James Anthony

39 ACTION ITEMS TO FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE CONSTITUTION How to use executive instructions and recommendations to transform USA governments so they follow the Constitution. Prioritized, thorough action items, plus brief justifications. First, preliminaries i, ii, and iii.

@pairunoyd @NewmanJ_R Your AI is wrong: - that money has a value independent of customers’ valuations. - that I consider money to have a value independent of customers’ valuations. If money is made more plentiful so a customer exchanges 2x as much, the customer values the money 1/2x as much.

@jamesanthony_us @NewmanJ_R

Spending does not determine prices. "The mechanical passing of a specific sum of money from one hand to the next in exchange, that is, 'spending,' is completely governed by the money price that has been antecedently established by the exchanging parties. Thus the money spent is merely an outcome of the pricing process and in no sense a causal factor. In other words, the aggregate flow of money spending is determined by the value of money and not the other way around." - Salerno

@pairunoyd @NewmanJ_R When a producer sets a price for a product, that's an asking price, not an accepted price. When a customer exchanges money for a product, that establishes the minimum value of that product and also makes the producers' asking price the accepted price.

@jamesanthony_us @NewmanJ_R Quote Newman and his quote. Quote yoursef. Ask Gemini what you're missing, what you're overlooking, what you're not understanding.

@FeserEdward With addictive substances or enticements, there’s no tomorrow: rconstitution.us/with-addictive… Socialism kills freedom: rconstitution.us/socialism-kill…

The positions on social issues that you criticize are positions that don’t support individuals’ genuine liberty, which requires freedom from addictives. Support for free action in markets can’t be too “rigid”. Nonsupport of “state power” only errs if that makes rights secure. See links in reply.

While many libertarians are, from a postliberal point of view, awful on social issues – abortion, drugs, pornography and sexuality in general – they often produce penetrating critiques of economic and war-making policy that identify perverse incentives, unintended consequences, limitations on knowledge available to planners, and so forth. Yes, these arguments are often deployed in the service of an excessively rigid attachment to the market and excessive hostility to state power. Absolutely true. But it would be foolish to throw the baby out with the bathwater and neglect the real problems they raise – just as (as postliberals have long rightly emphasized) it is foolish dogmatically to refuse to acknowledge that there are insights in some left-wing criticisms of capitalism. (As always, Thomists have the advantage of following Aquinas’s wise example of being willing to acknowledge and incorporate insights from any quarter.) In my opinion, one of the insights of postliberalism – certainly of postliberalism informed by Thomism and Catholic social theory – is that we need to be less ideological about public policy, and acknowledge how much of the details depend on prudential judgment under contingent circumstances and cannot be deduced a priori from first principles (whether libertarian, neoliberal, Rawlsian egalitarian liberal, or socialist first principles).

@EPoe187 Presidency Startup: Personnel Is Freedom: lewrockwell.com/2024/08/james-… Action Items to Faithfully Execute the Constitution: lewrockwell.com/2024/12/james-… The Right Interpretations Win—When People Stand Firm: freethepeople.org/the-right-inte…

@EPoe187 Competence running unconstitutional government is a problem. Persuasion in advance is a problem. What's needed instead is specific, real character: the emotional intelligence to use constitutional powers fully against others in governments. See links in reply.

An important lesson many conservatives who had high hopes for Trump are relearning. Character matters. Elect a volatile, ignorant, narcissistic, mendacious man, you get terrible governance. Owning the libs is no substitute for competence and persuasion.

@_jumbo_johnson @CCamosy The court lacked jurisdiction and knew it, and took up the case anyway. x.com/i/grok/share/0…

@jamesanthony_us @CCamosy marbury v madison was also unanimous?

even the justices who are most disagreeable (Kagan and Alito) find themselves agreeing a whopping 61 percent of the time

@andyaschmidt @CCamosy Court packing? Jurisdiction stripping? No! Optimize quality: lewrockwell.com/2024/12/james-… Human race must never give in to AI or governments: lewrockwell.com/2025/12/james-…

I think that given better processes requirements, judges would opine on cases much faster. Their opinions would also be more correct, and this would lead judges in future cases to opine faster and more correctly too. No way I would let an LLM’s programmers determine opinions. Please see links in reply.

@CaseyMattox_ My theory is that knowingly or unknowingly, majorities in the national government want to do nothing constitutional, and opining against unconstitutional statutes would be constitutional, so justices do that in negligible amounts.

Over the last 15 years I think there have only been 3 federal statutory provisions struck down. And that's generous. Piece of BICRA in McCutcheon, Stolen Valor Act in Alvarez, and the Medicaid expansion provisions of Obamacare. 10 fold state laws and federal regs declared unconstitutional in the same period. My theory is that the Court is so excited to see Congress actually do something that they go out of their way to avoid invalidating their acts whenever possible.

@The_JBS My criterion is: Which agency takes the most lives and puts the most lives at risk? I don’t follow that myself. But Grok says it’s not even close, it’s the CIA. x.com/i/grok/share/7…

Which three-letter organization is the most malicious?

@andyaschmidt @CCamosy Thanks for the information! Since it wasn’t a real split, it could have been resolved by better attention to quality in the other circuits. Better processes would get this right upfront, or automatically require corrections. Currently, circuits’ justices could require reviews?

@jamesanthony_us @CCamosy They aren't always overturning the lower courts directly. For example in the New Prime case we came up with a new framing that created the appearance of a circuit split, but it wasn't the fault of the other circuit judges.

@CCamosy Court packing? Jurisdiction stripping? No! Optimize quality: lewrockwell.com/2024/12/james-…

@CCamosy 45% unanimous too. Why do those cases make it? Why does this court even need to hear the cases it grants cert—can’t the inferior courts be made to do better?— Yes, all courts can be made to do better. See link in reply.

@TheCalvinCooli1 Trump, DeSantis, or Massie?: rconstitution.us/trump-desantis… Starting a party by running as a Republican for Congress, then as an independent for president: rconstitution.us/starting-a-par…

Massie with one term as governor using his powers to the max would make a stronger showdown in 2032 for president. But Massie running for president as an independent in 2028, and in succeeding races as necessary, is my strong preference. Republican primaries are brick walls. See links in reply.

🚨Report: Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie is considering running for Governor of Kentucky in 2027 if he wins his primary in May

@MaryBowdenMD @SecKennedy Looks like politics: - Hold an office to which power has been delegated by the people. - But don't use what powers you have to limit governments and cronies, which would make people's rights more secure. - Instead, cosplay like you're an outsider activist.

@SecKennedy Exit strategy?

Coming soon—The Secretary Kennedy Podcast.

@HistoryWJacob The True Tax: rconstitution.us/the-true-tax/

A fully flat tax on labor income is the only revenue source that takes the same proportion of every person's liberty. Life, liberty, and secure property are the most-fundamental constitutionally-protected rights. So all other revenue sources are fundamentally unconstitutional. See link in reply.

On this day in 1895, the Supreme Court ruled income tax to be unconstitutional. The ruling was tragically superceded in 1913 by the passage of the 16th Amendment Could you imagine your life without income tax?