Connor Ewing

The very first statute authorizing domestic use of the military during domestic emergencies, enacted in 1792 by a Congress full of the same folks who wrote and ratified the Constitution, expressly provided for judicial review in certain circumstances *before* the President could even send troops.

👏👏👏👏👏

Venezuela is ~1500 miles from the US. These boats have a range of 20-40% that distance.

Call this what it is: wanton killing, unsupported by law and unjustified by any principles of just war.

Venezuela is ~1500 miles from the US. These boats have a range of 20-40% that distance.

Call this what it is: wanton killing, unsupported by law and unjustified by any principles of just war.

Judicial Review in Jeopardy? Symposium - Harvard Law Review The Harvard Law Review is proud to host, in collaboration with the Center on the Structural Constitution at Texas A&M University School of Law,...

Our Center on the Structural Constitution, led by @crockeroncourts.bsky.social and Neil Siegel, has organized an amazing symposium with the Harvard Law Review on the politics and law of judicial review. And the best news is that you can attend online!

harvardlawreview.org/judicial-rev...

Well, if only there were a large supply of foreign students who would happily pay a premium price to get access to American higher education.

U.S. Colleges Are About to See a Big Decline in Applicants Forget a lot of what you thought you knew about higher education.

"'There simply aren’t enough students to go around,' said Nathan Grawe, an economist at Carleton College in Minnesota. But the effects of the demographic cliff, he noted, 'won’t be evenly distributed.'"

🥳🎉 Thrilled to announce that—because of an APSA panel that never happened and at which no papers were presented—I've been offered the opportunity to curate a special issue inspired by my work!

🥳🎉 Thrilled to announce that—because of an APSA panel that never happened and at which no papers were presented—I've been offered the opportunity to curate a special issue inspired by my work!

YouTube video by The National Desk 'Have your back, 100%': Trump tells room full of Military leaders

At the beginning of Trump's actual speech: "Just have a good time. If you want to applaud, you applaud. And if you want to do anything you want—you can do anything you want. And if you don’t like what I’m saying you can leave the room. Of course there goes your rank, there goes your future.”

I'm excited to share that we're running a junior faculty search in American politics. Proud to see GWU continue to invest in political science. Link: www.gwu.jobs/postings/122...

Until next time, Toronto.

Back to the grind after a too short visit with the most important ones.

I suspect this week's gathering of senior military personnel will lean towards the "merely performative" option identified here. But it's important to recognize that this is where we are—and that none of these options are off the table.

FAQ for Senior Military Officers at Hegseth's Quantico Meeting Military justice expert Eugene Fidell answers crucial questions ahead of next week's senior military meeting with Secretary Hegseth.

From this (chilling) piece.

I suspect this week's gathering of senior military personnel will lean towards the "merely performative" option identified here. But it's important to recognize that this is where we are—and that none of these options are off the table.

I was assured these interactions would be “brief” and easily resolved.

Just posted a new essay with @williambaude.bsky.social and Sam Bray -

"Remedies for a Constitutional Crisis" (forthcoming in the Harvard Law Review).

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

I will start teaching my students how to use AI when my colleagues in computer science start to teach Homer, Dante, Langston Hughes, Borges, Foucault, Audre Lord, Spivak, and Donna Haraway in their classes

I was assured these interactions would be “brief” and easily resolved.

You and me both, chat.

As a consumer of academic writing, I must say: It’s quite refreshing to read prose so convoluted and self-consciously euphuistic—so obviously composed with comprehensibility not within shouting distance of the intended objectives—that you know AI had no hand in it.

As a consumer of academic writing, I must say: It’s quite refreshing to read prose so convoluted and self-consciously euphuistic—so obviously composed with comprehensibility not within shouting distance of the intended objectives—that you know AI had no hand in it.

"In any event, I wish both Countries well...Good luck to all!"

It’s heartening to hear many principled voices argue that those in office should wield political power in a way that they would be happy to have it wielded when they’re not in power. But it’s worth saying this clearly: the current administration is not acting as if it intends to be out of power.

1/ I think a lot about this passage from Seila Law: "[T]he Framers made the President the most democratic and politically accountable official in Government. Only the President (along with the Vice President) is elected by the entire Nation."

How then to explain the administration’s conduct? Three (non-mutually exclusive) explanations:
1. They think short-term wins outweigh later consequences.
2. They believe the opposition won’t fight back when they’re returned to power.
3. They intend to stay in power.

It’s heartening to hear many principled voices argue that those in office should wield political power in a way that they would be happy to have it wielded when they’re not in power. But it’s worth saying this clearly: the current administration is not acting as if it intends to be out of power.

Finding myself in a reflective mood today, I decided to reread Humberto Eco’s 1995 essay “Ur-Fascism.” Meditating on the definition & essential properties of fascism, Eco identified 14 key features, only one of which is needed “to allow fascism to coagulate around it."

It is, perhaps, relevant. 🧵

Buh bye, academia dot edu

It is by now abundantly clear that Trump’s legal advisors have informed him of the magic incantations needed to bootstrap a national security justification for lawlessly obliterating boats—and humans—that posed no actionable threat to US borders, citizens, or interests.