If you want to speak, you stand up and say:

If it is a girl presenting her bill, you call her a “lady”. It is also a huge no-no to walk between the two people speaking to each other.

An assumption that some people might have is that you have to be in your seat the whole time. This is very much not true. You can get up, walk around, and talk to other members. When you talk to the other members, you must whisper. This was especially important since we didn’t have mics. Chatting with the other members is partly how you gain support for your bill. You can also scheme as to what motions you potentially want to bring. You can also ask whether someone supports the bill being debated, how they feel about it, etc. Remember the hand signals are very helpful. You can even throw up your hand in the air to communicate to the rest of the chamber how you feel about this particular bill.

There is a timer, and when it expires the Speaker point of orders you and says that your time has expired. If the member speaking to the gentleman wants to keep talking, he might say:

If someone does object, they yell “objection”. Sometimes this kills the motion, but most of the time the Speakers does a voice vote in response to this. If no one bothers to object in the first place, then the motion carries, and the two can continue blabbing.

After they are done, the Speaker asks if anyone wants to add any amendments to the bill.

Amendments

The amendment process was interesting. So, your bills are google docs, and they were uploaded to their website. They actually have a specific website for that particular conference. Anyways, your google docs bill is on there, and everyone else can read it on their computers. When a bill is being debated, and you want to amend it, you go up to the desk where LegCouncil sits, and you ask to write something on the computer. The younger Hilton brother is who I usually went to. The editing changes you make are color coded in order to keep track of who is making what amendment.

The amendments are numbered, and in the order that they were made. So, the first amendment someone makes is amendment 1, the second amendment is amendment 2, and so on. This is also where things get particularly interesting. You see, you can make amendments on amendments. Like, you can amend an amendment. The amendments on amendments are numbered as 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.3, and so on.

Things got particularly crazy with the pro-life bill that was written by the Virginia guy. There were several amendments, but then amendments on those amendments. The original bill had abortions carry the same punishment as second degree murder in Virginia. Ms. Smith tried to amend it down to five years of jail, but that amendment was voted down. Another girl tried to change it to second degree for the doctors and nurses, but only third degree for the mothers (who tried to kill their own children). She withdrew this amendment, and then had an amendment that made it second degree murder for the doctors and nurses. There was also this fat chick who tried to get it amended down to a fine and no jail time. Finally, Ohio girl amended it as well. The final bill had second degree murder for the doctors and nurses, and voluntary manslaughter for the mother.

This is a huge oversimplification of several layers of amendments and multiple votes. Naturally, I voted against any amendments to lessen the punishment for anyone. I don’t think the bill’s author supported any of the amendments either. I feel like Hillbilly Taoist (now ) could write a who article about pathological female behavior. I don’t think most “pro-life” women have the stomachs to execute women who procure abortions (aka kill their own children). They just think it’s gross & sad and want the government to regulate it more. And yes, longhoused nanny state regulation is different from the violence of justice. I was thinking about voting against the bill because it had been so amended, but then the bill’s author, Virginia guy, gave such a moving final speech that I couldn’t help but vote for it (I almost cried).

Voting

The default voting for pretty much everything that was used like 90% of the time was a voice vote. Basically, the speaker would say, “all those who are in favor, say ‘aye’”, followed by a chorus of “aye”s. Then the speaker would say, “all those who are opposed, say ‘nay’”, followed by a chorus of “nay”s. Most votes were lopsided, and it is not unusual to hear deafening silence on either the “aye” or “nay” part depending on the vote.

If the ayes and nays are close to being the same volume, you can shout “division!” but you must do so before the Speaker’s gavel comes down. Once the Speaker’s gavel comes down, it is completely over. When someone shouts “division!” it triggers a division vote. Literally any one member can ask for a division vote. When a division vote is called for the Speaker says that it is a division vote and asks everyone to return to their seats. This means that the chit chatting and talking to the other members end, and you have to go back to your chair. When everyone is ready, the Speaker then says, “all those who are in favor, please rise”, and then everyone who wants to vote yes stands up. She then counts how many people are standing up. Then she says, “thank you” and everyone sits down. The Speaker then says, “all those who are opposed, please rise”, and then everyone who wants to vote no stands up. She then counts how many people are standing up. Then she says, “thank you” and everyone sits down. She then declares the vote total, the number of ayes and the number of nays; which is something you can’t actually do with a voice vote.

I remember reading in the rules about a record vote – which if a division vote is close you can more or less do a roll call, asking each member by name their vote. However, we never did it because it wasn’t needed, and I didn’t know how to properly ask for it.

The Governor’s desk

Governor roommate lingered in the background. Literally. Because, as Governor, he couldn’t participate in the debates on the floor. When we were in committees, he could show up to our room, shadow us, give us advice, or stand as a witness. But with the floor, he wasn’t allowed. He was honestly kinda bumbed about that part. But he was lingering in the back, so you could talk to him while the floor was in session. I consulted him several times. He also went and talked to several other people. We did toy with the idea of bringing a motion to suspend the rules in order to bring Photographer lady’s bill back (the one about Presidents being only male). But, we decided against it, because it was too complicated, we were running low on time, and it could backfire easily (I may or may not have gotten cold feet).

The bills that passed

Of the bills that got passed, the first was by the older Hilton brother, and it basically got rid of all gun control in the state of Texas. He wanted the minimum age for owning a firearm to be twelve years old, but it got amended up to sixteen by Ohio girl (much to his chagrin).

The second bill was the pro-life bill that I have discussed earlier.

The third bill was by the fat chick, and it more or less got rid of electives. The intent is to make tuition less expensive.

The fourth bill was by the California Asian guy, and it changed California’s curriculum to include a cybersecurity and technology literacy class. I successfully got it amended to specifically to apply only to a “state-funded public school”. I don’t trust California’s government, and I don’t want them to go after homeschoolers. The bill’s author saw the wisdom in this and supported my amendment.

The fifth bill was by the Kentucky lady. It was actually a resolution instead of a bill, and it basically said that destroying federal property is not symbolic speech. It urged the President of the US to enforce laws and regulations protecting federal property. In the grand scheme of things, it is kind of tepid. She didn’t like the BLM riots.

The sixth bill was also a resolution. It was brought by one of the girls, and it basically encouraged Churches in Indiana to take self-defense classes, and exercise their second amendment rights, because active shooters are a thing nowadays.

The seventh and final bill was by Ohio girl, and it re-legalized incandescent lightbulbs of at least 15 lumens per watt or more.

The Vetoes

Ms. Smith’s bill was about election integrity, and more or less required voter ID. What forms of ID are valid? Well, the original bill listed state issued drivers licenses, US passports, military IDs, tribal IDs, and any other ID recognized by the Federal Election Commission. The last part was pointed out by some that the FEC basically could legalize whatever ID they wanted to, opening the door to fraud. This could potentially lead to the accidental enfranchisement of illegals and resident aliens. Once this was pointed out, an amendment was proposed to simply remove that section. The bill author and pretty much everyone supported that amendment, but it would later turn out to be a mistake.

The final text of that section reads as such:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

Relating to Federally Established Voter Identification Act of 2025

BE IT ENACTED BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

SECTION 1: This act may be referred to as the “Federally Established Voter Identification Act of 2025”.

SECTION 2: The purpose of this act is to ensure that only eligible voters participate in federal elections by requiring valid government or state issued identification at the time of voting.

SECTION 3: Upon entering a location or institution established as a place where voting is to be held, on the day of voting, voters must have with them at least one of these forms of identification:

A) State-issued drivers license

B) U.S. passport

C) Military identification card

D) Tribal identification card

SECTION 4: Implementation of this Act will be overseen by the Federal Election Commission. Funding will not be necessary.

SECTION 5: This act shall take effect 91 days after adjournment of this legislative session.

It passed the floor and went to the governor. Governor roommate is an excellent reader, and is capable of noticing flaws and errors in things. Do you know what was missing in the bill? State IDs. For those who don’t know, a State ID is basically a driver’s license, but for people who can’t drive. Without including State IDs, the bill would disenfranchise a lot of Americans. Virginia guy took personal offence to the lack of State IDs, because he himself has a State ID (I did say he was mildly retarded).

We were in the middle of debating another bill when we were interrupted by a PROCLAMATION from the Governor. One of the LegCouncil ladies read his proclamation out loud to the floor. While he stressed that he supported election integrity, he felt that implementing this bill would do more harm than good.

We were asked if we wanted to motion bring the bill back for debate for an override. Because the floor was composed of retards who were doing things for the first time, they mistaken thought it was the override vote itself, and not what it actually was – which is to vote on whether they even want to debate and vote for an override. I voted no because I knew what I was doing and thought it would be amusing to not have any debate at all.

It was getting towards the end of this wonderful conference, and there were some parents and other adults starting to congregate in the gallery in order to witness the last two or so hours of a floor session, followed by the ending ceremony where you get a medal. The people whose bills had been signed by the governor got a signed copy from him of the bill they passed.

It was towards this twilight time that the LegCouncil parliamentarians decided to nag us one more time about the overriding a veto thing, and explained it thoroughly about how they were only voting on whether to even have a debate, not actually voting on the vetoed bill. They finally got it and said aye.

There was a lot of back forth about enfranchisement. Ms. Smith and the older Hilton brother argued for the bill to be passed. Actually, it was mostly those two who took up most of the time. Ms. Smith was practically furious in her final speech. When it came time for the actual vote, they were the only two aye votes. When it came to the nays, it was a chorus… or choir. Perhaps I’m misusing my idioms? All but two voted nay. The silent majority was no longer silent. Of course I sided with my roommate, he had a valid point and was right about this one (even though I did vote for the bill originally). This probably happens in real life, where Governors carefully read things, and then present errors to their legislatures. It can also explain why legislators can initially support a bill, but then vote against it after it was vetoed by the Governor. There are always unforeseen consequences with laws.

My Bills

My Bills.

My first bill was this:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

relating to the common law of the Republic of Texas

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS:

Section 1. The torts of alienation of affections, criminal conversation, and seduction shall be recognized by the common law of the Republic of Texas.

Section 2. This act goes into effect on the first day of January of the year of our Lord two thousand and twenty-six.

My second bill was this:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

relating to injunctions

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. No court of the Republic of Texas shall have jurisdiction to issue or grant any restraining order or temporary injunction or preliminary injunction to stay the enforcement of an Act of the Legislature of the Republic of Texas.

SECTION 2. This act shall go into effect on the first day of January of the year of our Lord two thousand and twenty-six.

Can you spot what is wrong with these two bills? I’ll give you a second as if this is Blue’s Clues or Dora the Explorer.

Any guesses?

No?

You noticed how I was trying to LARP the Republic of Texas into being? Yeah, that’s not what the actual State of Texas does, so these two bills were quietly vetoed by Governor roommate despite being passed on the floor.

The other thing I had was a House Resolution proposing a US Constitutional Amendment. It never made it out of committee because they thought it would violate the single subject matter rule (it does).

Ending

Towards the end, several parents were gathering in the balcony. Eventually normal business was put on ice, and a more ceremonial motion was proposed honoring some sponsors, and then giving out signed copies of the bills that passed to their respective authors.

After those ceremonies, things wound down, and people started to pack up. I said goodbye to some people, giving my calling card to five of them, and then checked out of the hotel, bracing myself for a long drive home. I learned a lot about public speaking, campaigning, and parliamentary procedure. It was a really fun experience, and I got to meet new and exciting people who share similar values.

Leave a comment

Drones, firearms, and swords all have a commonality: they are all weapons. That is what “arms” are. Arms are weapons; whether they be knives, hammers, axes, swords, cannons, firearms, or drones. Yes, weapons are meant to harm and possibly kill other humans, that is what makes them powerful.

You are vulnerable to the predations of both the state and the criminal portion of society if you have no power whatsoever. That’s why Americans and other free peoples have traditions of men owning weapons. Tacitus I think made note of each German family having swords, and the Americans enshrined bearing arms in their national constitution. This is literally how you give power to the people. You do not have power unless you have deadly weapons in your possession.

I am not necessarily of the persuasion that the state should constantly be barraged by its own people. To the contrary, a benevolent state that is at peace with its people can trust them with weapons. Mutual trust between the people and the state can be signified through mass civilian arms ownership.

Plus, I think John Carter wrote a whole article on how military technology shapes the relationship between the state and the people:

Postcards From Barsoom

How Weaponry Organises Society

This post was inspired by a few recent pieces. First, there's Harrison Koehli's essay at the Political Ponerology blog looking at the connection between the growth of complex societies and the evolution of violence, where he describes Peter Turchin's thesis that the primary selective pressure shaping our social order was warfare rather than agriculture…

Read more

4 years ago · 166 likes · 98 comments · John Carter

I do not want to digress too much longer, because I am pretty sure most of you are aware of the right-wing arguments in favor of firearm ownership. A person can defend himself from criminals before the police arrive, firearms are needed to overthrow the state if it were to turn tyrannical, firearms are simply cool in themselves and men like them, etc. I propose that all these arguments also apply to drones.

A common argument for gun control is that the founding fathers couldn’t possibly have predicted what advanced technology we would have today. Of course, I hope most of you scoff at this for very good reasons. Unironically, most of those who think the 2^nd amendment doesn’t adapt to modern society also vehemently subscribe to the “living document” theory of constitutional interpretation (which always has bad fruit by the way).

So, if the opposite persuasion is true, that the right to keep and bear arms will change in application as weapons technology changes over time; then why would that not apply to drones as being a constitutionally protected armament?

There is legal precedent for weapons other than firearms being protected by the US 2^nd Amendment. In Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. 90 (1822), it was ruled that the right of the citizens to bear arms included the right to carry a concealed sword-cane. The “arms” that you have a right to keep and bear are not limited to firearms.

Free peoples have a right to weapons. One only needs to look at the current state of the UK (aka ‘Yookay’) to see an unfree people. Just a cursory look at some of the “offensive weapons” that are prohibited conveys the paranoia of the state. Most knives, daggers, ninja stars, batons, blowpipes, brass knuckles, and probably even karate chops are illegal in the Yookay. The law reads like a nanny state paranoid that boys might have fun ever. It never occurs to the British government that they could just deport the foreign population that actually generates the crime problem instead of prohibiting its own subjects from defending themselves, but I digress.

To digress further, liberals who say that only members of the militia have a right to keep and bears arms have no idea what they are talking about. Even if they might be technically correct, they have no idea what they are asking for. What makes a militia a militia is that everyone is part of the militia. While soldiers in the regular army have soldiering as their profession, militiamen have normal jobs. Even if it was a legal technicality at some point that militiamen had greater gun rights than people who weren’t in the militia, that wouldn’t have meant much in a society where 90% of men were members of the militia. Even today, able-bodied male US citizens between the ages of 17 to 45 are legally a part of the “unorganized militia” according to 10 U.S.C. § 246. Also, I think if I were to investigate American history, I would find that foreigners, criminals, slaves, and obviously women, were regularly kept out of the militia. I highly doubt that liberals want to advocate for the disarming of women, blacks, and immigrants.

Alright, why did I write this article? Oh, right, drones. Drones are cool; thus drones shouldn’t be over-regulated in a way that prevents /ourguys/ from having fun White boy summers. Most pro-gun arguments, both moral and legal, can also apply to drones. Feel free to reapply classic pro-gun arguments to drones in the comment section:

Leave a comment

Share The DAO

You know how frogs have tadpoles? It’s the larval stage of frogs. All amphibians have a larval stage that is completely aquatic, as in they have gills and can’t breathe air. Frogs have tadpoles. Here are some pics:

But frogs aren’t the only amphibians; you also have Cæcilians (very interesting fellows), Newts, and Salamanders.

For reference, here is a picture of a Spotted Salamander in case you somehow don’t know what a salamander even is:

Salamander tadpoles are usually carnivorous. A salamander tadpole will have three external gills on each side of his head.

Some salamanders are very strange in that they aren’t salamanders. They exhibit this strange kind of neoteny called pædomorphosis where the larval stage reproduces and never matures into the “adult” stage. It’s like if tadpoles started laying eggs and squirting sperm, making more tadpoles while they are tadpoles themselves, and never maturing into frogs. Of neotenous salamanders, there are several kinds.

Mudpuppy

Mudpuppies, or waterdogs, live in North America. Here is a picture of a common mudpuppy:

Siren

Sirens, which live in “the South” and parts of northern Mexico. Here is a picture of a Western Lesser Siren, also known as a mud eel:

And also a leopard siren:

Amphiuma

The Amphiuma, also known as congo snakes, have a lot of DNA for some reason. Again, more pictures:

Olm

The Olm, or Proteus, lives in the caves of Croatia:

As you can see, the Olm is a literal troglobite. Troglobites are usually white or pink because there is no need for pigment when there is no light. Technically an Olm is a stygobite, because it lives in the water.

Texas Blind Salamander

Another stygobite is the Texas Blind Salamander that lives in Hays County.

AXOLOTL

The Axolotl, or Ambystoma mexicanum, is a pædomorphic mole salamander. The word “axolotl” is a Nahuatl word that can mean either “water slave”, “water servant”, “water sprite”, “water player”, “water monstrosity”, “water twin”, or “water dog”. Apparently the Mexicans ate them in the past when there was more of them.

Axolotls can regenerate lost limbs; lots of science experiments because of this. Large numbers are bred in captivity. They eat mainly by suction.

Axolotls are popular with exotic pet breeders, so the captive ones have many different colors to them.

Unlike the other neotenic salamanders like sirens, mudpuppies, or olms; Axolotls can be induced into metamorphosis. It may or may not involve iodine.

Also, Axolotls hate chlorine. You also shouldn’t put gravel in the Axolotl’s tank because he’ll eat the gravel.

Apparently, somebody decided to add a pink Axolotl to Minecraft in 2020. This has caused a spate of cute Axolotl plushies. Girls love the Axolotls.

Question: is this a simulacra? Because ladies, an actual Axolotl is slimy and looks like this:

Now, what are my thoughts on the phenomenon of women getting axolotl plushies? Not much honestly, I just think it’s amusing.

Share The DAO

Leave a comment

They are Pitts v Mississippi, Clark v Sweeny, and Doe v Dynamic Physical Therapy LLC.

Jeffrey Clyde Pitts v. Mississippi

Jeffrey Clyde Pitts v. Mississippi -

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.

This case reminds me of Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990).

Basically in child abuse cases, it is common to use a tv screen or something like that for a video conference call, because the child being in the same room as his tormenter can be well… traumatizing. However, defendants have a sixth amendment constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. I mean, we wouldn’t want to falsely accuse someone of being a child rapist when he isn’t. The usual compromise is a live video with the kid in another room. As long as the defense lawyer can cross-examine the witness, it’s generally held to be okay.

One of the issues with this Mississippi case is that the statute authorizing screening is mandatory instead of discretionary. The US Supreme Court basically told the Mississippi Supreme Court to reconsider the case and decide whether a new trial is necessary for a “harmless error”.

Terence Clark v. Jeremiah Antoine Sweeney

Terence Clark, Director, Prince George’s County Department of Corrections, et al. v. Jeremiah Antoine Sweeney -

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The Fourth Circuit court is deranged.

Jeremiah Sweeney thought his neighbors stole his stash of marijuana. He quarreled with them, and then opened fire. He missed, but he hit and killed a bystander. The trial revolved around the location and angle of the shot. Juror 4’s curiosity got the better of him and he went to the crime scene himself. Now, why don’t juries do this more nowadays, actually visiting the places the case is about, I am not sure. Juror 4 told the other jurors, who then snitched on him to the judge. Both lawyers conferred with the judge, and everyone agreed to excuse Juror 4 and proceed with 11 jurors instead of declaring a mistrial. Sweeney was convicted of second-degree murder.

Later Sweeny petitioned for postconviction relief in state court on the basis that he had ineffective counsel. The state court denied relief. The bastard then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the Federal District Court. He made the same argument, that his counsel was ineffective for not challenging the jury that was alleged tainted by Juror 4. The Federal District Court thankfully denied him.

The psychotic and deranged Fourth Circuit court then reversed the District Court’s denial. They said that the trial was marred by a “combination of extraordinary failures from juror to judge to attorney”, and that this deprived Sweeney of his right to confront witnesses against him and his right to an impartial jury. Sweeney did not make any of these arguments in his petition, he argued for ineffective counsel. The Fourth Circuit is literally making things up. Leftist judges are just evil. They love criminals. While most of us view rights as necessary to protect the innocent from false accusation and to protect liberty; to them, rights are simply weapons used in order to free the guilty. There has to be a procedure where the supreme court can put these so called “judges” on administrative leave for their contumacy. There is a difference of opinion, but there is a degree of flouting precedent where you just hate the law and should be fired.

In our court system, we have the principle of party presentation. Basically, the lawyers for both sides make arguments, and the judge decides who the winner is for each argument. The judge almost never on his own makes a decision. Usually, one of the parties makes an argument, and the judge either agrees or disagrees with him. Making up a brand-new argument is simply not done. Otherwise the judge is not a neutral arbiter.

The Fourth Circuit transgressed the party-presentation principle by granting relief on a claim that Sweeney never asserted and that the State never had the chance to address. […] The Fourth Circuit’s “radical transformation” of Sweeney’s simple ineffective-assistance claim “departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion.”

The US Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings.

I need to digress on habeas corpus. So, part of the reason why States are weak and missing the sovereignty they once enjoyed is due to the usage of force. One particular example is Habeas corpus. Federal Courts can use habeas corpus to release any prisoners in State custody they like based on their own interpretations of the US Constitution. It does not work the other way. States cannot use Habeas corpus in order to release prisoners in federal custody. This is an abusive one-way relationship. The Feds can free any prisoners the States have when they feel like it, but the States cannot release any prisoners the Feds have, no matter how unjust that detention is. Before the war between the states, federal courts only granted habeas corpus relief to prisoners in federal custody.

Another annoyance I have with modern habeas corpus is its usage to more or less undo trials. The original intention of habeas corpus was to challenge unlawful detentions, like when the government kidnaps you without trial. It’s supposed to force a trial because if you are imprisoned with no trial waiting, then the higher court can just let you out. Habeas corpus is also used for bail. Rules against “excessive bail” are enforced through habeas corpus: if the trial court sets a bail that is far too high, the higher court will use habeas corpus in order to set a lower and more appropriate bail. I understand challenging the non-existence of a trial, or improprieties before the actual trial, but I draw the line at the trial itself. It is all on record, which is what can be used on appeal. If you want to challenge a mere error in your trial, you should use an actual appeal instead of misusing habeas corpus. If a habeas corpus is heard, a conviction from a jury is sufficient authority to detain a prisoner. Unless the sentence was for like 15 years, and the prisoner is in for his 16^th year, then I feel that a conviction is sufficient authority to deny habeas corpus. Congress should write legislation to this effect.

John Doe v. Dynamic Physical Therapy, LLC

John Doe v. Dynamic Physical Therapy, LLC et al. -

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

The Louisiana Court of Appeal held that a state statute about public health emergencies barred a plaintiff’s federal claims. The US Supreme Court says this decision is incorrect.

A State statute of limitations is not applicable to a federal claim. A State has no power to confer immunity from federal causes of action.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. - US Constitution, Article VI, clause two.

The judgement of the Louisiana Court of Appeal was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Leave a comment

Share The DAO

A trend I’ve noticed is that people will badmouth the last year, hoping next year will be so much better than this terrible year. And you know what? I’m exhausted from being exhausted. It’s just plain annoying.

You know literally nothing has been perfect since the fall of man? Like, get over yourself. Bad stuff happens in the world all the time. People say things are getting worse, but I wonder how much of that is just a greater awareness of how bad things have been this whole time.

You should not judge how good a year was based on what goes on the world, and definitely do not go by that circus known as “politics”. You should really judge it based on your personal life. This is what I’ve done.

I remember people complaining about the years in the 2010s (which seem quaint now), and at some point I decided to be different. No, 2018 was indeed a good year. No, 2019 was indeed a good year. Trump was President, the economy was good, and my personal life was overall good. I was content. 2020 genuinely sucked, and so did 2021. But by 2022 it was better. And 2023 was even better. And 2024 was even better. And you know what? 2025 has been even better.

Obviously for this substack, I’ve been very successful. I’ve gone from 60+ subscribers to over 300! Things are looking up indeed.

When reflecting on the past, remember to have a glass-half full mentality.

Here’s to a good 2026!

Leave a comment

Share The DAO

In America, Joe Biden should have been a honeymoon for the American left. Instead, it was their undoing. A similar thing is happening with the British left. This is for several reasons.

Firstly, the victory was illegitimate; they didn’t deserve it. In America this was more brazen, as the 2020 election was quite literally rigged. In Britain this is not as brazen or obvious, but they still didn’t deserve it. The Labour party won the July 4th, 2024 elections not in their own right, but because British voters largely refused to vote for the good-for-nothing “Conservative” party, some even voting for Labour just to get rid of the disgraceful Tories. British voters didn’t vote for the Labour party; they voted against the “Conservative” party. As the main opposition at the time, they were merely beneficiaries of the outrage against Johnson’s and Sunak’s sad excuse of a political party. This means that Labour’s mandate from the people is severely defective.

Secondly, and most importantly, it revealed how incompetent, malicious, and hypocritical the regime is. Brazen political favoritism, double-standards, aggressive attempts at censorship, lack of professionalism, etc. The regime is riddled with scandals. I don’t think I need to dwell on this too much because most of you already know about it.

Thirdly, the head of government strangely validates right-wing rhetoric. This might seem odd, but it happened. In America, Joe Biden was not a zealous free-traitor neocon who hated tariffs. It wasn’t discussed much, but Joe Biden gave a lot of lipservice to non-interventionism and isolationism. On the trade front, Biden was trying to woo American labor unions away from Trump and back to the Democratic party with “made in America” rhetoric. As far as I know, Biden didn’t remove or undo very many (if any) of Trump’s tariffs from his first term . And Biden continued the Airbus-Boeing trade dispute with the European Union. Biden was also responsible for the Afghanistan withdrawal because he wanted to be an Isolationist Progressive. Then came the Ukraine hysteria, with threw any attempts at progressive non-interventionism out the window.

As for the UK, I don’t think it is necessarily about trade, but I have noticed that Starmer has voiced concern about immigrant – a la “Island of Strangers” paper. This more or less just validates a right-wing nationalist talking point in the same way that Biden trying to please labor unions banished “free trade” rhetoric from the White Houe for good. “If even a left-wing politician is finally admitting that there are problems with immigration, how bad must what is going on actually be?” is what everyone is thinking.

We have a long way to go, but part of me is whitepilling deep down on the inside. I also don’t have any idea what I’m talking about because I don’t live in Europe. However, I am aware of this Alexis de Tocqueville quote:

Leave a comment

Share The DAO

I then restacked my reply to elaborate:

had this to say:

Someone pointed out that human rights are legal fictions, which I in return pointed out that all legal rights are fictions anyways (the law itself is fictitious):

has a long rant about the enlightenment:

For the original poast, most of my commenters were either of the conclusion that human rights either don’t exist, or that they consist of what is traditional for fundamental rights: namely life, liberty, and property.

The reason why human rights don’t exist, is because they can be taken away as punishment for a crime; which has already elaborated on.

So, I can conclude that unconditional human rights don’t exist. While one can be tempted to include generic procedural rights like due process as a universal, the problem is there is one big except to due process: war. No procedural right is absolute because of warfare, and no substantive right is absolute because of the death penalty. Thus, I can conclude definitively that there are no unconditional rights at all in existence. There are always loopholes.

As for conditional natural rights, I really do think it is life, liberty, and property. The right to life, including the right to self-defense, is the most fundamental part of the laws of nature. The right to right and the right to self-defense are actually beyond any mere written constitution, for they are a part of the law of nature.

The right to liberty is less about political “freedoms” and more about the literal locomotion of a person. To kidnap a person is to violate his right to liberty moreso than denying him a vote in an election he shouldn’t participate in.

The right to property, while technically the least of the three, is possibly the most important to political rhetoric and trust because it is the most concrete of the three. You can wax poetically about life, you can wax poetically about liberty, but property is the least abstract. How a government treats its citizens’ property shows a lot about its character. You can say you support life and liberty; any communist can do that. But saying you support the right to property is a much more substantive claim, practically speaking. Usually people who support property rights, also support freedom generally, and the right to life in more practical ways.

I can also expand this list to life, limb, liberty, dower, estate, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Also “happiness” means one’s vocation, not merely the emotion of joy.

Leave a comment

Share The DAO

Here is the original poast:

I then had this to add:

then pointed out that saying dogs are better than people is literally safe edgy.

pointed out that dogs are lower maintenance than humans.

repeated the truism that the in group is better than the outgroup:

then elaborates on how often it’s emotional blackmail. Animals will accept imprisonment that humans try to free themselves from.

Again, bad faith actors will misinterpret all of this as a sign that I hate dogs. This is not true, I love dogs. Dogs are man’s best friend. It’s more of a critique of the anti-natalist trends in society. Pets becoming substitutes for children. Again, most pets are imprisoned in human houses. Their “unconditional” love is compulsory. Dogs are awesome, and I am also not a fan of the kind of materialist who is too busy “travelling” to bother with any kinds of pets at all, let alone children. Dogs are an important part of American society, but I am concerned with the discategorization as of late. It is common sense not to have sex with your sister, but people forget that boundaries like this apply to other relationships. Dogs are not children, and children are not dogs. You shouldn’t treat your pets like substitute children. Conversely, you can say that you shouldn’t treat your children like pets. Pets are pets, and children are children. Ontological propriety.

Share The DAO

Leave a comment

So, I have joked about how the American founding fathers would be considered terrorists nowadays. A lot of the counter-terrorism peeps are libtards who fearmonger about right-wing extremism. You think being an Islamophobe would be a requirement for counter-terrorism, but nope, it’s full of lefties. Just like how the founding fathers were traitors for daring to stand up to the tyrannical British state, members of the modern radical right are labeled as terrorists or extremists for daring to dissent against the tyrannical modern state. The word “terrorist” have suffered from an expansive mission creep that it basically means “enemy of the state”, so we sometimes embrace it jokingly.

I have also seen a lot of /ourguys/ use the word “terrorist” anachronistically in order to get the point across. John Brown was a bloodthirsty terrorist, even though he was convicted of treason and the word “terrorist” didn’t exist in the 1850s. Historical left-wing extremists will be called “terrorists” by our side in order to firmly convey how evil and violent these leftists were. Or more jovially if it involves insurrections, rebellions, or other conspiracies.

After contemplating a bit on John Brown’s treason conviction, it then dawned on me that terrorism is a form of treason. It’s literally an act of war. The only reason the word “terrorism” exists, mostly in reference to the 9/11 attacks, is to refer to acts of war committed by small groups instead of diplomatically recognized states. However, this was not necessarily the case in English law. And for those who don’t know, English law IS American law.

I remember reading part of Sir Matthew Hale’s book where he elaborates on English treason law. One of the main parts is compassing or imagining the king’s death (Norman: fait compasser ou ymaginer). Basically trying to kill the king is very illegal. This includes trying to overthrow him. It also includes imprisoning the king, because everyone knows that medieval dungeons have a high mortality rate. “Your honor, we were just trying to imprison the king, we weren’t trying to kill him or nothin’.” Yeah, the judge is not going to buy that lame excuse. This is often known as constructive treason: imprisoning or restraining the liberty of the king is treated the same as an attempt on his life.

However, the compassing or imaging the king’s death is a separate clause from the levying war against the king in his realm clause in the Treason Act of 1351. And for those who don’t know, Article III’s treason clause in the US Constitution is based on the Treason Act of 1351. So, what kind of levying of war is not compassing or imagining the king’s death?

Levying war is a question of fact. A conspiracy to levy war is not levying war itself, for there must be an assemblage of persons1.

While directly raising war against the king overlaps with compassing his death constructively, indirectly raising war is interesting:

2. Interpretatively and constructively, as when a war is levied to thrown down inclosures generally, or to inhanse servants wages, or to alter religion established by law; and many instances of like nature might be given; this hath been resolved to be a war against the king, and treason within this clause…

Historia Placitorum Coronæ Vol. I by Sir Matthew Hale, page 132.

If it is a specific quarrel, such as this specific inclosure, or this specific lord, or these two lords quarreling, or breaking out particular prisioners, it is a private war that is not against the king. However, if the war be generally, then it is considered to be against the king: not this specific inclosure but all inclosures in general, or all prisoners generally, or the king’s counsellors, or against one of the king’s statutes, etc. In many ways, levying war is a step above a great riot2, when the rioters form themselves into an army and perpetrate a rebellion. Levying of war is a higher, more intense, form of collective violence; above mere rioting.

Robert Devereux, the 2^nd Earl of Essex, was beheaded for high treason because he tried to remove rival counsellors from Queen Elizabeth’s court by force of arms.

If there be an actual rebellion or insurrection, it is a levying of war within this act; and by the name of levying war it must be expressed in the indictment. Co. P. C. p. 10.

Historia Placitorum Coronæ Vol. I by Sir Matthew Hale, page 144.

If any with weapons invasive or defensive doth hold and defend a castle or fort against the king and his power, this is a levying of war against the king within this act. Co. P. C. p. 10. Vide the statute 13 Eliz. Cap. 1 &. Dicta ibid postea.

Historia Placitorum Coronæ Vol. I by Sir Matthew Hale, page 146.

The Luddites went from house to house, breaking in and destroying any engine-looms they could find. There was a judicial controversy as to whether this was a treasonous levying of war or no.

If the intent of the levying of war is to kill one of the king’s privy counsellors, it is treason under the levying war clause.

“In his realm” includes the narrow seas, and invasions by water.

The United States incorporates English law as her own.

Article III, § 3, clause one [emphasis mine]:

Justice Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), says, “they have adopted the very words of the Statute of Treason of Edward the Third; and thus by implication, … they have recognized the well-settled interpretation of these phrases in the administration of criminal law, which has prevailed for ages.”

“As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 43.

I shall give a brief overview of federal treason convictions in the US.

Shay’s Rebellion was one of the motivations for adopting the current US constitution. It was led by indebted farmers, and more or less spooks elites across the US. The new constitution would allow the US President to bring in the militia of neighboring states in order to put down insurrections, instead of each state fending for herself.

After the new constitution was adopted, there was the Whiskey Rebellion. Farmers in western Pennsylvania didn’t want to pay federal taxes on alcohol, so they rebelled. In 1794, President George Washington led a force to crush the rebellion, with militiamen from Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. This is the only known time that the US President led troops in combat. Only Philip Wigle and John Mitchell were convicted of treason. They were sentenced to death by hanging, but President Washington pardoned both of them.

In 1807, there was the Burr conspiracy snafu, with Aaron Burr being acquitted of treason.

In 1847, Hispanics and Injuns in New Mexico rebelled and murdered provisional governor Charles Bent and several other Americans. The American military authorities eventually executed 28 rebels, usually for either treason or murder.

Because the war between the states mainly relied upon other laws against defying the government, and also that the Confederates were amnestied in exchange for their surrender3, only one person was actually convicted of treason. William Bruce Mumford was executed in a military tribunal for tearing down a US flag in New Orleans. Yeah, I fail to see how desecrating the US flag is a freeze peach issue, it should be illegal.

During WWII, several Americans living in Europe were charged with treason for broadcasting “Nazi propaganda”. Tomoya Kawakita, a Japanese-American dual citizen, was convicted of treason for mistreating American prisoners when he worked as a translator for the Jap’s POW camps. His death sentenced was later commuted to life imprisonment, and he was deported in 1963.

During the Cold War, there were many espionage cases, but not very many treason cases. This is because of the “Cold” nature of the war. Congress never declared war on the USSR and we still had diplomatic relations with them, so the Soviets technically weren’t “enemies” that you can give aid and comfort to. Hence why commie spies were charged with espionage instead of treason.

I would also like to inform you that treason against a specific US state is indeed a thing. The Mormons committed treasons against both the State of Missouri and the State of Illinois. Thomas Dorr was convicted of treason against the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations for trying to violently alter its constitution.

In doing this research, it turns out that John Brown was hanged for treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia, not treason against the United States.

Circling back to England, there is the famous Gunpowder Plot. A group of English Catholics, including Guy Fawkes, planned to bomb the House of Lords with King James I inside of it. There were 36 barrels of gunpowder in the basement, hence the name of the gunpowder plot. Eight of the conspirators were convicted of high treason and sentenced to death.

Imagine if nowadays, a group of muslims put explosives in the basement of parliament in order to blow up King Charles III. Honestly, they would probably be charged with terrorism instead of treason.

Something I want to revisit later is that the BLM riots of 2020 can be legally considered a form of treason.

As for “terrorism” as a word, the first people who were called “Terrorists” were the Jacobins interestingly. In 1795, Edmund Burke said that the Jacobins let “thousands of those hell-hounds called Terrorists … loose on the people” of France. In 1920, Leon Trotsky literally wrote a book called “Terrorism and Communism” in order to justify left-wing terrorism.

In the 1970s, “terrorism” and “terrorist” became common descriptors of the Palestinian ‘Liberation’ Organization, the Irish ‘Republican’ Army, Basque separatists, and the Red Army Faction. I don’t want to get stuck in the quagmire of how “terrorism” doesn’t have a real definition, and that it’s all just word salad. For me personally, only Islamists and Leftists can be terrorists. Throw all leftists in jail for “terrorism”, just look at 18 U.S. Code § 2331, or the US Code of Federal Regulations: “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” 28 C.F.R. Section 0.85. I mean that sounds like every peaceful protest the left has ever perpetrated against us.

I do find it interesting that there are similarities between what is considered terrorism and what is considered treason. Actual treason trials seemed to have stopped sometime after WWII, with “terrorism” becoming a crime later in the 20^th century. I strongly suspect that one replaced the other. Terrorism is a form of treason.

I do want there to be more treason trials going forward. For those incidents of left-wing violence, one of the main issues is that the judges and juries would side with them if they are not /ourguys/. The judiciary needs to be purged of wicked judges, and leftists should be forbidden from being on any of our juries. Then hopefully there will finally be rule of law in the nation.

Here are some Guy Fawkes Night festivities:

Share The DAO

Leave a comment

They voted for him twice.

This should be your first warning sign. Trump won THREE elections. He won in 2016, he won in 2020, and he won in 2024. The only reason I didn’t vote for him in 2016 was because I was 17 years old. I was happy when he won, and very happy when he won my state (which was a surprise). Trump supporters older than me voted for orange man three times.

I mean, did the person who wrote this just think of Trump’s two Presidencies, and assumed that people voted for him twice? It’s almost as if he never voted for Trump himself.

Also, how on earth do you work 50+ hours at a warehouse and not have enough money for food? Like, warehouses actually pay pretty good (my brother used to work at one). And with overtime, you should have enough money for food. The story sounds fake.

Another thing about food stamps is that they are actually administered by each State. The federal government funds it, but the benefits are actually paid to the people by the State. If it really that bad, couldn’t the States just fund it themselves for like a month? Why does it have to be a federal thing? Overseeing the poor should be a local issue.

Also, are you really complaining about Trump’s law and order policies? Criminals are technically US citizens, but they are a threat to the rest of society. Perhaps the people who love crime and disorder are evil? They are also a minority of loud voices. Most normal Americans love the police, and they love having the streets cleaned up.

Also, the Ballroom is funded by private donors, not tax dollars. And shouldn’t things be beautiful, instead of soullessly utilitarian?

Also, tearing down the east wing? He tore down like only a third of it, and in the future, it is going to be over three times as big.

Also, the DOJ fees story is faker than fake. What is your source? Maybe there’s a reason even lamestream media dropped it.

Also, why does feeding the hungry have to do with government spending? Feed the hungry yourself! This is one of the obnoxious things about libtards – they are lazy and want the government to do everything for them. They claim to love immigrants so much, but I almost never see liberals room and board said immigrants. The people I do know who room and board foreign students are Christian Trump supporters. Do you know who actively welcomes immigrants we know when they do come? My family, all Trump supporters. I still have not forgotten about the Martha’s Vineyard debacle.

You think that if you like other cultures so much, you would travel across the world to see said cultures in their natural environment. Why exactly must those cultures get imported here, exactly? Reasons?

Same thing with vagrants. They just want to throw money at the problem instead of interacting with an actual homeless dude. Remember the guy who had like those tiny homes for the vagrants of Venice Beach, but the government shut him down because he didn’t have permits?

It’s always throwing money at the problem, never dealing with people themselves. They just want to feel good about themselves without having to do anything. Let’s someone else’s tax dollars pay for the problem, while I Netflix and chill.

Even when state intervention is appropriate – such as the state arresting all the vagrants – they squirm at the prospect of such a masculine exercise of state force. So, they call good solutions “fascism” or some other drivel.

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” – Exodus XX:16.

“You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people.” – Exodus XXII:28.

There are a gazillion other scriptures verses on not bearing false witness, not slandering, not lying, honoring authority, etc.

By the way, if you voted for Joe Biden in 2020, God will ask you why you were complicit in the slaughter of the unborn.

“But Jesus fed people!” Yes, he fed people Himself. He didn’t steal from his neighbors, and he didn’t use state power to do it. You should be more like Jesus.

You know what all this emotional blackmail surrounding food stamps is? Communism. The USA is as communist as the USSR. It’s been a socialist country since at least FDR, and probably earlier. “If you don’t want socialism, you hate poor people” is, and has always been, emotional blackmail and manipulation. Most people who are on food stamps are obese. Feeding the hungry is not the state’s responsibility, it’s the Church’s responsibility. The state’s job is to be violent towards evildoers (see Romans ch. XIII).

Trump declaring martial law and suspending democracy sounds BASED. I mean, does this guy even know what he’s saying?

Oh, this explains it.

Of course a female heroin addict in her 20s would have garbage opinions.

Both of them are in the business of conspiracy theory slop. Somehow {{{THEM}}} is never dajoos. Commie conspiracy slop meant to make you paranoid while they feast off of your attention and fear.

It was started by a stock analyst retiree beach bum.

Also, don’t study the occult, it’s bad for you. Tolkien said, “It is perilous to study too deeply the arts of the Enemy, for good or for ill”.

This explains the split personality.

You though Brylin Hollyand was a faker? He’s tame and harmless in comparison to this publication.

Don’t trust anyone’s Biblical exegesis if that person has a problem with President Donald J. Trump.

Like, where do the libtards keep finding these people? Every year, there are alleged conservatives who suddenly become libtarded. You think that they would have gotten off the Trump train by now, but they are yet complaining. They pretend to be former conservatives while recycling tiresome leftist talking points. Why do they exist? It’s annoying. Anyways, don’t subscribe or follow this publication. Don’t like any posts, don’t give the attention demon any of your attention. Internet inflooincers thrive off of attention, including negative attention. Consider blocking.

Also, here is another good article on what could happen with food stamps:

The American Sun

Testing the Danegeld

Submitted by Dixiecrat…

Read more

10 months ago · 52 likes · 9 comments · The Editors

Share The DAO

Leave a comment

Firstly, for better or for worse, most entitlements and welfare in the US operated as a matter of law. You are entitled to X amount of money if Y conditions are met. It’s what’s called mandatory spending, and it is not dependent on the annual budget. Again, this is how social security operates, your retirement savings with the government didn’t go anywhere, and it’s not dependent on Congress’ annual budget. This is one of the main reasons why I want this shutdown to last months so that all those retirees see those social security payments still being made each month. Then a lot of them will stop panicking and realize that they’ve been lied to.

Obviously, if you are a federal employee, you might be slightly worried. However, there are lots of people who are not materially benefiting from the federal government directly, but are nonetheless distressed by the government shutdown. I have a theory that these people are not necessarily materially benefiting from federal largesse, but rather are psychically dependent on the federal government. To the upper middle class white liberal, not funding oxygen wasters is like the worst thing ever™.

Again, welfare trash and bureaucrats do not produce anything of value; they only consume value made by others. They are thieves who use emotional blackmail and the apparatuses of the state in order to extract value from the productive. “Communism is when ugly deformed freaks take over your society, make it illegal to be normal, and then kill the successful out of spite.” (Mystery Grove Publishing Co).

While the oxygen wasters themselves are material parasites, the independent liberal is a psychic parasite. She may not be getting money personally from the feds, but she is emotionally invested in the left’s project of dysgenic bureaucratic socialism.

Perhaps it is because the left acts as a cohesive unit á la the borg, this means that even if an individual leftist does not benefit from socialism, the left as a whole benefits from socialism. Individual leftists will horrifically sacrifice themselves for the meme, occasionally to the extent where they will either castrate themselves, or castrate their children (if they even have any). Illegals vote left, oxygen wasters vote left, bureaucrats vote left. They need a surplus of biotrash so that the biotrash can empower the cause. Thus, even if an individual leftist does not benefit from leftist policies, she will still support the cause at all costs.

The good news is that, while the public was originally mad at Trump for the shutdown, his approval rating is going up now. It seems like the longer this shutdown lasts, the less the public blames Trump and the more they blame Congress. This has the startling implication that the annual budget is actually unnecessary; another pillar of our alleged democracy has been exposed as a fraud. Considering how lousy Congress is normally nowadays, I am glad that they will have some egg on their faces.

Also, the shutdown can be used as an excuse to downsize the federal government. The Military and ICE have thankfully been spared, and SSA is fine too, so the boomers won’t rebel against Trump. It seems like the furloughs are mostly in proportion to how much I dislike each alphabet agency, as per this table from Wikipedia:

Anyways, I like government shutdowns. I mean, at least the entertainment value of it is worth it. Get out the popcorn, I think this is going to be a long movie.

Share The DAO

Leave a comment

Governments generally have a remarkable ability to preserve themselves, even from change. I would say that even through alleged revolutions and rebellions, there is remarkable continuity between regimes.

With the American Revolution, there was a continuity for the State governments. Before the Revolution, most daily governance was done by the State government. The Americans were largely self-governing the moment they came here to the new world, if not simply because of the transportation and communication logistics of colonialism (for example, news took months if not years to go from one continent to the other). With established State governments, they were the ones who had sovereignty. Sure, the British Crown appointed Royal Governors, but the Governor was sent to the colony he was to govern. He lived with the colonists, and he didn’t have the king or prime minister personally breathing down his neck. Remember, they didn’t have cellphones or internet in the 17^th or 18^th centuries. They didn’t even have Alexander Graham Bell phones back then either. If there was any mail going back and forth, it would take months on a galleon that may or may not even make it to the destination; so it had to be very important to even bother sending it in the first place. The Royal Governor may have been given written instructions from London when he got the job, but once he actually arrived to the colony he was pretty much autonomous. The colonies also had vigorous assemblies. They wrote the laws, controlled budgets, etc. In the 18^th and 19^th centuries, legislative assemblies were far more important and powerful than they were in the 20^th century; so these colonial assemblies were very powerful and the Royal Governors preferred to work with rather than against these assemblies.

The American colonies were part of a larger federation now known as the British empire. Due to demographic overlap (i.e. British people) the culture and legal systems of the different colonies were similar. They spoke a common language (albeit with regional accents) and they had trade relations with each other. From what I understand, they either didn’t have tariffs with each other, or they had more favorable tariffs and trade practices with each other than with truly foreign areas (not part of the British empire). The American colonies were part of this trade federation, but largely self-governed for local issues. With the “Intolerable Acts”, the British parliament increasingly interfered with local affairs. The consensus is that this was triggered by the aftermath of the French and Indian war. The British Crown acquired a large national debt from that war, and they wanted the Americans to pay for it. I mean, it was to protect the English colonists from France and savage Indians. So, the British parliament sought after exorbitant taxes from the Americans, and when there was dissent (there is always dissent when it comes to taxes) they took increasingly coercive measures to get that money. A lot of the complaints about the British abrogating liberty were because of the coercive means to force tax compliance. The abrogation of traditional English liberty was the means, the taxes were the ends. The American State governments decided enough was enough and resorted to arms. The blusteriest were some of the New England colonies like Massachusetts, whose militia was shooting at British troops a full two years before the Declaration of Independence was signed. While the British Crown was always at least nominally sovereign, the degree that Westminster could dictate the daily goings on of the American colonies was pretty much nil. The British had to send an army into America. They even had to rely on foreign mercenaries. Stripped of legal doctrines and political rhetoric, the logistics of the British military looked like they were invading foreign territory. The Americans only ever had nominal allegiance to the British Crown.

That was an overly long-winded way of saying that in America, sovereignty was conserved, even through the Revolution and War of Independence.

As for the French Revolution, the petty bourgeoisie bureaucracy served the French King until they no longer needed him. Many of the French Revolutionaries were minor aristocrats. A lot of them were lawyers too. Despite many trying to paint the French Revolution as the people rebelling against a tyrant and his decadent aristocracy; what actually happened was that the State got rid of a king that it no longer needed. Thus, sovereignty was conserved; going from kingdom to republic was simply a change of scenery.

All successful rebellions and revolutions have at least the tacit support of part of a government.

One of the geniuses of the American constitution was to have interests set up against each other to hold each other accountable. I would also like to disabuse people of the notion that these accountabilities do not exist in monarchies. No man is safe, and no elite is secure. Anyone can be assassinated. A king wants to be popular with his subjects. In free nations, parliamentary assemblies inevitably exist; they are an indication of racial superiority. Germans have always had their things1. Lesser races gravitate towards sole monarchs, and the truly inferior races are incapable of any kind of self-government (and in this case, having your own king as opposed to someone else’s king is a form of self-government). This does not necessarily negate the existence of strong executives in these free nations, whether energetic presidents or eminent kings. Oftentimes during tranquil golden ages, the monarch and the parliamentary assembly cooperate so well that it is almost impossible to tell where one’s power ends and the other’s power begins.

One thing that happens in all societies, even free ones, is that during a war power concentrates in the national executive. It does make me wonder why in peacetime power in free societies gravitates towards deliberative assemblies as representatives of the elite. That’s what they are – elites. Deliberative assemblies allow the elites to talk to themselves, and to debate and reason things out. Is it that the military is better at short-term decision making, while the parliamentary assembly is better at long-term decision making? Why is this the case? Do legislatures represent the business interests that the State relies on for revenue?

As for the war between the states2, I think it is a huge exaggeration that the power of the President increased long-term solely because of that. While during the actual war itself (only four years long) saw increase in the President’s power, once the war was over power quickly went back to Congress. Many lost causers try to paint Lincoln as some power hungry tyrant, but this largely wasn’t true. Lincoln was a political moderate who held back radical republicans from their own political radicalism. Lincoln was not a radical abolitionist, republicans in Congress were. Lincoln preferred restraint, but he was often pressured by other Republicans.

After Lincoln was gone, Congress impeached President Andrew Johnson for doing something that he had the authority to do under the Constitution. President Johnson fired the Secretary of War, but Congress didn’t like that because it violated the Tenure of Office Act. The Tenure of Office Act was later said by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. The impeachment only failed by ONE vote. The postbellum era was what Woodrow Wilson called “Congressional Government”. Reconstruction? That was Congress’ doing.

It is a mistake to think that long-term the American civil war gave more power to the President. This wasn’t as true as it gave more power to the federal government in general at the expense of the States. It would take decades for some of these consequences to become complete, made permanent by constitutional amendments during the progressive era.

Now FDR on the other hand was truly a Caesarian tyrant.

Leave a comment

Share The DAO

So, I finally got around to watching the music video for Babymetal’s “My Queen” (featuring Spiritbox), and it had the same problem that irritated me with the music video for “from me to u” (featuring Poppy). Namely, stiff lip-syncing women who should have been more passionate.

In “from me to u” Poppy screams a lot, that’s kind of her thing. The problem with the video is that visually she is only talking while the audio is screaming. You can see the video here:

She’s just standing there in a dress, mouthing the lyrics instead of yelling them. Like, her mouth doesn’t open wide enough. She should lean forward as well. At least make it look like you are screaming. Here is a more natural performance of her actually on stage:

Much better. She is leaning forward when she screams, and it looks much more natural.

With the Spiritbox collab “My Queen”, Courtney LaPlante (Spiritbox’s lead singer) shows up in the music video way too early. She is just kind of there, not doing much, because her lyrics aren’t really until midway through the song. It’s also just kind of a creepy music video:

I feel like the part with Courtney’s modulated lyrics should have been visually modulated as well instead of her just mouthing it normally. Notice how Babymetal didn’t have this problem with Alex Terrible1. In the music video for “Song 3”2 he doesn’t actually show up until later, with the beginning part focusing on a child. Said child grows up, and yes while it is Alex, he is masked. It is then halfway through the song that Alex sings and is unmasked.

I almost wonder if the video for “My Queen” would have been better if Courtney was veiled, only taking off the veil when she started singing.

Anyways, it seems like the male collabs have better music videos than female collabs.

Electric Callboy’s “RATATATA” is fun, and so is the aforementioned “Song 3”.

As for “Kon! Kon!” with Bloodywood, they kind of did a copout with the compilation/montage, but it was still good editing.

The three Babymetal ladies themselves do a good job. They’ve got their dance moves and everything, and they look they are having fun.

Moral of the lesson - ladies, please put effort into your performance when you collab with Babymetal. The men have got it down, just please have some passion. The more TLC put into an artistic work behind the scenes, the better is usually turns out.

Leave a comment

Share The DAO

I have written this odd article. I basically read the US Supreme Court’s decision and just wrote my thoughts while reading it. This should explain why some things would otherwise seem out of context, or why one part does not necessarily follow the other in a straightforward manner. It’s a bit of a ramble-rant, where I rave sometimes. This article is in a way, the first of its kind – a review of a court decision. It is also possibly the longest article I’ve published so far. It should have a very interesting format and substance.

I say a lot of things in context, and I am not sure how to get people up to speed. I already know very well about the history of equity as a separate legal system from the common law, among many other things. I didn’t really bother with trying to explain the history of law to normal people, because that would have been far too arduous a task. If you genuinely don’t know or understand something I said, just say so in the comments and I will try to explain it the best I can (either a comment if the response is shorter, or possibly an article if it is important enough). Most of the block quotes are of the actual court decision, and you should assume so unless otherwise. I was also inconsistent as to how much of the opinion’s citations to include in my quotes. There are probably other inconsistencies that derive from me just writing it as I read along. I alternate between quoting whole paragraphs to simply paraphrasing it.

Also, because I was reading through the decision, this article might sound repetitive. This is because there is the case syllabus, but then there is Amy Coney Barrett’s majority opinion, the other conversative judges’ concurrences, and the leftist judges’ dissents. They often retread the same ground and same issues. The syllabus is the summary of the majority opinion, but then I read the actual majority opinion, so I partly repeated myself. Then the other opinions also talk about similar subjects, but from a different perspective.

I do give the judges stupid nicknames. Justice Amy Coney Barrett I refer to as AWFUL, which stand for Affluent White Female Urban Liberal. I refer to Justice Clarence Thomas as Uncle Tom because I think that’s funny. Justice Samuel Alito I refer to as Elite-O because he is elite. I refer to Injustice Sonia Sotomayor variously as either a hag, a spic, or a spic-hag; because she is so. I refer to “[In]Justice” Ketanji Brown “Jackson” (I don’ want to dishonor Andrew Jackson’s surname any more than I have to) as either an ogress, Biden’s affirmative action hire, or the pedo negress (because she went easy on the pedophiles when she was a trial court judge).

The Contents are as such:

• AWFUL’s Awesome opinion

  • II AWFUL

  • III AWFUL

    • AWFUL III B

    • AWFUL III C

  • IV AWFUL

• Uncle Tom’s Cabin

• Elite-O III “the third”

• Kavanaugh

  • I Kavanaugh

  • II Kavanaugh

• Spic-Hag complains

  • I Spic-hag

    • Spic-Hag I A

    • Spic-Hag I B

    • Spic-Hag I C

  • II Spic-Hag

    • Spic-Hag II A

    • Spic-Hag II B

  • III Spic-Hag

    • Spic-Hag III A

    • Spic-Hag III B

      • Spic-Hag III B1

      • Spic-Hag III B2

    • Spic-Hag III C

    • Spic-Hag III D

  • IV Spic-Hag

• Pedo negress’ ogression

  • I Ogress

    • Ogress I A

    • Ogress I B

  • II Ogress

  • III Ogress

    • Ogress III A

    • Ogress III B

Here is a link to the pdf for the court decision, so you can read it for yourself if you want to: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. CASA, Inc., et al. On application for partial stay. Argued May 15^th, 2025 – Decided June 27^th, 2025.

Do federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions under the Judiciary Act of 1789? I would say no.

The issuance of a universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power. The Judiciary Act of 1789 endowed federal courts with jurisdiction over “all suits … in equity,” §11, 1 Stat. 78, and still today, this statute “is what authorizes federal courts to issue equitable remedies,” […] This Court has held that the statutory grant encompasses only those sorts of equitable remedies “traditionally accorded by courts of equity” at our country’s inception. […] Universal injunctions are not sufficiently “analogous” to any relief available in the court of equity in England at the time of the founding.

This is correct.

The court then elaborates on how equity was the “judicial prerogative of the King” “to secure justice where it would not be secured by the ordinary and existing process of law”. This reinforces an opinion I have that it is unwise to give all the judges in your judiciary equitable powers. Equity should be limited to a select few judges in order to remedy inadequacies in the other courts, but to give every judge that much power will engender tyranny. There should be a mini separation of powers within a branch of government. This may sound strange to some people, but may I remind you that most legislatures are bicameral – there is a lower house and an upper house. A law cannot pass without the consent and assent of both houses, and a house cannot adjourn for a long period of time without the consent of the other house. The legislative power is literally separated into two in order to have checks and balances within the legislative branch of government. Why can’t the same be done with the judicial power? Separate it back into law and equity; the law courts can hold the equity courts accountable, and the equity courts can hold the law courts accountable. This will diffuse the judicial power amongst two different species of judges, thus making any individual judge less tyrannical than he is in his current state where he has unfettered access to both legal and equitable power. Law judges shouldn’t be able to do things that only equity judges can do, and equity judges shouldn’t be able to do things that only law judges can do.

The “general rule in Equity [was] that all persons materially interested [in the suit] [were] to be made parties to it.”1 […] Injunctions were no exception; there were “sometimes suits to restrain the actions of particular officers against particular plaintiffs.” […] Of importance here, suits in equity were brought by and against individual parties, and the Chancellor’s remedies were generally party specific. (“[Y]ou cannot have an injunction except against a party to the suit”)2.

Throughout American history, courts have routinely refused to issue injunctions towards non-parties.

The Court’s early refusals to grant relief to nonparties are consistent with the party-specific principles that permeate the Court’s understanding of equity. “[N]either declaratory nor injunctive relief,” the Court has said, “can directly interfere with enforcement of contested statutes or ordinances except with respect to the particular federal plaintiffs.” […] In fact, universal injunctions were conspicuously nonexistent for most of the Nation’s history. Their absence from 18^th and 19^th century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority.

While the Respondents try to argue that universal injunctions are the modern version of the bill of peace, the Court corrects them and points out that class action lawsuits are the modern version of the bill of peace. In fact, universal injunctions circumvent Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs class action lawsuits and offers procedural protections. The requirements for a legitimate class action under Rule 23 are almost the same as the traditional requirements for a bill of peace.

Also, apparently the State of Massachusetts3 suffers harms if Trump were to deport more immigrants. In my opinion, if you are financially harmed by illegal aliens being deported, you are a domestic enemy of the United States.

The Respondents then try to argue that universal injunctions are a matter of policy. Lol, universal injunctions do nothing but obstruct government policy, and that is exactly what the Government (Trump admin) argues. Universal injunctions have been used to prevent states from enforcing laws that were passed by their elected legislature, and have been used against the federal executive branch when it is trying to enforce government policy.

When a federal court enters a universal injunction against the Government, it “improper[ly] intru[des]” on “a coordinate branch of the Government” and prevents the Government from enforcing its policies against nonparties. […] (“’[A]ny time a State is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable injury’” […]). […] When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.

And that is just the syllabus so far. Sadly, the court upheld the injunctions for the parties in the specific cases, but just said that the universal aspect is too far. So, this is only half a W.

The case is actually three different cases bundled together: all are “on application for a partial stay”:

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. CASA, Inc., et al.

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Washington, et al.

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. New Jersey, et al.

The opinion of the court was delivered by the AWFUL Amy Coney Barrett.

AWFUL’s Awesome opinion

Traditionally, courts issued injunctions prohibiting executive officials from enforcing a challenged law or policy only against the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Okay, I need to rant. Why is it that certain laws are treated as guilty until proven innocent? In the theories of judicial interpretation, statutes are presumed to be constitutional until you can prove that they are not. In fact, a court will avoid invoking the constitution if they can resolve the case in another way – usually statutory interpretation.

In English law, Acts of Parliament are presumed to not make any changes in the common law, to not remove a person’s liberty or vested rights or property, and is presumed not to apply to the Crown. America also has the Charming Betsy canon, where “It has also been observed that an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains…” Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 1804. There is literally no reason why it would not be the case that statutes are presumed to be constitutional until proven otherwise.

If statutes are presumed to be constitutional, then how can you issue an injunction before the conclusion of a trial? Preliminary injunctions should not run against statutes, that would undermine sovereignty – whether of a US state or the general government. In case you need reminding, an injunction is a type of court order where if you violate it you can be fined or thrown in jail; it is not a light matter. Unlike other writs, which are tailored to specific circumstances and have their own rules of usage, injunctions are general and flexible. This particularly becomes insidious when they interfere with the sovereignty of a state. “You can’t enforce your laws against baby-murder, I’ll throw you in jail if you even think about enforcing a law that was passed by your elected state legislature!” – arrogant federal judge.

Anyways, time for me to get back on track.

No, AWFUL, universal injunctions are not likely to exceed proper equitable authority, they do indeed exceed equitable authority. There is no historical precedence for it, and there is no Act of Congress authorizing it.

Now maybe it will be appropriate for me to give some thoughts on Trump’s executive order.

It is not widely known, but there are already exceptions to birthright citizenship. Firstly, families that have diplomatic immunity are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, so therefore they don’t get birthright citizenship. If you have an ambassador from another country living in DC with his wife, and she gives birth to a baby, the kid does not have birthright US citizenship because his family is quite literally above the law. There is also a similar exception for foreign heads of state, which operates along the same lines as diplomatic immunity, but it isn’t called that because they technically aren’t diplomats. There is also an exception for if a foreign army were to invade the US, the children born to enemy soldiers in enemy controlled territory of the US do not get birthright citizenship because they are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Makes sense, since a foreign army by definition is waging war against the sovereignty of the US. Another more antiquated exception was Indian tribes that didn’t pay taxes. This is antiquated for two reasons. Firstly, in the 1920s, the US Congress gave pretty much all American Indians US citizenship by legislative fiat. Secondly, I don’t think there are any Indian tribes anymore who don’t pay any federal taxes. My main authority for these exceptions is the Wong Kim Ark case, which I am going off of purely by memory.

I can easily see an argument that illegal aliens are similar enough to foreign soldiers that it would warrant another sub-exception. You aren’t exactly subject to the jurisdiction thereof if you are confined to the criminal underworld, and your presence within the country isn’t even lawful. Sadly, the governing authorities have in the near past been giving out birth certificates to illegal aliens with no hesitation whatsoever, even though these people aren’t even allowed to be here. The legal question then is how to effect a change from the current status quo to then implementing this reasonable exception? Can it be done through executive order, or must it be done through other means?

First questions is what do the Acts of Congress have to say about it? Congress could easily codify this exception into law, but that is not what is happening. Instead it is being done through executive order. So, what do the Acts of Congress say as they currently stand? I am not sure they say much in either direction. I haven’t really heard anything so far, so my intuition is telling me that Congress hasn’t written anything about it at all. The closest would be some libtarded lawyers trying to find something vague and then pretzeling it out of context. Another thing is that those exceptions I just list from the Wong Kim Ark case were outlined in a Supreme Court decision, not an Act of Congress, so even denying ambassadors’ kids birthright citizenship is mostly by custom instead of a federal law.

The more radical part of the executive order is denying birthright citizenship to kids born to women who are here on temporary visas. While this is more edgy than the common sense exception to illegals, I can see it be argued that women who agree to temporary visas consent to forfeiting certain things – such as your kid getting birthright citizenship. Probably just change the visa verbiage to make it more explicit that when you agree to a temporary visa, you are relinquishing certain rights in exchange for being granted the visa at all.

Okay, circling back to statutory interpretation, the plaintiffs in the district court cases brought up § 201 of the Nationality Act of 1940, which says:

SEC. 201. The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) A person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) A person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) A person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has resided in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) A person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who resided in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) A person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who resided in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of such person;

(f) A child of unknown parentage found in the United States, until shown not to have been born in the United States;

(g) A person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, has had ten years’ residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, at least five of which were after attaining the age of sixteen years, the other being an alien: Provided, That, in order to retain such citizenship, the child must reside in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling five years between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one years: Provided further, That, if the child has not taken up a residence in the United States or its outlying possessions by the time he reaches the age of sixteen years, or if he resides abroad for such a time that it becomes impossible for him to complete the five years’ residence in the United States or its outlying possessions before reaching the age of twenty-one years, his American citizenship shall thereupon cease.

The preceding provisos shall not apply to a child born abroad whose American parent is at the time of the child’s birth residing abroad solely or principally in the employment of the Government of the United States or a bona fide America, educational, scientific, philanthropic, religious, commercial, or financial organization, having its principal office or place of business in the United States, or an international agency of an official character in which the United States participates, for which he receives substantial compensation;

(h) The foregoing provisions of subsection (g) concerning retention of citizenship shall apply to a child born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934.

As you can see, the bulk of it has to do with statutory jus sanguinis instead of jus soli; and also we are dealing with spics, not indigenous tribes. The only weird thing is subsection (f), but that’s about foundlings, so it would kind of defeat the point of even having an anchor baby. The only thing that’s relevant is the first subsection, (a), which simply says “[a] person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;” which is pretty much just an exact copy of the Fourteenth Amendment. It also doesn’t define what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is, and I am pretty sure that Trump’s argument is that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof; so, invoking this statute is mostly pointless.

Also, I might add that in like the late 19^th century / early 20^th century, if an American woman married a foreigner, she lost her US citizenship. There was never a court case about it, and everyone at the time assumed that it was constitutional to the degree that no one questioned it. Food for thought for those who think that any homo sapiens born within US territory should get unconditional US citizenship in all cases whatsoever.

II AWFUL

But enough about the actual executive order, because this court cases basically dodges the question – which is a good thing in a way. Back to equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789.

By the end of the Biden administration, we had reached “a state of affairs where almost every major presidential act [was] immediately frozen by a federal district court.”

It is insane to have this level of paralysis in government. What is even the point of electing a president in the first place if he can’t do anything? What is the point of Congress having the power of impeachment if the President isn’t allowed to do anything wrong in the first place? It is judicial usurpation of the highest order – an illegitimate kritarchy. Both many judges and many ordinary citizens seem to forget that the judiciary is the government too, and that they too can violate the constitution just as much as the legislature or executive. I recommend giving the federal judiciary a healthy dose of humility that would do them good.

III AWFUL

I don’t know why AWFUL uses the word “likely” a lot? Is it because she is a girl?

Federal courts get their equitable authority from the Judiciary Act of 1789, and it only gives federal courts equitable remedies that would have been used by the English Court of Equity at the time.

Though flexible, this equitable authority is not freewheeling. We have held that the statutory grant encompasses only those sorts of equitable remedies “traditionally accorded by courts of equity at our country’s inception.4

The equity jurisdiction conferred on the Federal courts is the same that the High Court of Chancery in England possesses5.

“[T]he federal courts [have] no power that they would have had in any event when courts were given ‘cognizance,’ by the first Judiciary Act, of suits ‘in equity’”.6

“[T]he settled doctrine of this court is, that the remedies in equity are to be administered, not according to the state practice, but according to the practice of courts of equity in the parent country”.7

Are universal injunctions sufficiently “analogous” to the relief issued “by the High Court of Chancery in England at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the enactment of the original Judiciary Act”? [emphasis mine obviously]:

The answer is no: Neither the universal injunction nor any analogous form of relief was available in the High Court of Chancery in England at the time of the founding. Equity offered a mechanism for the Crown “to secure justice where it would not be secured by the ordinary and existing processes of law.” […] This “judicial prerogative of the King” thus extended to “those causes which the ordinary judges were incapable of determining.” […] Eventually, the Crown instituted the “practice of delegating the cases” that “came before” the judicial prerogative “to the chancellor for his sole decision.” […] This “became the common mode of dealing with such controversies.”

Of importance here, suits in equity were brought by and against individual parties. Indeed, the “general rule in Equity [was] that all persons materially interested [in the suit] [were] to be made parties to it.” […] Injunctions were no exception; there were “sometimes suits to restrain the actions of particular officers against particular plaintiffs.” […] The Chancellor’s remedies were also typically party specific. “As a general rule, an injunction” could not bind one who was not a “party to the cause.” […] ([Y]ou cannot have an injunction except against a party to the suit”). Suffice it to say, then, under longstanding equity practice in England, there was no remedy “remotely like a national injunction.”

Nor did founding-era courts of equity in the United States chart a different course. See 1 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence §41, at 33-34. If anything, the approach traditionally taken by federal courts cuts against the existence of such a sweeping remedy. Consider Scott v. Donald, where the plaintiff successfully challenged the constitutionality of a law on which state officials had relied to confiscate alcohol that the plaintiff kept for personal use. […] Although the plaintiff sought an injunction barring enforcement of the law against both himself and anyone else “whose rights [were] infringed and threatened” by it, this Court permitted only a narrower decree between “the parties named as plaintiff and defendants in the bill.”

AWFUL then has a footnote (#6) throwing shade at the spic-hag. She said that while the dissenter used Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 518 (1898) as a counterexample to Scott, it is unclear why since the injunction only applied to railroad companies that were parties to the lawsuit.

In the ensuing decades, we consistently rebuffed requests for relief that extended beyond the parties. […] (“The benefits of [the court’s] injunction” improperly extended “to bidders throughout the Nation who were not parties to any proceeding, who were not before the court[,] and who had sought no relief”); cf. Frothingham v. Mellon, decided with Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 487-489 (1923) (concluding that the Court lacked authority to issue “preventive relief” that would apply to people who “suffe[r] in some indefinite way in common with people generally”); […] But to allow all persons subject to the statute to be treated as parties to a lawsuit “would confound the established order of judicial proceedings.” […]

Our early refusals to grant relief to nonparties are consistent with the party-specific principles that permeate our understanding of equity. “[N]either declaratory nor injunctive relief,” we have said, “can directly interfere with enforcement of contested statutes or ordinances except with respect to the particular federal plaintiffs.”8 […] (“It is an elementary principle that a court cannot adjudicate directly upon a person’s right without having him either actually or constructively before it. This principle is fundamental”);9

In fact, universal injunctions were not a feature of federal-court litigation until sometime in the 20^th century. […] The D. C. Circuit issued what some regard as the first universal injunction in 196310. […] Yet such injunctions remained rare until the turn of the 21^st century, when their use gradually accelerated. […] One study identified approximately 127 universal injunctions issued between 1963 and 2023. […] Ninety-six of them – over three quarters – were issued during the administrations of President George W. Bush, President Obama, President Trump, and President Biden. Ibid.

The bottom line? The universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation’s history. Its absence from 18^th- and 19^th-century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority. [footnote 8 – The principal dissent faults us for failing to identify a single founding-era case in which this Court held that universal injunctions exceed a federal court’s equitable authority. See post, at 29 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). But this absence only bolsters our case. That this Court had no occasion to reject the universal injunction as inconsistent with traditional equity practice merely demonstrates that no party even bothered to ask for such a sweeping remedy – because no court would have entertained the request. Cf. Grupo Mexicano, 527 U.S., at 332 (“[E]quitable powers conferred by the Judiciary Act of 1789 did not include the power to create remedies previously unknown to equity jurisprudence”).] [..] That the absence continued into the 20^th century renders any claim of historical pedigree still more implausible. Even during the “deluge of constitutional litigation that occurred in the wake of Ex parte Young, throughout the Lochner Era, and at the dawn of the New Deal,” universal injunctions were nowhere to be found. […] Had federal courts believed themselves to possess the tool, surely they would not have let it lay idle.

Faced with this timeline, the principal dissent accuses us of “misunderstand[ing] the nature of equity” as being “fr[ozen] in amber … at the time of the Judiciary Act.” Post, at 29 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.) Not so. We said it before, see supra, at 5, and say it again: “[E]quity is flexible.” […] At the same time, its “flexibility is confined within the broad boundaries of traditional equitable relief.” [footnote 9 – Notwithstanding Grupo Mexicano, the principal dissent invokes Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), as support for the proposition that equity can encompass remedies that have “no analogue in the relief exercised in the English Court of Chancery,” because Ex parte Young permits plaintiffs to “obtain plaintiff-protective injunctions against Government officials,” and the English Court of Chancery “could not enjoin the Crown or English officers,” post, at 30 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). But contrary to the principal dissent’s suggestion, Ex parte Young does not say – either explicitly or implicitly – that courts may devise novel remedies that have no background in traditional equitable practice. Historically, a court of equity could issue an antisuit injunction to prevent an officer from engaging in tortious conduct. Ex parte Young justifies its holding by reference to a long line of cases authorizing suits against state officials in certain circumstances. […] Support for the principal dissent’s approach is found not in Ex parte Young, but in Justice Ginsburg’s partial dissent in Grupo Mexicano, which eschews the governing historical approach in favor of “[a] dynamic equity jurisprudence.” 527 U. S., at 337 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part).] Ibid. A modern device need not have an exact historical match, but under Grupo Mexicano, it must have a founding-era antecedent. And neither the universal injunction nor a sufficiently comparable predecessor was available from a court of equity at the time of our country’s inception. […] Because the universal injunction lacks a historical pedigree, it falls outside the bounds of a federal court’s equitable authority under the Judiciary Act.

I would argue that a universal “injunction” is actually a legislative act, not a judicial one. I would also like to point out that historically equity was an exercise of ROYAL authority. Equity courts had the authority to issue injunctions because the Lord High Chancellor was the keeper of the king’s conscience. While its procedures were standardized over time, equity’s origins is as an exercise of raw royal prerogative – the ability of the king to dispense with the law and rule as he saw fit. While America does retain many of the procedures and traditions of the English legal system, including equity traditions, America has modified some traditions because we are a Republic. The constitution established the separation of powers for a reason. Equity’s flexibility in its original state is precisely because the king was exercising his legislative power through his royal prerogative. That’s why the judgements in cases of equity are called “decrees”. Nowadays, in our republic, we have legislative assemblies that can mitigate the rigor of law. These assemblies are quite literally elected by the people, and they can change the statutory law as they see fit. They can even change the outcome of an individual civil case if they see fit11. While they are forbidden to do this in criminal cases because of the various ex post fact law clauses, defendants in criminal cases always have access to mercy from the executive branch, which is often plenary. As you can see, the elected assembly (accountable to the people) can mitigate the law and provide justice & equity as they see fit. It is not for the judges to usurp the sovereignty and wisdom of the people. The dissenters are acting like royal absolutists, but without a king. That’s sounds terrifying because at least in an actual monarchy, government ministers are accountable to the king, while in a republic they are accountable to the people. The dissenters seem almost like they are suggesting that judges should be accountable to no one – neither king nor people. The legislative assembly cannot affect the law, because the law is only so if the judges say so. The executive cannot enforce the law, because they need the permission of the judiciary to do so.

While a legal realist will say that the law is whatever the judges say it is, and that is true, the judges themselves should not stray too far from the polite creeds of the de jure. Likewise, the de jure should not be so polite that it drifts away from the de facto precisely because if your creeds are unrealistic they will simply not be implemented. Also, what moral right do these sinister judges have to determine the law? Okay, yes I know the reality that the law is whatever the judges say it is, and I would not mind it as much if the judges were reasonable men; I would at least confine my disagreements to persuasion of opinion. However, with so-called “liberal” judges, they have an extremely wicked record that exceeds any political faction known to man. May I remind you that they more or less insisted on mandatory child murder? Or that they are currently siding with domestic and foreign enemies of the United States instead of the American people? “Liberal” judges do not have a moral right to judge us in a way that “conservative” judges would.

Also, I think Ex parte Young was wrongly decided. Young was the Attorney-General of Minnesota, and he was thrown in jail by a federal judge because he was enforcing a law that was passed by Minnesota’s legislature. I believe that case was in many ways the de facto abolition of state sovereignty. Ex parte Young, combined with the abolition of the militia, and the abolition of Senatorial elections by the States’ legislatures12, has ushered in an era, not of federal supremacy, but of federal absolutism. The state will not have any meaningful independence or agency if her officers can be imprisoned based on the whim of some judge. Will the federal government itself tolerate such treatment?

Another element of universal injunctions that I forgot to mention is that it can be inconsistent. For example, you have one district court issue a universal injunction against the federal government, but you could have another district court issue a universal injunction that is different from the previous district court. They could flatly contradict each other. Imagine having 94 different bosses all yelling inconsistent things at you? At least with party-specific injunctions, they only apply to particular parties that the government can respect. Or, if they are confined to the geographic area of a district, the government could at least respect it within that district. But what right does a DISTRICT court judge have to govern the NATION? There are literally other district court judges you are competing against. Did everyone forget that the Supreme Court exists?

AWFUL III B

Of course the whiny respondents try to say that a universal injunction is equivalent to a bill of peace. I believe I stated earlier that the bill of peace is in reality the historical antecedent to the class action lawsuit.

This bill allowed the Chancellor to consolidate multiple suits that involved a “common claim the plaintiff could have against multiple defendants” or “some kind of common claim that multiple plaintiffs could have against a single defendant.”

This can include a “suit by a lord against his tenants collectively”13 or a “suit by a parson against lead liners in a parish, who named four of their members to defend the suit in a representative capacity”14.

True, “bills of peace allowed [courts of equity] to adjudicate the rights of members of dispersed groups without formally joining them to a lawsuit through the usual procedures.” […] Even so, their use was confined to limited circumstances. […] Unlike universal injunctions, which reach anyone affected by legislative or executive action – no matter how large the group or how tangential the effect – a bill of peace involved a “group [that] was small and cohesive,” and the suit did not “resolve a question of legal interpretation for the entire realm.”

While a universal injunction punishes a party to a suit in relation to nonparties – a bill of peace binds all members of the group, whether they are present or not. Sounds like a class action, right?

[D]ecress obtained on a bill of peace “would bind all members of the group, whether they were present in the action or not.” […] (When “a court of equity permits a portion of the parties in interest to represent the entire body … the decree binds all of them the same as if all were before the court”) […] (“[I]n most, if not in all, cases of this sort, the decree obtained upon such a Bill will ordinarily be held binding upon all other persons standing in the same predicament”). As Chief Judge Sutton aptly put it, “[t]he domesticated animal known as a bill of peace looks nothing like the dragon of nationwide injunctions.”

The class action suit is the modern form of the bill of peace, and it is governed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rules 23 requires numerosity (such that joinder is impracticable), common question (such that joinder is impracticable), common questions of law or fact, typicality, and representative parties who adequately protect the interests of the class. […]

Rule 23’s limits on class actions underscore a significant problem with universal injunctions. A “’properly conducted class action,’” we have said, “can come about in federal courts in just one way – through the procedure set out in Rule 23.” […] (“One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if” Rule 23(a)’s requirements are satisfied (emphasis added)). Yet by forging a shortcut to relief that benefits parties and nonparties alike, universal injunctions circumvent Rule 23’s procedural protections and allow “’courts to “create de facto class actions at will.”’” […] Why bother with a Rule 23 class action when the quick fix of a universal injunction is on the table? (“Why go through the trouble of complying with local attachment and garnishment statutes when this all-purpose prejudgment injunction is available?”). The principal dissent’s suggestion that these suits could have satisfied Rule 23’s requirements simply proves that universal injunctions are a class-action workaround. Post, at 25-26 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.).

Again, libtards have contempt for rules that get in their way.

AWFUL also covers taxpayer lawsuits. While states would later provide broad reliefs, it was not until the mid-19^th century, and even then not all of the states. It was still limited to only similarly situated taxpayers, and in federal courts they refused to allow a single taxpayer to challenge a federal appropriations act – see the Frothingham case. So, if in federal court, a taxpayer can’t even sue over an appropriations act, then how would universal injunctions be legitimate?

Next, AWFUL discusses the nature of complete relief. In footnote 11, she quotes Biden’s affirmative action hire, who admits that “[n]onparties may benefit from an injunction, but only the plaintiff gets relief.” This is true. However, to try to enforce an injunction against a nonparty would be an injustice. Injunctions are enforced by the court’s contempt powers.

Under “traditional principles of equity practice,” courts may “impos[e] civil contempt sanctions to ‘coerce [a] defendant into compliance’ with an injunction.” […] Generally, civil contempt proceedings occur between the original parties to the lawsuit.

Being held in contempt of court means fines and/or jail time. This is partly why universal injunctions are insidious and why this issue is so important. A universal injunction, as opposed to a party-specific injunction, means that a judge can fine or imprison any person he feels like violated his court order, even if they aren’t a party to a lawsuit!

Equity courts can only “administer complete relief between the parties”. While injunctions can occasionally advantage or benefit nonparties, they do so only incidentally. De jure relief is only given to the plaintiff that actually bothers to sue and advocate for his rights. The complete relief principle is only about whether the plaintiff before the court has been completely relieved, not that some relief to provided to everyone. “[I]njunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs”15.

Somehow the State of Massachusetts would be harmed because a birth certificate wouldn’t be a guarantee of citizenship, and they would have to check with the birth state to see if the person was born a US citizen. Apparently they are too lazy to do this paperwork, but my intuition also tells me that they indulge in far more strenuous paperwork than necessary in other areas. Also, if you have more lazy immigrants sapping your welfare programs, wouldn’t that literally cost you money? Also, why are States administering federally funded benefits? The federal government should not be funding the states; that’s possibly another reason why US States are weak and lethargic compared to the general government. In addition to the three reasons I stated earlier, I believe that giving the federal government access to direct taxes through the 16^th amendment was also a mistake. They have too much money for their own good. When the lawyers suggest that the government “treat covered children as eligible for purposes of federally funded welfare benefits” you know that this is about the socialistic money supply funneled towards the parasite class.

Just because the court can grant complete relief, does not mean that it should – “the broader and deeper the remedy the plaintiff wants, the stronger the plaintiff’s story needs to be”. “The essence of equity jurisdiction has been the power of the Chancellor to do equity and to mould each decree to the necessities of the particular case”.

AWFUL dodges the questions about the lawfulness of Trump’s executive orders, instead kicking the can down the road, and simply nixing universal injunctions as a procedure. I mean, I’m glad universal injunctions have been dealt a blow, but it is a tad annoying seeing her pussyfoot around the issue. It’s almost as if she agrees that the executive order is “unconstitutional”. But of course our lovely AWFUL would never agree with the libtards, right? RIGHT?

Now the respondents try to argue that universal injunctions are a matter of policy. Apparently, there needs to be a quick way to protect “groups” from unlawful government action. So, basically, you will be protected from the lawful state if you are a member of one of the regime’s client groups. It is the regime waging war against the state, because we all know that straight White men don’t count as a “group”.

And they suggest that forcing plaintiffs to proceed on an individual basis can result in confusion or piecemeal litigation that imposes unnecessary costs on courts and others.

Really hag? When an injunction applies outside a district or for nonparties, it can cause confusion for the government because the other courts could issue injunctions that are inconsistent. Universal injunctions, by applying themselves to nonparties, cause confusion. I also absolutely HATE it when people complain about court costs. Like, our governments waste money on so many different things, but you are going to complain about the expense of a trial?! The moral justification for taxation is to fund trials and cops’ salaries, and the military. The redistribution of wealth from greater life forms to lesser life forms in a Marxist manner is not a legitimate usage of taxation. Weren’t these the same parasites that were complaining, bemoaning, and crumbling about the DOGE thing?

AWFUL rightfully points out that universal injunctions encourage forum shopping. Just find a judge that agrees with you, and his court orders apply to the whole country! There is no limiting principle with universal injunctions.

In a similar vein, the Government observes that universal injunctions operate asymmetrically: A plaintiff must win just one suit to secure sweeping relief. But to fend off such an injunction, the Government must win everywhere. […] [Footnote 15 – The government contrasts this with class actions. A judgment in a Rule 23 class action (favorable or not) binds the whole class – so if the defendant wins, it is protected from future suits. But because an adverse ruling on a request for universal relief lacks this preclusive effect, plaintiffs can continue to file in different forums until they find a court willing to award such relief.] Moreover, the Government contends, the practice of universal injunctions means that highly consequential cases are often decided in a “fast and furious” process of “rushed, high-stakes, [and] low-information” decisionmaking. […] When a district court issues a universal injunction, thereby halting the enforcement of federal policy, the Government says that is has little recourse but to proceed to the court of appeals for an emergency stay. The loser in the court of appeals will then seek a stay from this Court. […] This process forces courts to resolve significant and difficult questions of law on a highly expedited basis and without a full briefing. See ibid. [Footnote 16 – Acknowledging these problems, the principal dissent admits that “[t]here may be good reasons not to issue universal injunctions in the typical case.” Post, at 23 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). This concession, while welcome, is inconsistent with the position that the universal injunction is a “nothing to see here” extension of the kind of decree obtained on a bill of peace. Neither the principal dissent nor respondents have pointed to any evidence that such decrees presented any of the universal injunction’s systemic problems or that they were reserved for situations in which the defendant’s conduct was “patently unconstitutional” and risked “exceptional” harm. Post, at 22-23. It is precisely because the universal injunction is a new, potent remedy that it poses new, potent risks. Our observation in Grupo Mexicano rings true here: “Even when sitting as a court in equity, we have no authority to craft a ‘nuclear weapon’ of law.” […] ]

AWFUL III C

AWFUL now takes on Biden’s affirmative action hire. Oh, wow, she really is an affirmative action hire. It’s like Biden went out to find the dumbest negress possible and put her on the highest court in the land so as to insult the rest of America. Like, what does she mean that limits on judicial power are a “mind-numbingly technical query”? You are in the business of law: the law is a series of mind-numbingly technical queries. That’s like having a mathematician saying he doesn’t like math, or a car mechanic say he doesn’t like cars, or a chef who doesn’t like food. She truly has the most tyrannical appetite. Never does the arrogant negress ever contemplate that the judiciary could ever be wrong once in a while, or that district courts issuing injunctions that apply outside their district interfere with the authority of the other district courts, and even the appeals and supreme court?

AWFUL has this gem that you should quote:

We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.

Banger. I don’t think she’ll ever recover.

No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridle authority to enforce this obligation – in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803) (concluding that James Madison had violated the law but holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus ordering him to follow it). But see post, at 15 (JACKSON, J., dissenting) (“If courts do not have the authority to require the Executive to adhere to law universally, … compliance with law sometimes becomes a matter of Executive prerogative”). Observing the limits on judicial authority – including, as relevant here, the boundaries of the Judiciary Act of 1789 – is required by a judge’s oath to follow the law.

Yeah, this is something not a lot of people know about. The law that was struck down as unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison, was struck down because it expanded the court’s authority. Yes, notice the irony. One of the most powerful powers of the US Supreme Court, practically speaking, is to determine the constitutional validity of an Act of Congress, a State statute, or any number of executive actions. The first invocation of this power was to lessen the Supreme Court’s power in another area – namely expanding the court’s original jurisdiction. Because Marbury v. Madison didn’t involve any diplomats or State governments, it doesn’t fall within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. It is only under the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction – which basically means that they can’t do a trial themselves. They have to have some other court do the trial, and then they can hear any appeals from that case. The Supreme Court said that they didn’t have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus. So, a reasonable exchange – the Supreme Court has the supreme power of judicial review, in exchange for not having the ability to do many things themselves. Okay, I wonder what can be made of this bargain? So, considering that the writ of mandamus is a prerogative writ, does the Supreme court also lack the authority to issue other prerogative writs? What about the writ of prohibito? Or procedendo? Quo warranto? Even potentially habeas corpus? Lots of questions to be asked based on what was declared unconstitutional. I need to write a whole article about this.

But yeah, the executive allegedly violating the law does not magically create a right for the judiciary to dispense with the law altogether.

JUSTICE JACKSON skips over that part. Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring “legalese,” post, at 3, she seeks to answer “a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?” Ibid. In other words, it is unnecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.” Ibid. That does for judges too.

IV AWFUL

AWFUL basically lectures the dissent for even bothering to think about whether Trump’s executive order was constitutional or not because it wasn’t relevant to the case. The case is about the injunctions surrounding Trump’s executive order, not the executive order itself. Again, libtards don’t care about proper procedure, they just use roadblocks to railroad you. Leftists are childish animals that operate off of appetite and whim, not reason.

Also, yes, the government is harmed when it can’t enforce a law. The dissent seriously tried to argue that the government wouldn’t be harmed if a district court (unjustly) struck down a policy as being “unconstitutional”.

(“’[A]ny time a State is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable injury’” (alteration in original)).16 And the balance of equities does not counsel against awarding the Government interim relief: Partial stays will cause no harm to respondents because they will remain protected by the preliminary injunctions to the extent necessary and appropriate to afford them complete relief.

Some say that the universal injunction “give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch.” […] But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.

I can see an argument that truthfully the legislative branch is the part of the state that exercises general oversight of the executive branch; considering they have both the power of impeachment, the power of the purse, and they write statutory law (including establishing what offices even exist, and what is even considered lawful or unlawful). So, again, the judiciary would be usurping the legislative power when issuing universal injunctions.

As for completely dodging the main question, I have mixed feelings about it because there are pros and cons. On the one hand, courts (and lawyers) should stay with the actual issue at hand, and not dive into tangential issues. The law is the law. The law doesn’t care about your feelings, or even what you personally think is right or wrong. Logically applying the law is the essence of the law, you cannot set aside the law because it doesn’t make you feel good. Honestly, I like it when judges rule so narrowly, or dodge questions by using legalese. It’s funny when judges come up with excuses not to intervene, plus most of you readers are conservatives who prefer judicial restraint to judicial activism. On the other hand, AWFUL can’t admit that Trump’s executive order has some merit to it because she is AWFUL. She passively implied that she thinks it is unconstitutional, which does not sound good for future cases. She simply disagreed with the other liberals as to the method but didn’t forcefully disagree with them when it came to substance. Should I put up a vote of whether women should even be lawyers?

Okay. Here is the final paragraph:

The Government’s applications to partially stay the preliminary injunctions are granted, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue. The lower courts shall move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity. The injunctions are also stayed to the extent that they prohibit executive agencies from developing and issuing public guidance about the Executive’s plans to implement the Executive Order. Consistent with the Solicitor General’s representation, §2 of the Executive Order shall not take effect until 30 days after the date of this opinion. See Tr. Of Oral Arg. 55. It is so ordered.

Nice victory, but we still have a loooonnngg way to go.

Share The DAO

Uncle Tom’s Cabin

Okay, now it’s Uncle Tom’s turn; and Gorsuch concurs with him.

Uncle Tom mostly agrees with the majority opinion. He felt it was necessary to write a concurring opinion because he didn’t want courts to circumvent the majority opinion by creating de facto universal injunctions that are such in all but name.

(“Complete relief is not a guarantee – it is the maximum a court can provide”.) This limitation follows from both Article III and traditional equitable practice. Because Article III limits courts to resolving specific “Cases” and “Controversies,” see U. S. Const., Art. III, §2, it requires that any remedy “be tailored to redress the plaintiff's particular injury.” Gill v. Whitford, 585 U. S. 48, 73 (2018). And, equitable remedies historically operated on a plaintiff-specific basis. Ante, at 6-9. Accordingly, any “remedy must of course be limited to the inadequacy that produced the injury in fact that the plaintiff has established.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U. S. 343, 357 (1996).

Uncle Tom explains that the complete-relief principle is a maximum, a ceiling, not a mandate.

For example, courts may need to weigh considerations such as equity’s concern “with justice … also for the defendant.” […] In some cases, traditional equitable limits will require courts and plaintiffs to make do with less than complete relief.

Uncle Tom then talks about Frothingham v. Mellon and Massachusetts v. Mellon – the Mellon cases from 1923. If complete relief is always appropriate, why did the Supreme Court deny her request to enjoin the appropriation act? Frothingham was quite literally denied complete relief. While the Mellon cases are famous as taxpayer standing cases, but it primarily dealt with equitable remedies and judicial power.

Uncle Tom also said that if the lower courts keep acting up, the Supreme Court will keep intervening [emphasis mine]:

Lower courts should carefully heed this Court’s guidance and cabin their grants of injunctive relief in light of historical equitable limits. If they cannot do so, this Court will continue to be “dutybound” to intervene.

The US court system is now Uncle Tom’s cabin.

Elite-O III “the third”

Justice Alito also has a concurring opinion, that Uncle Tom concurs with.

I join the opinion of the Court but write separately to note two related issues that are left unresolved and potentially threaten the practical significance of today’s decision: the availability of third-party standing and class certification.

Elite-O questions whether the States in this case even had standing to sue. They were suing on behalf of their residents, but do they even have third-party standing?

Ordinarily, “a litigant must assert his or her own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest a claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.”

Obviously, there are exceptions, but many lawyers are not exactly sure what they are. There doesn’t seem to be clear rules as to when third-party standing is appropriate, other than when the courts just feel like it.

The States are not subject to Trump’s executive order, so it is very questionable for them to have any standing.

Elite-O makes a good point that if individual plaintiffs are denied universal injunctions, then that will incentivize people to get the States to start suits so that the injunction from the State’s suit will apply to the whole State. Elite-O also said that trial courts should be careful in the application of Rule 23 to make sure that they don’t screw anyone over. Basically Elite-O points out that lax third-party standing and class certification can be used to circumvent the ban on universal injunctions.

Kavanaugh

Justice Kavanaugh, all by himself.

He keeps yapping about preliminary injunctions and preliminary remedies and preliminary other things; but why should it be preliminary? Remember, “preliminary” means before the trial has happened. Do you know what a trial is? When evidence is presented. Any kind of preliminary court order is basically issued before the evidence is presented and before all the arguments are heard. Sure, there might be some evidence, but it is usually dealt with on an expedient basis instead of letting both sides be heard. The early parts of a case are usually the claiming parts of the paperwork – commonly called pleadings. Another thing sinister and insidious about these injunctions is not just the universalness, but their preliminary nature. There is simply not enough time to have levelheaded arguments, and to have all the relevant evidence presented. Also, of all the persons that can be victimized by preliminary injunctions, why should the sovereign state be subject to preliminary court orders? Maybe if government officials do something unlawful, there can be a judgement against them in the form of the appropriate remedies. But why should it be done on a preliminary basis? What’s the point then of having the head executive be elective? This is the kritarchy gone wild, unwilling to respect the legislative and executive powers. What is the point of ever even having a trial if you can get what you want from preliminary court orders?

I have another grievance with the whole stupid preliminary injunction routine. An Act of Congress is either constitutional or unconstitutional. There is no “it might be unconstitutional, so we have to block its enforcement until it can be proved that it is constitutional”; because that is ridiculous. Statutes should be presumed to be constitutional until you can prove that they very much are unconstitutional, after a trial where both sides can present full arguments as to the merits. Can you really say for certain if you don’t have both the pro and anti sides the necessary time to present reasonable arguments for and against. There is no “we must block its enforcement because it might be unconstitutional” because it is constitutional until you can prove that it is unconstitutional with rebuttals from people who think differently than you do. I wonder how much of the preliminary nonsense is because they know that their arguments do not survive rebuttals, so they want to avoid any opportunity for rebuttals altogether.

Point being, there should not be any interim or limbo status where the constitutionality is up for debate. Most likely it is constitutional, but libtards don’t like it.

I Kavanaugh

Our Republic is in paralysis because every new law is litigated to death. Congress isn’t allowed to do anything fun because if they try anything, the courts put a stop to the fun. And people wonder why Congress is busy spending your money, it’s the only thing they are actually allowed to do without having a hundred judges yelling “stop” at them. Hopefully you are not stupid enough to think that these judges are genuinely guarding liberty or our ancient rights. If it destroys liberty, they allow it; but if it restores our ancient rights, they oppose it.

Explain to me, what is the point of having a Congress elected by the people, if they are not allowed to make decisions on behalf of the people? I understand having some guardrails, but we have gotten to the state where Congress essentially needs the permission of the judiciary in order to pass a controversial law.

The preliminary-injunction litigation – which typically takes place at a rapid-fire pace long before the merits litigation culminates several years down the road – raises a question: What should the interim legal status of the significant new federal statute or executive action at issue be during the several-year long period before this Court’s final ruling on the merits?

That interim-status question is itself immensely important. The issue of whether a major new federal statute or executive action “is enforceable during the several years while the parties wait for a final merits ruling … raises a separate question of extraordinary significance to the parties and the American people.”

Yes, this is a very important question. I lean more towards a presumption of constitutionality, where it can be enforced until the litigation concludes. Hold legislators responsible for their own decisions.

First, in my view, there often (perhaps not always, but often) should be a nationally uniform answer on whether a major new federal statute, rule, or executive order can be enforced throughout the United States during the several-year interim period until its legality is finally decided on the merits.

Uh, buddy, the difference between a major decision and a minor decision is subjective, often changing depending on the political climate. Also, how can you give a nationally uniform answer to a question before its legality is decided on the merits?

Those executive actions often are highly significant and have widespread effects on many individuals, businesses, governments, and other organizations throughout the United States.

Kavanaugh, I’m not sure if you know this or not, but politics has always been like this. This is not new to the 2020s, this is what every government to ever exist under the sun is like. They make decisions, and there are winners and losers. That’s why there are elections in the United States, so legislators and head executives have some accountability for the decisions they make. To try to excessively boss them around is to usurp the primary responsibility of the people. Are you saying the judiciary lacks faith in the people?

Also, the Supreme Court struggles with delegation. They busy themselves with the interim litigation too much, instead of just letting the lower courts do things, and only hearing an appeal if something went horribly wrong.

II Kavanaugh

Again, why can’t there just be a presumption of constitutionality, especially for statutes? Kavanaugh is such a fence-sitter it’s almost annoying. For all the pain and suffering to get him confirmed in 2018, he sure has been a disappointment so far. Is he even self-aware of how hard it was to confirm him and that maybe he owes us something? I am not sure if that has crossed his mind.

I am wondering why this is somehow a concurrence; it sounds more like a mild dissent. Your interim decision making procedures are crap. I am quite frankly insulted by Kavanaugh’s thought-life. He makes AWFUL look like a legal genius by comparison.

Some might also worry that an early or rushed decision on an application could “lock in” the Court’s assessment of the merits and subtly deter the Court from later making a different final decision. But [...]

Shut up Kavanaugh! We all know this is what happens, and there is no wordcelling around it. No one likes a Supreme Court that is infirm in its decision, succumbing to mood swings and schizophrenia, unsteady in judgement, unstable in stance, inconsistent in reason, and lacking in prudence. Who likes a court that changes its mind like it has bipolar? It makes a mockery of justice and violates our common law tradition of precedent.

Yeah, I know as an axiom of legal realism that the law is whatever the Supreme Court says it is; but as a matter of personality can you tell the difference between a court that is consistent in its decision making, and a court that wildly changes its mind based on fickle moods? Do you want a disciplined wise man of sound mind, steadiness, and resolution to rule; or do you want an unmanly man who is overcome by caprice, vanity, and impatience? Kavanaugh, can you stop making excuses for your lack of equanimity, please?

Moreover, judges strive to make the correct decision based on current information notwithstanding any previous assessment of the merits earlier in the litigation. It is not uncommon to think and decide differently when one knows more.

Why are you making any decisions before you have all the information and evidence? Why are you violating the justice of trials? It shows you lack resolution and equanimity, and violates many maxims of law: audi alteram partem17, innocent until proven guilty, ius civile vigilantibus scriptum est18, dura lex sed lex19, non faciat malun ut inde veniat bonum20, probatio vincit præsumptionem21, res inter alios acta vel iudicata aliis nec nocet nec prodocet22, rex non potest peccare23, actori incumbit onus probatio24, prius quam exaudias ne iudices25, and ei incumbit probatio qui dicit26.

Also, it’s possible that the West Virginia v. Barnette decision of 1943 was wrongly decided – the pledge of allegiance being another victim of anti-fascist hysteria.

The volume of preliminary-injunction and other pre-enforcement litigation over new federal laws and executive actions coming to this Court has been growing in recent years. That trend is in part the result of the increasing number of major new executive actions by recent Presidential administrations (of both political parties) that have had difficulty passing significant new legislation through Congress. Meanwhile, applications for stays or injunctions in capital-punishment cases, election disputes, and other time-sensitive matters (including numerous COVID-19-related disputes in the few years beginning in 2020) have also continued to come to this Court on a steady basis, as they traditionally have.

The trend is bad. Preliminary injunctions should be used sparingly and pre-enforcement litigation should be mostly abolished. Kavanaugh’s pathetic excuses is that Presidents of both parties have been upsetting the apple cart. Like, yeah? Congress and the President are responsible for changes in government, not the court system. What do you want, stagnation? Courts should be more hands off in capital-punishment cases. Usually it’s some Black serial killer who libtarded lawyers insist is actually innocent (even though he is not) and libtarded judges are stupid enough to fall for this fib. Remember, leftists empathize with literal murderers more than they do with normal people. Again, with the election stuff, that is time sensitive; which is why you should not bother with the other interim stuff so that you can free up your schedule.

Wow, if that’s the concurrence, I hate to see what the dissents are like.

The Spic-Hag complains

Oh, no, it’s the dissent… God help me!

Children born in the United States and subject to its laws are United States citizens. That has been the legal rule since the founding, and it was the English rule well before then.

Are illegal aliens meaningfully subject to the laws of the United States? Isn’t that what Trump’s executive order is arguing? Also, did you forget to mention diplomats’ families? What about invading armies? Also, if you are so confident that this has absolutely been the rule with no nuance whatsoever, then what do you make of the gilded age / progressive era practice of denaturalizing America women who married foreigners?

She then mentions Dred Scott v. Sandford. You see, liberals don’t inherently believe in anything, they have anti-beliefs. The WWII mythology is a good example. Adolf Hitler serves the role as a secular satan, with the national socialists and fascists serving as demons for a secular religion. In America, the war between the states also has semi-mythic status – slavery is the original sin for America, and any method is justified in eradicating it. There is a reason why leftists like terrorists like John Brown.

Traditional lawyers have their Latin and French legal maxims from which they base their legal reasoning on. The axioms and rules tell them what to do. However, leftist lawyers have anti-maxims – anti-beliefs which they treat as anathema. The anti-beliefs of the left are entirely negative. Is it really wise to build a civilization on negativity? Perhaps that is why the left-wing dominated west is going through a period of suicidal behavior? The libs literally invented the concept of an “anti-canon”, namely Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York, and Korematsu v. United States.

Back to birthright citizenship, she talks about the Fourteenth Amendment and then skips straight to Trump as if he is operating outside of established legal norms. Like, there were no developments in American nationality law between the adoption of the Fourteenth amendment and now? Does she know that the Wong Kim Ark decision wasn’t made until 1898? What does she think about that era’s practice of denaturalizing women who married foreigners?

Every court to evaluate the Order has deemed it patently unconstitutional…

Because the judges who agree with Trump’s order didn’t bother to evaluate it.

Undeterred, the Government now asks this Court to grant emergency relief, insisting it will suffer irreparable harm unless it can deprive at least some children born in the United States of citizenship.

Trump’s government is correct. The United States will suffer irreparable harm if the anchor baby problem continues. Immigration by and large is culturally and economically harmful to the native population (at least contemporary immigration as it now exists). There is lots of right-wing literature documenting this, so I don’t feel the need to rehash it that much. Has she never heard of the maxim “salus populi suprema lex esto”27? Hostile aliens are not the people, but I suppose she does not want to admit that because she herself is a hostile alien.

No, the government doesn’t have time to “prove” that the order is constitutional because it literally does not have enough time – it is dealing with preliminary injunctions and interim orders instead of prepping for an actual trial. Hence, the emergency requests for stays. And why is the burden of proof on the President instead of the various NGOs? Shouldn’t the plaintiffs have to prove that the executive order is indeed unconstitutional?

The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it.

Isn’t the entirety of law mostly gamesmanship? If you are bad a gamesmanship, doesn’t that just mean you’re stupid? Here is another difference between rightists and leftists: rightists are more honest. They will occasionally admit they indulge in chicanery and pretense. They’re being honest about what they are doing. Leftists on the other hand lie, and they lie and lie and lie. They lie to everyone, including themselves. They are dishonest cheats, yet want to lecture others about the evils of craftiness and sophistry?

No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates.

LOL! This is so true, and has already happened several times over. The civil rights regime was a great reduction in the liberty of the people. True freedom of association28 is basically dead in this country, the state is more powerful than ever before, but yes we live in an abundance of rights! “Rights” to a leftist is the privileges, exemptions, entitlements, and handouts given to the clients of the leftist regime. It is usually either monetary gimmes or exemptions from the normal course of the law.

Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.

BASED far-right government takes guns away from Blacks and bans Mosque attendance. But seriously, when do leftists care about gun rights ever? They probably don’t want us taking guns away from antifa lunatics, illegal aliens, or gangsters.

The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief.

Boohoo! Childish animal: gimme what I want, I don’t care about the law! If class-action litigation is so cumbersome, why does it exist? Didn’t liberals used to be big fans of class-action lawsuits?

That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit.

She spoke of equitable principles earlier, but I am not sure if she knows that one of the big ones is “vigilantibus non dormientibus æquitas subvenit” which means “equity aids the vigilant, not the sleeping”. You have to assert your rights in order to have them – that’s how the civil (non-criminal) law operates. You have not because you ask not.

Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent.

I have to ask, who is the “our” in “our system of law”. What “system of law” is being attacked? Is it the law that we inherited from our ancestors? Or is it the usurpations and perversions of our law by socialists and perverts, that has now become our nightmarish tyranny? If it is our traditional system of law from the ancestors, then I am sorry to inform you Sotomayor, but you are the one attacking it, and the conservatives are the ones defending it. If you mean the nightmarish tyranny of envious perverts, then by heavens it should be attacked and assailed mightily – sic semper tyrannis.

I Spic-Hag

Sotomayor is a bad lawyer, because she cannot enjoy the finer points of legal technicalities. Yes, the majority dodges the question of whether Trump’s executive order is constitutional or not. Duh! This case is about court procedure, and is only tangentially about the boundaries of birthright citizenship. Are you so uninterested in the finer points of court procedure? Why did you even want to become a lawyer in the first place?

Spic-Hag I A

Again, no mention of diplomatic immunity, or invading armies.

Spic-Hag I B

Again, no mention of alien armies in talking about English common law. Imagine explaining to Sir William Blackstone that if a French army were to invade England, the children of those French soldiers would be considered English subjects. Also, English common law had the concept of perpetual allegiance, there was no way to renounce your subjecthood. In America, as a Republic, we do have ways to renounce citizenship for those who don’t want it anymore29.

Let’s be honest about the historical context, airplanes didn’t exist in the 18^th century. It is much easier to just move from one place to another now than it was 300 years ago; it’s not even remotely the same environment. You can fly to the other side of the globe in like 12 hours. Also, there is a high likelihood that those people back then were either of the persuasion that non-Whites didn’t even count as people, or they had never met a non-White person at all. Very different nowadays.

Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27, declared that “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power” would be “citizens of the United States.” The Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship followed two years later.

Do you know what is a foreign power? MEXICO!

The Spic-Hag thinks that “children of undocumented persons” are equal to the descendants of Mayflower passengers.

Again, no mention of the woman question.

Spic-Hag I C

There was thirty years between the adoption of the Fourteenth amendment and the Wong Kim Ark case; not that I disagree entirely with the Wong Kim Ark decision, but I dislike her arrogant demeanor.

This Court squarely rejected that attempt to limit the Citizenship Clause’s reach. Instead, it held, the “’subject to the jurisdiction’” qualifier excludes only “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State,” id., at 682, “with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes,” id., at 693.

Illegals are alien enemies who are hostilely occupying part of our country.

Anyways, her first footnote is actually an interesting digression on American Indians:

The first two exceptions “ha[d] already been show, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, [to be] recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S., at 682. The additional exception for certain children born to Indian tribe members reflected the country’s historical understanding that Indian tribes were “quasi foreign nations” within the physical boundaries of the United States. See Cong. Globe, 39^th Cong., 1^st Sess., 2890 (1866). Treaties between many tribes and the Federal Government, at the time, ensured that it was the tribe, and not the United States Government, that had “prescriptive and law enforcement authority” over tribal members. […]

So, is it possible that today in America there are quasi foreign nations within the physical boundaries of the US?

That holding conclusively settled any remaining dispute over the Citizenship Clause’s meaning. Since then, all three branches of Government have unflinchingly adhered to it.

Lol, what about the woman question? Also, is she saying that liberalism can’t survive healthy debate?

II Spic-Hag

Spic-Hag II A

Undeterred by the Constitution, history, Supreme Court precedent, federal law, and longstanding Executive Branch practice, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order No. 14160 on the day of his inauguration that purported to redefine American citizenship.

The Don is an absolute legend!

Spic-Hag II B

The plaintiffs are pregnant foreign hoes, immigrant NGOs, 22 misguided state governments, the District of Columbia (I have ideas), and the so-called city of San Franscisco. This is the regime that you are up against.

I understand the pregnant hoes having standing, because that’s kind of obvious, but why are the State governments involved? Do they want their welfare systems to be more burdened by immigrants?

Respondents also sought a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the Citizenship Order during the pendency of the litigation. If allowed to go into effect, they said, the policy would inflict irreparable harm on their children (and their members’ children) by denying them “enjoyment of the full privileges, rights, and benefits that come with U.S. citizenship,” and rendering them vulnerable to unlawful deportation before the Courts could adjudicate their constitutional claim. […]

No, no, no, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the law is unconstitutional; don’t cut in line by getting an unjust preliminary injunction. Now, yes, it would cause harm to their children; however, the presence of these hostile aliens also causes irreparable harm to the children of native Americans. One of the big problems with harm-based morality is how do you deal with competing harms? You talk about enjoying the privileges, rights, and benefits of US citizenship; but what about the duties, obligations, and responsibilities of US citizenship? Is it just for you to enjoy privileges, rights, and benefits, if you shirk duties, obligations, and responsibilities whereof?

Also, the liberal States don’t like it that they have to do any paperwork to make sure the people they are doling out money to are US citizens. There is a socialist wealth redistribution scheme in this country. Wake up!

By stripping some children within the States of their citizenship, the Order would reduce the States’ federal funding, “forc[ing the States] to bear significantly increased costs to operate and fund programs that ensure the health and well-being of their residents.”

It’s always about money, isn’t it? The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. Why is there so much federal funding of the States in the first place?

Relatedly, because the States must verify the citizenship status of the individuals they serve, the States alleged that the Citizenship Order would force them to expend significant sums to “modif[y] their … operational structures and administration” to account for the changes in citizenship.

Boohoo, more paperwork. There are ways to reduce paperwork bureaucracy, but everyone knows that liberals would HATE that.

For the organizational plaintiffs, the Maryland District Court explained that those plaintiffs have “’over 680,000 members … who reside in all 50 U.S. states’” and “hundreds of them expect to give birth soon.”

THE TURD WORLD BIOTRASH ARMY IS COMING TO KILL YOU!

The leftists are breeding an orc army to kill you. It is common knowledge that White liberals don’t have that many kids these days (they’re too gay to do it), so they need to rely on either 1) indoctrinating the normies’ kids in order to gain more converts, or 2) import a turd world army of hostile orcs to do their bidding… or 2a) get replaced by their own orc army that has a mind of its own; either one is good as long as they kill off all the Trump supporters. I don’t think leftists want to live anymore, I think they want to kill themselves, BUT they want to kill off all the Trump supporters and Evangelicals before they croak.

So, with that race-treason in mind, do you think leftists care about trivial legal technicalities that get in the way of importing more aliens? Why would they care about English law (including English equity) when they want to replace the English?

For one thing, that court explained, the constant flow of people moving in and out of various States meant some children born to noncitizen parents in a nonplaintiff State would later reside in a plaintiff State. Once there, those children (under state law) would be eligible for state benefits.

Why? That’s a bad idea. Under England’s poor laws, only those that are from the parish could get poor relief. Vagrants and vagabonds from who knows where were not allowed to receive any poor relief. States giving benefits to random people from other States the moment they are physically present in that State is probably almost as bad as giving random foreigners benefits once they are physically present within a nation. If immigration (at least too much immigration) destroys a nation, then why wouldn’t internal national migration destroy a State? If America would cease to be a nation if she ceased to have a border, then would a US State cease to be a state if she did not have a border?

Dear conservative, do you know why people don’t care about states’ rights and are largely lethargic to it? It is because normal people are not very patriotic about their State. Perhaps displacing people within a US State disrupts healthy ethnogenesis that can lead to a strong sense of identity? If displacing heritage Americans with immigrants is wrong, then wouldn’t it also be wrong to displace the natives of a State with migrants from other parts of the US? If a third-world immigrant doesn’t magically become an American because he moved to the US, then how can it be that an American who is from California, New York, or the Midwest, who moves to Texas magically become Texan? Does he have ancestors who fought in the Alamo?

State level identity in the US is lethargic because the States do not have any border controls. Being patriotic about America but hating your own State is a very shallow kind of patriotism. I believe there is a much deeper patriotism in loving my home State, and loving America as a whole because my State is a part of it, and loving the sister States because they are siblings in the American family. It is called the United STATES after all, and that’s plural. You can’t have a union unless there are constituent parts to unify.

III Spic-Hag

For centuries, courts have “close[d] the doors” of equity to those “tainted with inequitableness or bad faith relative to the matter in which [they] seek relief.”

Need I mention that the left is intent on White genocide, and anchor babies are partly how they do it? 21^st immigration causes irreparable harm to the American people. The left always argues in bad faith.

Spic-Hag III A

The President’s “mandate … to exercise his executive power,” Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, 123 (1926), in any event, does not permit him to rewrite the Constitution or statutory provisions at a whim.

What about Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Or many other US Presidents?

Again, libs are childish animals when they don’t get what they want.

The majority’s contrary position is self-refuting. Suppose an executive order barred women from receiving unemployment benefits or black citizens from voting. Is the Government irreparably harmed, and entitled to emergency relief, by a district court order universally enjoining such policies? The majority, apparently, would say yes.

Unironically yes. If there were such orders, any Black or female plaintiffs would have to actually stand up for their rights instead of just waiting for government bureaucrats (judges) to do things for them. If they are too lazy to do things themselves, perhaps they shouldn’t have those things? Also, as for the merits, women most certainly should not receive unemployment benefits, they should be getting married. Blacks also are 90-95% reliable voters for the left-wing socialist party, whatever it may be. Now, there might be some issues with just banning Blacks wholesale because of the number of mixed-race people, but there might be some ways so that the 5-10% of Blacks that do vote patriotically are the only Blacks that vote (that could also potentially disenfranchise a large number of leftist Whites). In case you didn’t know, I’m not a huge fan of “democracy”.

Spic-Hag III B

Again, the dissenters have an arrogant attitude and never contemplate that once in a while the judiciary might be wrong. They also fail to mention that equity was originally an exercise of royal authority, possibly legislative in nature, and that might be incompatible with our republican system of government. They’re acting like Monarchists, but without an actual Monarch to hold them accountable.

Spic-Hag III B1

Again, equity was originally an exercise of royal prerogative. It was adaptable precisely because the king was powerful, since he did not have all the limitations of a republican president. Also, I am pretty sure a more thorough examination of equity’s history will show that the king was never subject to equity, since he himself administered it (through his Chancellor). And I fail to see the justice of giving hostile aliens more benefits and privileges at the expense of the indigenous population. I can’t wait until the right weaponizes equity against the left and puts the hurt on them with flexible and innovative solutions for protecting rights and redressing wrongs.

Oh, great, the Bill of Peace schtick again. Firstly, if you are going to do a “Bill of Peace”, do it, and call it a “Bill of Peace”. Secondly, as I (and they) have already explained earlier, the Bill of Peace is the predecessor to the class action, so do a class action then.

If a plaintiff or group of plaintiffs filed such a bill, an English court could use a single case to settle disputes affecting whole communities, for “the inherent jurisdiction of equity” included the power “to interfere for the prevention of a multiplicity of suits.”

A universal injunction does nothing to prevent a multiplicity of suits – it is a multiplicity of suits. As I have mentioned earlier, different district courts could issue inconsistent universal injunctions.

In such cases, a court could “grant [equitable relief] without making other persons parties,” instead considering them “quasi parties to the record, at least for the purpose of taking the benefit of the decree, and of entitling themselves to other equitable relief, if their rights [were] jeopardy[iz]ed.”

At least they were entered on the record and made quasi parties, which is something that universal injunctions do not do. Universal injunctions do not keep a record of third-party beneficiaries in the same way that bills of peace or class actions do.

Again, did Mellon win her case? Do taxpayers have standing to challenge appropriation bills? Are you going to say the Mellon cases were wrongly decided, hag?

Throughout the early 20^th century, federal courts granted universal injunctions even when a narrower remedy would have sufficed to redress the parties’ injuries.

It’s called the progressive era for a reason, and it was a disaster for American freedom. Apparently, the hag considers the 20^th century to be deep roots of history and precedent.

“Reasonable” jurists think baby-murder is okay and indulge in transgender fantasies, so I question their reasonableness.

Spic-Hag III B2

Has the hag ever thought that taxpayer suits might be an exception to a norm?

That bills of peace bear some resemblance to modern day Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class actions does not mean they cannot also be a historical analogue to the universal injunction.

Actually, it does.

Also, English Chancellors had legislative, judicial, and executive powers; which is a situation that is quite foreign to our republican form of government here in America. If the equity courts can just make up whatever solution they feel like does justice, would that not encroach upon the legislative prerogative of the legislative assembly in a republic? Us Americans are as much influenced by the Roman Republic as the English Monarchy.

Also, Ex parte Young was wrongly decided, and it is partly responsible for why the federal government can bully the States on a whim.

Indeed, equitable relief in the United States has evolved in one respect to protect rights and redress wrongs that even the majority does not question: Plaintiffs today may obtain plaintiff-protective injunctions against Government officials that block the enforcement of unconstitutional laws, relief exemplified by Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908). That remedy, which traces back to the equity practice of mid-19^th century courts, finds no analogue in the relief exercised in the English Court of Chancery, which could not enjoin the Crown or English officers. See supra, at 24, n. 4; see also Sohoni, 133 Harv. L. Rev., at 928, 1002-1006; see also R. Fallon, D. Meltzer, & D. Shapiro, Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System 958-959 (5^th ed. 2003) (noting that, in Young, “the threatened conduct of the defendant would not have been an actionable wrong at common law” and that the “principle [in Young] has been easily absorbed in suits challenging federal official action”). Under the majority’s rigid historical test, however, even plaintiff-protective injunctions against patently unlawful Government action should be impermissible. [footnote 7 – The majority’s expressed support for such injunctions is thus irreconcilable with its view that equitable remedies must be very closely “’analogous’ to the relief ‘”exercised by the High Court of Chancery in England at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the enactment of the original Judiciary Act.”’” Ante, at 6.]

She’s right on this one. Equity could not enjoin the Crown, so how can any injunction run against the federal government, or a State government? Mid-19^th century court practice is not late 18^th century court practice.

Imagine you are the Attorney-General of Minnesota. Your state legislature has passed a new law regulating railroad rates. You haven’t done anything personally illegal, but some federal judge gives you an injunction saying that if you even think about enforcing the law passed by your state legislature, he’s going to send the US Marshal service to throw you behind bars. And people wonder why US State governments are spineless nowadays? Also, the lawsuit is against you personally, but for your official conduct as Attorney-General of Minnesota. Where is the justice in that? It seems more like federal judges are petty tyrants who want to bully state governments, and occasionally the Congress itself.

Until the enactment of the Amendments to the Administrative Procedure Act in 1976, sovereign immunity barred most suits against the Federal Government. […] Officer suits against Cabinet officials before that point, moreover, could be brought only in Washington, D.C., due to limits on personal jurisdiction and venue that existed at the time.

I want to return to these norms, they are more sensible than what the current status quo is. If you want to wage lawfare, you must wage lawfare. You need to take away the ability of leftists to sue you when you are in power, or else you won’t be able to do anything. Does the ACLU safeguard American liberty, or is it the left’s shock troopers to force “progress” down our throats? Being able to sue the government sounds good to retarded lolberts, but what it actually means is that regime apparatchicks get to bully elected officials and steal the sustenance of right-wing officers. The regime weaponizes lawsuits against dissenting government leaders in order to ensure compliance with the agenda™. Sovereign immunity30 has been a legal tradition for hundreds of years, and it was not an enabler of tyranny. If anything, it prevents minoritarian interests from dictating government policy.

Spic-Hag III C

DEPORT & EXILE BIDEN’S INVADERS!

Why are there so many federal handouts? To feed parasitic regime clients?

Why is SNAP a federally funded program? Let the States take care of their own poor. Under the English poor laws, the poor relief was raised from the specific parish. Also, if they are not citizens, why would they have social security numbers in the first place? Isn’t social security kind of socialist?

And… of course she cites Brown v. Board of Education – when the federal government used the military to force children, at gunpoint, to go to public schools that their parents didn’t want them to go to. Huge win for freedom with that one. It was not long after that case that the Supreme Court decided to kick prayer and the Bible out of school. Perhaps they were drunk with power after reshaping American public schools – and no one at the time really tried to stop them.

Also, the Spic-hag is very unhappy that Trump is energetic and upsetting (rotten) apple carts.

Spic-Hag III D

If the Order does in fact go into effect without further intervention by the District Courts, children will lose, at least for the time being, “a most precious right,” Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144, 159 (1963), and “cherished status” that “carries with it the privilege of full participation in the affairs of our society,” Knauer v. United States, 328 U. S. 654, 658 (1946). Affected children also risk losing the chance to participate in American society altogether, unless their parents have sufficient resources to file individual suits or successfully challenge the Citizenship Order in removal proceedings. Indeed, the Order risks the “creation of a substantial ‘shadow population’” for covered children born in the United States who remain here. Plyler, 457 U. S., at 218. Without Social Security numbers and other documentation, these children will be denied critical public services, like SNAP and Medicaid, and lose the ability to engage fully in civic life by being born in States that have not filed a lawsuit.

The left, which thinks that murdering unborn children is fine, somehow thinks it’s so evil to deport them instead. Yes, the pure evil of deporting enemy aliens. Families should always be deported together.

Does it ever occur to her that their participation in American society and the affairs of civil life is the reason why we want them gone? Denying them access to “public services” will make them want to go back to their home countries instead of being parasites here. And isn’t having them undocumented a blessing since they are not under the watchful eye of the surveillance state? Or am I mistaken?

Also, she mentions Trop v. Dulles, which is an evil decision. That’s where the phrase “evolving standards of decency” come from. Basically, the court said that stripping a soldier of US citizenship for desertion was cruel and unusual punishment, even though desertion carries the DEATH PENALTY. Justice Felix Frankfurter found that absurd, and said:

Is constitutional dialectic so empty of reason that it can be seriously urged that loss of citizenship is a fate worse than death?

Yes Felix, it was and still is that empty of reason.

IV Spic-Hag

The Court’s decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the [secular religion]. The Executive Branch can now enforce policies that flout settled [policy] and violate countless individuals’ [regime] rights, and the federal courts will be hamstrung to stop its actions fully.

I had to have fun; you know it’s true.

The spic-hag then moans about not being able to stop the Government from doing something “unconstitutional” whenever she wants to. How can the government do something illegal, but the US Supreme Court is unable to stop them? Well, if you remember, that’s literally what happened with Marbury v. Madison – what the secretary of state did was unlawful, but the court cannot grant a writ of mandamus to force secretary Madison to obey the law. The midnight judge Marbury never saw his commission by the way. So, if you want to have the unlimited ability to force government officials to obey the law as you see fit, okay. However, you will have to give up the power of judicial review. You will never be able to say a statute, federal or state, is “unconstitutional” ever again. Don’t like it? Oh well, judicial review, but the judiciary is limited in its ability to dictate the legislative and executive branches. That’s called separation of powers in case you didn’t know.

Question hag, if you feel that the Government is going to ignore your decisions, how do you think injunctions will fix the problem? Wouldn’t they just ignore your injunctions if you are confident that they will just disobey your decision?

Also, prepare yourself dear readers for immigration related class action lawsuits under Rule 23.

She then bemoans how hard it is to do a class action lawsuit; oh my, the difficulty! She sounds like a mewling whiny millennial. Hey, hag, have you ever tried adulting?

Anyways, the left has not conceded this defeat; they will continue to fight.

She says the magic words “our democracy” in the final paragraph. I am pretty sure that leftists make a “solemn mockery” of the constitution more than rightists do.

Pedo negress’ ogression

Now Biden’s affirmative action hire will vex me.

The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.

She obviously flunked law school. Did she forget the difference between civil law and criminal law. You have not because you ask not. It’s not my fault you are so lazy that you sleep on your rights.

Ugh, this is starting to sound like a NYT article with its delusion and hysteria, chock full of half-truths, platitudes, and lies.

Stated simply, what it means to have a system of government that is bounded by law is that everyone is constrained by the law, no exceptions. And for that to actually happen, courts must have the power to order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law – full stop.

Is the judiciary subject to the law? What about when the judiciary violates the law? Who holds the judges accountable? Unless you have a limited government with separation of powers, the entity that forces everyone else to follow the law is sovereign – and thus above the law. It’s de jure monarchy 101. All monarchies, whether absolutist, constitutional, or even ceremonial, have a sovereign political formulation – that the king can do no wrong. The person who is responsible for forcing everyone else to obey the law is by his very nature above the law; or rather, he is the law – L’État, c’est moi. To claim otherwise is absurd. The only alternative is the separation of powers in a republic, but even republics rest sovereignty somewhere – in the people collectively. The people are sovereign and can do no wrong. Every magistrate in a republic is a servant of the people; and thus are accountable to the people. The people are accountable to God, just as a Monarch would. In order to it to effectively have a republic, and not a monarchy in all but name, republics usually divide up the sovereign power between different kinds of magistrates. The first, most basic, and most necessary division is between the legislative power and the executive power. There is usually a legislative assembly, and a separate executive magistrate. This division is so necessary that even many monarchies have this distinction – the king-in-parliament vs the king-in-council. England learned the hard way, during and after her civil war, what tyrannies can happen when the executive has no independence from the legislative assembly. If there is a separation of power between the legislative assembly and the chief executive, why would there not be a separation of power between the legislative assembly and the courts, or a separation of power between the chief executive and the courts? This would effectively mean that the courts do not have absolute power over the executive branch. Especially considering the tradition of impeachment, it can be argued that excessive accountability to the courts is a usurpation of legislative power. Yes, separation of powers would create a “zone of lawlessness”, but for the sake of freedom. You cannot always abide by the strict letter of the law (which is something that leftists don’t do anyways).

Notice that leftists even attack the republican political formulation – they slander the people constantly. White Americans are evil racists who support implicit and systemic racism – America cannot be good until Whiteness is abolished. The critical theorists and other woke leftists are literally telling everyone that they hate the people!

The majority cannot deny that our Constitution was designed to split the powers of a monarch between the governing branches to protect the People. Nor is it debatable that the role of the Judiciary in our constitutional scheme is to ensure fidelity to law.

So, why are you assuming the role of a monarch? “I must make everyone obey the law myself” is a monarchical claim.

But these core values are strangely absent from today’s decision. Focusing on inapt comparisons to impotent English tribunals, the majority ignores the Judiciary’s foundational duty to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Eh, WHAT?

The US Constitution is English law. The laws of the United States are English laws. Americans are free Englishmen. English tribunals are still relevant today.

I Ogress

To hear the majority tell it, this suit raises a mind-numbingly technical query: Are universal injunctions “sufficiently ‘analogous’ to the relief issued ‘by the High Court of Chancery in England at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the enactment of the original Judiciary Act’” to fall within the equitable authority Congress granted federal courts in the Judiciary Act of 1789? Ante, at 6. But that legalese is a smokescreen. It obscures a far more basic question of enormous legal and practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?

For someone whose main argument is that the executive should follow the law, she seems very unconcerned with actual laws. Does she know that every law is a mind-numbingly technical query into legalese smokescreens? Why did she even go into law in the first place?

“May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?” This is a deceitful oversimplification. What kind of order? Does she know that there are many different kinds of court orders? Also, may I point out that the majority only says that one kind of order (universal injunctions) is inappropriate, while another (party-specific injunctions) kind of order is appropriate. Of course, a federal court can order the federal executive to follow the law. However, it cannot throw the executive in prison because he did something that you didn’t like. Also, particularly with the Trump administration, what is actually happening is closer to this: The Executive is following the law, but some federal judge doesn’t want him to enforce that law, thus a deluge of unlawful court orders based on pure sophistry.

Ogress I A

In a constitutional Republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the Executive to follow the law – and it must. It is axiomatic that the Constitution of the United States and the statutes that the People’s representatives have enacted govern in our system of government. Thus, everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law. By duty and nature, federal courts say what the law is (if there is a genuine dispute), and require those who are subject to the law to conform their behavior to what the law requires. This is the essence of the rule of law.

So, is it already the case, or is it a must? As for axioms, I would go back and inspect the paragraph I wrote earlier that listed several Latin axioms that potentially conflict with her worldview. For someone who really wants people to follow the law, she seems unconcerned about actual laws, like the Judiciary Act of 1789, or any other Act of Congress that could in any way possibly limit judicial tyranny. Yes, the President is bound by law, and so is a federal judge. This is also an oversimplification, because what kind of law are we dealing with? Civil cases are different from criminal cases, for example. Does speeding 5 over the limit carry the death penalty? What about proportionality? Severe wrongs require severe punishments, but minor wrongs require milder punishments. The majority said that the universal injunction is an inappropriate and unlawful – the wrong solution to the problem. And that’s if even what Trump did is unlawful, which it is probably the case that he has a legal right to do so.

Yes, the judiciary says what the law is, that’s the judges’ job. However, that is all they do. Actually enforcing the job is the executive’s job. Requiring individuals to conform their behavior to what the law requires is the executive's job, not the judiciary’s. Do judges tackle criminals? Do they patrol the streets making sure individuals obey the law? Or, are those jobs done by the police? In civil executions, does the judge himself go to a person’s house to confiscate and then auction his goods? Or does he delegate that job to the Sheriff? Could judges do anything if they weren’t protected and served by Marshals and Sheriffs?

Leftists say “rule of law” but neither of the Clintons are in prison yet, so…

Though we all love fairness and despise unjust partiality, I do have to question the extremism of eliminating humanity. Yes, it sounds nice to be ruled by law instead of by men, but when pushed too far, it becomes rule by machine instead of rule by fellow humans. Machines do not care, they have no sympathy, no understanding, no compassion, and no love. They do not understand extenuating circumstances, they are brute force that crushes anything in its way. There are feverish rumors of new world order / one world government type stuff, and also arguments that we are already in a crushing machine of sorts – the egalitarian ratchet, etc. Would this not be the eradication of human emotion and human empathy from governance? She says that the founders rejected rule by fiat, but this is not true. Congress decides what is federal law and what isn’t based entirely on fiat – that’s why they vote. As long as it doesn’t violate the constitution, which is only four pages long by the way. Also, I am very proud of my nation having the shortest written Constitution in the world; the shorter, the better. In addition to Congress, the President has the plenary power of pardon. If rule by fiat is antithetical to the American legal system, then can you explain to me the President’s pardoning power?

Those who birthed our Nation limited the power of government to preserve freedom. As they knew all too well, “constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go.”

Yep, that includes judges too. You were literally saying earlier that there should not be any barriers to the judiciary forcing the executive to obey the law, so why wouldn’t human judges abuse that power and carry that authority as far as it will go?

But the Founders reasoned that the vice of human ambition could be channeled to prevent the country from devolving into despotism – ambition could be “made to counteract ambition.” The Federalist No. 51, p. 322 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison). If there were, say, a Constitution that divided power across institutions “in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other,” then it could be possible to establish Government by and for the People and thus stave off autocracy. Ibid.; see also Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, 293 (1926) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) (“The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power”). Through such separated institutions, power checks power. See Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, at 69.

Never does she possibly contemplate the judiciary being imperfect, that power checking power can also be the executive checking the power of the judiciary. The ambition of the judiciary is counteracted by the ambition of the legislature and executive. If the powers are divided, the judiciary does not have all the power. The judiciary is checked by the legislature and executive. When I read it at first, I thought she said “aristocracy”, which would have been pretty close to the truth (America is a judicial aristocracy), but she actually says “autocracy” which is Greek for “self-power”.

Ogress I B

The distribution of power between the Judiciary and the Executive is of particular importance to the operation of a society governed by law. Made up of “’free, impartial, and independent’” judges and justices, the Judiciary checks the political branches of Government by explaining what the law is and “securing obedience” with it.

Hahahahah! So, you think left-wing judges are “free, impartial, and independent”? Quite frankly, is anyone truly “free, impartial, and independent”? Let me douse you in the cold water of legal realism, but everyone has values, beliefs, and allegiances. Friend-enemy distinction; impartiality is only useful in first order disputes, not second order disputes.

She has quotes from Cooper v. Aaron (1958), United States v. United Mine Workers of America (1947), and United States v. Lee (1882); but I am of the persuasion that both US v. Lee and Cooper v. Aaron were wrongly decided, and I am unsure of US v. Mine Workers (I would have to actually read the case). So, basically the ogress is quoting cases that are probably wrong. In US v. Lee, I believe the dissenters were right. If Lee had brought an action for trespass, he could have succeeded, but he didn’t. Instead, he brought an action for an ejectment, which directly questions title to land, and thus would have violated sovereign immunity. The ejectment should have been rejected, and a trespass would have been more suitable.

II Ogress

She calls out AWFUL on her chickenhood. AWFUL is so awful that she couldn’t admit that Trump’s executive order is constitutional, and Biden’s affirmative action hire sees through the BS.

Also, yes, federal district court judges are unironically petty tyrants these days.

Question: If the executive is obligated to obey the law, then why is an injunction necessary to make them comply? Like, if there is not an injunction, does that release the executive from any obligation to obey the law? Does the executive have to wait for there to be an injunction to feel obligated to obey a specific law? Or is the executive obligated to obey all the laws, whether or not there are any injunctions? If the executive is equally obligated to obey the law when there is not an injunction just as much as when there is an injunction, then what exactly does an injunction do? Why even have injunctions if they don’t do anything?

The Founders of the United States of America squarely rejected a governing system in which the King ruled all, and all others, including the courts, were his subordinates. In our Constitution-centered system, the People are the rulers and we have the rule of law.

Okay, so why not get rid of equity wholesale? Equity very much was the King forcing his will on his subjects and subordinates, and it was an exercise of royal legislative prerogative. Also, I am pretty sure the English invented the rule of law, with monarchy and all that.

In footnote 3, the ogress seems to have confused a court opinion with a universal injunction. The majority’s ruling gets rid of neither opinions nor injunctions in general.

III Ogress

She says that the executive should ALWAYS be bound by the law, but what does she make of mercy? What of the President’s plenary pardon power? Does she hate mercy and forgiveness?

Ogress III A

Do remember: The Executive has not asked this Court to determine whether Executive Order No. 14160 complies with the Constitution.

Yeah, because it was a preliminary injunction, so the lawyers in the department of justice haven’t presented the absolutist most airtight argument that will convince even moderates of the order’s righteousness. Any indiscretion or imperfection will be magnified and used as an argument against anything Trump is doing. Is there the same expectation of perfectionism from liberalism? If a left-wing lawyer has a minor flaw in her argument, does she get eaten alive by other jurists, or does no one care?

Again, the ogress has forgotten the difference between civil law and criminal law. Is a Black person’s perception of the law entirely criminal in nature? Like, is that the only part of the legal system they interact with?

In this zone, which is populated by those who lack the wherewithal or ability to go to court, all bets are off.

I can smell the Marxism.

Also eerily echoing history’s horrors is the fact that today’s prerogative zone is unlikely to impact the public in a randomly distributed manner. Those in the good graces of the Executive have nothing to fear; the new prerogative that the Executive has to act unlawfully will not be exercised with respect to them. Those who accede to the Executive’s demands, too, will be in the clear. The wealthy and the well connected will have little difficulty securing legal representation, going to court, and obtaining injunctive relief in their own name if the Executive violates their rights.

The state is already like this, and I can sense a bit of jealousy from her. She says it will “impact the poor, the uneducated, and the unpopular”; and she mentions Papachristou v. Jacksonville (1972) which was wrongly decided. I strongly suspect that she sees things through the lens of the Marxist dialectic.

Okay, now I know that the Mine Workers case is bad news.

“If one man” – even a very important man, and even a democratically elected man – “can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. That means first chaos, then tyranny.”

Uh, what do legislative assemblies do? Don’t they vote on what the law is and what the law isn’t? I mean, to be fair, legislative assemblies do it collectively instead of individually, but they still are men who determine what the law is.

Ogress III B

I now observe that this response also erroneously suggests that a court does something wrongful when it imposes a universal injunction in a single plaintiff’s lawsuit – akin to giving a windfall to those who do not deserve the law’s protection because they have not sued.

Correct, a universal injunction is a universal injustice.

Fun fact, the only right mentioned in the US First Amendment is the right of the people peaceably to assemble. And since when did liberal judges even pretend to care about gun rights? I guess it means we’re winning.

The ogress is kind of failing to distinguish between individual rights and collective rights. There is a reason why many liberal jurists talk about “constitutional rights” in the general and abstract, because if people talked about specific constitutional rights, liberals would sound much more stupid.

A concrete example helps to illustrate why this turnabout undermines the rule of law. Imagine an Executive who issues a blanket order that is blatantly unconstitutional – demanding, say, that any and all of its political foes be summarily and indefinitely incarcerated in a prison outside the jurisdiction of the United States, without any hearing or chance to be heard in court. Shortly after learning of this edict, one such political rival rushes into court with his lawyer, claims the Executive’s order violates the Constitution, and secures an injunction that prohibits the Executive from enforcing that unconstitutional mandate. The upshot of today’s decision is that, despite that rival’s success in persuading a judge of the unconstitutional nature of the Executive’s proclamation, the court’s ruling and injunction can only require the Executive to shelve any no-process incarceration plan that targets that particular individual (the named plaintiff); the Executive can keep right on rounding up its other foes, despite the court’s clear and unequivocal pronouncement that the executive order is unlawful.

Firstly, I support putting woke leftists into concentration camps. Secondly, this is literally what Abraham Lincoln did. So, was Abraham Lincoln an evil fascist RepubliKKKan wannabe White supremacist dictator? Thirdly, the FDR also did this during World War II. There was probably also stuff during World War I; I know the Canadians put Ukrainians in concentration camps during World War I. Are these liberal judges going to say that Abe Lincoln and FDR were fascist dictators?

A Martian arriving here from another planet would see these circumstances […]

Lol, WHAT? Okay, the libs care way too much about what others think of them. They never ask about what is objectively the right thing to do, they always want to be seen as doing the right thing. Fun fact, if you research the background of Brown v. Board of Education, you will find that Justice William O. Douglas travelled to India in 1950. An Indian asked him, “[w]hy does America tolerate the lynching of Negroes?” And later he said, “the attitude of the United States toward its colored minorities is a powerful factor in our relations with India.” Liberals care far too much about the opinions of men instead of the opinion of God. Leftism is a peer pressure cult, and leftists generally are fragile beings who worry about what others think of them far too much.

What, really, is this system for protecting people’s rights if it amounts to this – placing the onus on the victims to invoke the law’s protection, […]

Uh, it’s called innocent until proven guilty. The onus is almost always on he who asserts. Please review the Latin maxims I listed earlier. Enforcing rights necessarily deprives others of rights. In order to punish a person for violating another person’s liberty, you may take his property away; or, in the case of injunctions, his liberty. To say that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law implies that the due process of law can take away your life, your liberty, and your property. To have no meaningful burden of proof for those claiming individual rights would create an absurd “believe all women” situation.

These observations are indictments, especially for a Nation that prides itself on being fair and free.

Okay, when are we indicting Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt?

Federal judges pledge to support all enemies, foreign or domestic.

Okay, when are they putting the woke away? Illegal aliens are enemies of the United States. Leftists are enemies of the United States. The judges don’t do much about the enemies of the United States… perhaps they are domestic enemies of the United States? They did greenlight the massacre of 70+ million American children. They profess their hatred for America, indulge in all manner of sinister vices, and entertain various Marxisms. Don’t forget those vaccine mandates; none of those federal judges did anything to help dissenters stop the evil.

She is starting to sound like the Senators who murdered Cæsar.

Leave a comment

Conclusion

Okay, that’s it with the reading. It’s kind of a half-victory for the right; not bad but not going all the way. There most certainly will be more battles to fight in the future. Hopefully this will have you contemplating equity, court procedure, sovereignty, and many other topics. Please ask in the comments if you have any questions whatsoever. I will try to answer the best I can.

[i] Grievance 20 of the US Declaration of Independence.

[ii] Grievance 21 of the US Declaration of Independence.

[iii] Matthew XII: 30 NKJV.

[iv] Mark IX:40 NKJV.

[v] Luke XI:23 NKJV.

So, there were some grumblers and complainers in Congress saying that Trump needed Congress’s permission in order to bomb Iran. They argued that the President bombing another country is le unconstitutional. Are they correct?

So, was Trump’s bombing of Iran unconstitutional? Well, technically yes, but there is some more context. Need I point out that the people who point out specs in Trump have much larger logs in their own eyes. Where was this grumbling, complaining, and other sanctimoniousness during the Obama years? Is it constitutional for Biden to give weapons to Ukraine?

You see, we have been living in the post-WWII “consensus” where we don’t legally go to war anymore. Not that undeclared wars didn’t exist in the 18^th or 19^th centuries, but undeclared wars have proliferated during the 20^th century to an unprecedented level, with declared wars pretty much going extinct. With the post-WWII mythology of “wAr bAd”, we don’t go to war anymore, we use military force. It started with the Korean war, which was both a civil war and a UN action. Because it was a civil war, you couldn’t admit that the other side existed; and because it was a UN action, the US technically didn’t go to war – even if we gave the UN 80-90% of their troops like they were our feudal overlords or something.

There was no war in Vietnam, we just used military force. There was no war in Afghanistan, we just used military force. There was no war in Iraq, we just used military force.

So, suddenly complaining now about Trump’s actions falls under tu quoque1, unclean hands2, and laches3. Trump is simply operating within the post-WWII consensus, and uniquely complaining about him is more of an attack on Trump than an attack on the post-WWII consensus.

The only way I can see going back to a more traditional legal relationship with war is to have a reset of US foreign relations. This would firstly involve removing all troops from the old world. All our troops would have to leave Europe and Asia (both east Asia and the Near East). The US can keep troops in the Americas, because that is our proper sphere of influence, but the old world troops need to come home. Then you can have new legal norms, which will involve new4 rules for the military. I have ideas, but that would be too much of a digression for this article. Least to say, it is actually more complicated than you think.

Another issue with the claims of the mostly democrat Congressmen is that their solution to this is also unconstitutional as it would violate the separation of powers. No, the president does not need congress’s permission to do a bombing run. The legislative power directs the force of the state, while the executive power actually executes the legislature’s directives. With statutes, this means that the legislative power writes the laws, while the executive enforces the written laws. Traditionally, a declaration of war is against the government of a nation – this gives the armed forces permission to wage war against that government. The actual prosecution of the war is done by the armed forces under the authority of the commander-in-chief. The legislature cannot dictate what particular battles are to be fought – that is the President’s discretion. Congress can only vote on who the enemies of the United States are – it is up to the President to actually attack them. This would be like needing Congress’s permission to start the prosecution of an individual criminal. The legislature writes the laws and designates what behavior is criminal, but deciding which individuals to charge with a crime under said laws is within the executive’s discretion. Prosecutors do not need permission from a legislature to prosecute an individual criminal – that would be a gross violation of the separation of powers. Congress can only decide whether the government of a country like Iran is friend or foe, not what specific bombing runs are to be done. Congress’s solution to something allegedly unconstitutional is itself unconstitutional.

There are also questions about the broader authority of Congress. Let’s be honest, Congress is lazy and apathetic today. They are retarded, and don’t do much nowadays other than spend your money. Your stereotypical corrupt politician? Usually a Congressman. They don’t exercise the power that they once had, and that’s mostly their own fault. When they write laws, they make it vague and boring, and then hand it off to some agency to write the regulations for them. There is arguably more secondary legislation nowadays than primary legislation. So, why is it that democrats in Congress will get pissy about Congressional prerogatives being trampled in an endeavor to bring a hostile foreign nation to heel5, while they willingly throw away Congressional prerogative in regards to the regulation of commerce? The way the constitution of the United States is set up, if Congress is united, there is not much that can stop them. All the legislative power is properly in their hands, if they choose to use it. They can impeach the President if they can get a two-thirds vote in the Senate6; they can impeach any federal judge if they can get a two-thirds vote in the Senate. What offices or courts even exist within the US federal government are dependent on Congressional fiat; and they control the money supply. The US Congress has so much power… but only if they decide to use it. The current US Congress is sclerotic, retarded, disunited, passive, and apathetic even to their own prerogatives. Successful impeachment convictions are almost impossible nowadays because of intense polarization – which means that they can’t sack judges. Because sacking a judge nowadays is pretty much impossible7 it means that the judge’s cushy jobs are way too secure for anyone’s good. This means that judges have minds of their own and regularly strike down laws that they simply don’t like as being “unconstitutional”. Now, you think that Congress would be somewhat upset that the laws they write and establish are being obstructed by the judiciary. You think they would remember that with a two-thirds majority in the Senate, they can pretty much sack any judge they want for any reason. But no, they just shrug their shoulders. Part of it is because of polarization. There is no such thing as a two-thirds majority – it seesaws between a thin republican majority or a thin democrat majority. Also, democrats are so recalcitrant, contrarian, and evil, that they will literally deny that there are two sexes. I believe their abuse of the impeachment process against President Trump has been well-documented. This means they will never impeach a bad judge for anything ever. They might impeach a good judge, but they will not impeach a bad judge – even if the bad judge is a literal child rapist. This means that the only way to impeach unhinged judges is to have republicans win over two-thirds of the Senate, but even then that might not be enough. There are going to be RINOs who are allergic to winning, so they will sabotage things when it gets interesting. Anyways, I think I have probably conveyed that Congress is lazy, apathetic, and divided, which means they can’t wield the full breadth of their power. So, I am of the persuasion that executive encroachment on the legislature is actually mostly the fault of the legislature for lack of vigor and self-inflicted disabilities.

So, was Trump’s bombing of Iran constitutional? Technically no in the most strictest letter of the law sense, but the ends justify the means, and some of the proposals to remedy this minor indiscretion are themselves unconstitutional; and this minor infraction is unimportant given the broader context of many other domestic issues that are blatantly unconstitutional.

Share The DAO

Leave a comment

To her grace X of house X:

The two of us discussed earlier me potentially giving you some prompts of various things you could practicing drawing. I am glad to deliver this promise to your grace, and I hope your grace uses these various ideas I present to sharpen your craft.

If you want to know what to draw, you must first learn what different kinds of things can be drawn. I will now digress into the traditional hierarchy of genres for painting, which will also serve as the organizing principle for the rest of this bout de papier. Anything mentioned can serve as inspiration.

Before I get into specifics, I would like your grace to know that you can always draw mermaids to your heart’s content. Almost everyone likes mermaids. I only mention them now, because I am unsure as to how to properly classify them.

There are six traditional genres of painting, and they are arranged in the hierarchy of genres as such: history painting, portrait painting, genre painting, landscape painting, animal painting, and the still life.

History painting, or the grand genre, depicts a moment in a narrative. The narrative can be from the Bible, Greek mythology, or a nation’s history. As your grace can see from the inclusion of Greek mythology, it is not literal facts from the past, but the Latin “istoria” which means a story. The important element is that it is a moment in a narrative, so these paintings usually include a large number of known characters.

The Portrait is a painting of an individual.

Genre painting, or the petit genre, depicts aspects of everyday life. It will show many people, but they are not named characters. They are typically ordinary people going through daily life. They are not named, but many a painter in this genre has based persons on who they have met in person.

Landscapes include skyscapes, cloudscapes, moonscapes, seascapes, riverscapes, cityscapes, townscapes, hardscapes, inscapes, or battle scenes.

Animal painting depicts animals, and was often used by scientists.

The still life is a painting of inanimate subject matter, which may include commonplace objects that are either natural^[1] or man-made^[2].

I can discuss history painting in terms of the Bible, various mythologies, and national history, but firstly I can give your grace a quote from Joseph Campbell about the archetypal Hero’s Journey: “A hero venture forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.” – Campbell 1949, p. 30.

With your grace drawing from biblical passages, I recommend reading the book of Gensis and the first twenty chapters of the book of Exodus; there is a lot of material to work with there. Just read and then draw accordingly. Also try to draw the tabernacle, ark of the covenant, the lampstand, etc. based on how it is described in Exodus chapters twenty-five through twenty-eight. There is also some particularly interesting stuff at the end in Revelation, among many other things in-between. Honestly, I would tire me out trying to write about everything in the Bible that could possibly serve as artistic inspiration – it would probably be even longer than the Bible itself! Just read it for yourself, your grace, and be inspired.

Another main constituent of history painting is Greek mythology. Both of Homer’s masterpieces – the Iliad and the Odyssey – should serve as fertile inspiration. If you want to avoid pagan deities, I am glad to inform you that the Iliad, and to a large extent the Odyssey as well, focus on human heroes instead of the divine. Your grace may also explore Norse mythology, dependent on your discretion, leisure, and morals.

I also request that your grace draw the classic trope from almost every known folklore: the knight saves a princess from a dragon.

As for national history, there are several dramatic and epic moments of our people that I may briefly outline:

The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes sail to Britain and establish colonies.

King Arthur defeats the Saxons.

William the Conqueror defeats Harold Godwinson in the battle of Hastings (1066).

The usurper Stephen is crowned king of England in Westminster Abbey (1135).

King John signs the Magna Carta proposed by the Barons (1215).

Edward II is forced out of England by his wife, Isabella the she-wolf of France.

Edward III comes of age and hangs Roger Mortimer.

Henry V wins the battle of Agincourt.

Elizabeth I is crowned Queen of England.

Jamestown is founded. The Susan Constant, Godspeed, and Discovery land in Chesapeake Bay.

The Mayflower lands at Plymouth.

King Charles I tries (and fails) to arrest five members of parliament on January 4th, 1642.

King William & Queen Mary assent to the English Bill of Rights (1689).

These events may require some research on your grace’s part. I think once you start on these subjects, your grace may find others that you are interested in and can pursue on your own.

A portrait is of an individual. Firstly, I will give your grace some pseudo neo-Jungian psycho babble, and then secondly, I will give your grace some historical persons. Generally, your grace can attempt to draw a portrait of any person, real or imaginative, as your grace pleases.

The main archetypes are Sage, Innocent, Explorer, Ruler, Creator, Caregiver, Magician, Hero, Outlaw, Lover, Jester, and Regular Orphan. The Sage is the Wise Old Man who is a mentor. The Innocent is the Child who is a Dreamer. The Explorer is a pioneer who goes on adventures. The Ruler includes the King and the Chief. The Creator is a visionary entrepreneur. The Caregiver is a guardian angel who heals. The Magician is an innovative alchemist and engineer. The Hero is an athletic liberating warrior who rescues. Also, what would a Hero’s wife look like? The Outlaw is a rebellious maverick. The Lover is a romantic companion and matchmaker. The Jester is an entertaining clown, who may be a shapeshifting provocateur. The Regular Orphan is an everyman citizen – your “average joe”. And then there is the maiden, the mother, and the widow.

Three great men of classical antiquity are Alexander the Great, Julius Cæsar, and Augustus. Of the English royal family, there is William the Conqueror, his son Henry I, his daughter Empress Matilda, her husband Geoffrey of Anjou, their son Henry II, his great-grandson Edward I the Hammer of the Scots, his grandson Edward III, his great-grandson the heroic Henry V, his cousin Richard Duke of York, the frugal Tudor king Henry VII, and the glorious Queen Elizabeth I. Of early American colonists there is Massachusetts Governor William Bradford, Captain John Smith, and Sir Walter Raleigh.

Your grace may also do portraits of your family. This can include your father, your mother, your brothers, your sisters, your grandparents, etc.

Some scenes from everyday life that I would like your grace to attempt to draw for the petit Genre include the banquet, the hunt, the trial in a courtroom, the wedding, the matchmaker matchmaking, a hairstylist’s beauty salon, a horse stall, the dinner table, and children playing outside.

Landscapes can be of either real places or imagined ones.

For animal paintings I recommend attempting to draw the horse, the dog, the cat, the bull, the hind, the hart, the boar, the wolf, the bear, and the eagle. Some fictitious creatures your grace may attempt to draw, if your grace pleases, would be dragons, elves, giants, griffins, trolls, and unicorns.

For the still life, find an interesting object in your grace’s room and draw. Once your grace has completed that, go outside to your backyard and find an interesting object and do a still life of that.

Hopefully these digressions shall keep your grace busy with practicing the craft and art. Learn how to draw well. May God grow your talent, acumen, and favor.

Sincerely,

Subscribe now

Share The DAO

Leave a comment

[1] Examples include food, flowers, dead animals, plants, rocks, shells, etc.

[2] Examples include drinking glasses, books, vases, jewelry, coins, pipes, etc.

So on substack, there are three main things you can do to an account: you can follow an account, you can subscribe to a publication, or you can recommend a publication. Following basically means you get to see that account’s notes. Subscribing means that you get the emails from the publication. A recommendation means that you recommend it to your own subscribers, and is suggested to a person who subscribes to the account. There can also be a page on your publication’s website that lists your recommendations. Here is mine, and I recommend them by the way.

So with recommending, subscribing, and following, there are multiple combinations that can be distilled from this. I can symbolize each by a letter: R, S, and F; and the absence by 0. Thus we have the levels of RSF, RS0, R0F, R00, 0SF, 0S0, 00F, and 000. Basically my audit would be investigating each account and deciding what level of intimacy I want with the publication. My process would be something like this:

I look at the account and check the notes to see if I like them. The quality of the notes is a positive, but the quantity of the notes is a negative. So, basically you can distill it to a ratio of quality divided by quantity. This is because I only have a finite amount of time to bother with what is going on in the notes. Am I a shameless hypocrite because I occasionally flood substack with my notes and want everyone to pay attention to them, but yet I am unwilling to look at others’ notes? Yes.

The next step is to look at the publication and read the articles from the beginning. This step will help get me up to speed on some of my favorite publications, whom I may be reading the newer articles as they come out but need to check out the older ones. I also may want to modify the subscription through the “manage subscription” button. Apparently I can decide what notifications I want, including whether or not I want to be included in the chat. Also, I should check out the account’s other links, whether to twitter or other websites.

So, now that I’ve told you about the process, I shall tell you about the actual decisions to be made.

Recommendations are the highest level of intimacy on substack. There is RSF, RS0, R0F, and R00. RSF, is when I recommend, subscribe, and follow. This is the highest level of intimacy, and it means I like you. The next is RS0, which is when I recommend, subscribe, but do not follow. This probably means that your notes are too voluminous, but I still recommend your articles. The next ones are R0F and R00. With R0F, I recommend and follow, but do not subscribe. With R00, I only recommend, and do not subscribe or follow. Now the peculiar question with these two categorizations is why would I recommend a publication that I’m not subscribed to? What if a bad article trashing Trump is published? How would I know if I’m not subscribed? A recommendation is quite literally when I want other people to read this publication, so why would I recommend one I don’t read myself? These two are very odd categories and I don’t know what to do with them, and I might not use them altogether.

Next is 0SF. I subscribe and follow. I have nicknamed this category ‘journals’. The journals are publications that are important and likeable enough that I keep up with what they are doing. The journals are substack literacy canon.

Next is 0S0. I only subscribe; no following or recommending. I can further divide this into three groups: the prime roll, the peer roll, and the minor roll. The prime roll is for those big accounts that everyone else is subscribed to. These publications often dictate the conversation and I want to be well-read. The peer roll is for those peer publications that are around my level. They might be the most similar to me, often being on the same journey as I am. The minor roll is for those smaller publications that may or may not need a helping hand.

Next is 00F. These are accounts that I only follow; I do not subscribe or recommend. I basically only want to see their notes, and I can divide them into the Log and the Collection. The Log is for those accounts that post quality notes that I want to reply to, yet I’m somehow not subscribed to them. The Collection is for those accounts that post so infrequently that following them is basically harmless. An example is an account that follows my account, but has no notes, or only like three notes in the past year.

The last category, 000, can be subdivided into further subcategories for later usage. Re-Examination is for accounts that are to be re-evaluated. Recurring Review is for accounts I want to check up on once in a while to see what they are doing. The open list is for accounts that I am open to. The apathy list is for accounts that I am apathetic about, or otherwise indifferent. The dislike list is for accounts I dislike.

Now, how many accounts do I have to audit? Let me check my word doc… 1,117 lines *sigh*.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share The DAO

The former more successful article is “Parasocial relationships” while the latter less successful article is the “Parable of the impending flood”.

I honestly was disappointed that there is such a disparity of success, and I will spend the rest of this article theorizing on my end why this happened.

One way to analyze this situation is by the content, substance, and subject of the respective articles. The one is me getting vulnerable about relationships, while the other is an esoteric political and legal parable. It seems that many people find the former irresistible. This is disappointing because the future of this publication is going to be mostly esoteric legal theory, and sparingly will this author get emotionally vulnerable.

Another thing that probably tilted the scales is the thumbnails. The latter article has a thumbnail of a flood, with brownish waters and all. The former article has an anime girl (actually a vtuber, but not that different) as the thumbnail. Of course the internet loves anime. As someone who mildly enjoys anime, I am taking note of this. One caution I have with myself is to not be perpetuating lewdness. I am a fanatically religious Yankee, and I am vehemently opposed to sexual immorality; both politically, socially, and personally. It would obviously be hypocritical of me to be poasting lewd waifus in order to tempt sensitive young readers to click on the bait and make engagement go up. But anime can be wholesome; it is objectively a beautiful form of art. So, a happy medium? I am not sure; advice will be helpful.

Probably the biggest element to tip the scales as they did was timing. For any of my non-American readers, I need to explain memorial day. So in the United States of America, the last Monday of May is Memorial day. It is a tradition going back to the war between the states (1861-1865)1 and it is a celebration, honoring, and remembrance of those American soldiers who died during their duty. Because many people have Monday off of work, and the climate is so that it is basically during the beginning of summer, many Americans take the liberty to vacate or otherwise recreate in a rural or natural area. This often includes camping or visiting family.

The former article was released Friday morning, which is probably before many people left for vacation. It wouldn’t surprise me if many of my readers read the article before they left for vacation. My latter article had the misfortune of releasing Saturday morning. Most people probably were already on vacation: hanging out with family, camping, or otherwise touching grass instead of being terminally online (good for you btw).

This causes me to ponder the broader issue of timing. Generally, weekends and holidays seem to be dead zones for engagement. I can schedule articles to publish in the future; but I wonder if I had a schedule of an article a week, what day of the week should that be? Monday? Tuesday? Wednesday? Thursday? Friday? What day of the week do you think is best?

Share The DAO

Leave a comment

As for properly interpreting the Constitution, I would say that a theory of mine is that the language of the Revolutionary era (1760s to 1790s) has gone the way of Shakespeare and the King James Authorized Version. The language has changed over time. One cannot truly understand the Constitution unless he is familiar with late 18th century English common law. A bill of attainder or ex post facto law do not have self-evident definitions for example. The fact is that the US Constitution is a technical legal document. If you want to understand it properly, you must learn about the legal terminology of the time period that it was written in.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share The DAO

Give a secular argument in favor of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. As many people do not hold to the Bible as an authority, it is important to learn to "think Biblically and speak secularly." In other words, make an argument based on Biblical truths and that is worded in a way that will persuade those who do not believe the Bible. For this reason, you may not rely only on the Bible to support your answer.

If you look at the definition and etymology of marriage, you will find that it always referenced a man and a woman. The word referred to property that was jointly owned by both the husband and the wife. Even in polygynous societies, it is not one whole marriage, but the husband who has several wives, has a separate marriage with each wife. Likewise, every culture throughout every time period and location (until recently) has understood marriage as between a man and a woman.

Although there is a movement to try to redefine marriage as a relationship between any two persons, they don’t really distinguish it between friendships or roommatehood. Unfortunately, some people believe that if you re-define a word, you redefine reality. Some sophists will say, “why can’t I marry whom I love?” as if they even know what love is. Does marriage have a monopoly on love? What about Fathers? Mothers? Brothers? Sisters? Friends? These are all relationships that have at their core an expression of love, but they are not considered marriages even though there is love. Therefore, marriage is not simply with “whom I love”, but a sacred union between a man and a woman that is not merely an ordinary friendship.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share The DAO