All of which is a lengthy way of saying that regardless of how persuasive an argument of "it's manufactured and that's not what the Constitution envisions" might be, that style of argument seems unlikely to me to persuade anywhere near a majority of this Court.
18.11.2024 18:27 β π 2 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0
. . . a textualist view, which I think a libertarian position would adopt, strikes me as favoring "it doesn't matter *why* the President decides, just that the President does."
The "why" is a political question committed to the President, just as the adjournment timing is committed to each Chamber.
18.11.2024 18:25 β π 2 π 0 π¬ 1 π 0
. . . is the Court interfering in that assigned function. It strikes me as core functionalist.
Perhaps it might be the best answer -- that's not my point -- but I don't see how this Court has 4 votes to support it, let alone 5.
It's not about "inference generally" it's about assigned duties . . .
18.11.2024 18:25 β π 2 π 0 π¬ 1 π 0
I think @beverlymann19.bsky.social misunderstood what I was saying, or at least missed the key nuance.
The constitution assigns deciding a dispute between the Chambers over adjournment to the President.
What I think the libertarians referenced earlier in the thread would not readily support . . .
18.11.2024 18:25 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 1 π 0
I'm a little lost on how Marbury relates here? Perhaps you could expand?
18.11.2024 16:16 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 1 π 0
I don't see libertarians readily jumping at the idea of the judicial branch arbitrating a matter of adjournment -- a matter textually committed to the President.
Doing so would require some functionalist work which I think is beyond any set of 5 votes on the current (or any recent) Court.
(2/2)
18.11.2024 15:49 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 1 π 0
Interesting... if that's the theory, I think the Senate would have to affirmatively attempt to resist the adjournment (a failed vote to adjourn might suffice).
But even if that's met, it still seems challenging to overcome the political question aspect of this.
(1/2)
18.11.2024 15:49 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 1 π 0
I agree with you re standing, but I'm a little lost on why the recess-appointed PAS officers wouldn't be able to exercise the full powers of the office?
I don't recall any cases suggesting this would result... would the argument be based in a claim the Senate was not, in fact, actually in recess?
18.11.2024 13:26 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 1 π 0
Administrative law & bureaucracy obsessed Stanford Law School professor; former ACUS council member (fired by Trump); writing book, Stand-Ins (on temporary leaders in government, business, & religion); mom of two
Director of the National Security Law Program, Georgetown Law, retired Navy JAG and former enlisted soldier and airman, aspiring homesteader
Just a guy on the internet in Portland, Oregon. Security engineer, but not your security engineer. Lapsed Bostonian.
Electronic on-line web portals: https://pcable.net | https://bigtech.llc
Former CPO Sun, Intel Security (McAfee), Cisco, VP for Security & PrivacySolutions Oracle and general data obsessed nerd.
Wrote The Privacy Engineerβs Manifesto w my Pops & biz partner
Now Chief Data Strategist, Abaxx Technologies & Partner, Privatus
#resist #followback
lawyer in San Francisco here avoiding fascism π¦
Berkeley law prof guy, erstwhile Georgetown, DOJ, & points in between. Mostly boring tax stuff; occasional dollops of nonprofits, law & econ, etc. Could be arguing in my spare time.
Law professor at the University of Virginia. Legal theory, originalism, textualism, virtue jurisprudence, artificial intelligence, philosophy of language, moral and political philosophy.
Law professor, Drexel Univ β’ Affil'd fellow, Yale ISP β’ NYC Bar Ass'n Rule of Law Task Force β’ AAUP Committee A on Academic Freedom & Tenure βΎ Cleveland native/partisan π runner β’ https://linktr.ee/akalhan
πΊπΈInternational & Constitutional Law & Leadership Professor, National Defense University
π‘Strategic Advisor to Business & Government Leaders
π€Speaker
π©π½βπ»Columnist @forbes @bloombergopinion
βοΈPersonal Account
Law professor at UC Berkeley and a Co-Director Berkeley Center for Law & Technology. International Expert in #Privacy & Security Law π paulschwartz.net
Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law.
"[A]cademic and informed commentator."
Main interests, alphabetically: administrative law; federal courts; intellectual property; Internet & telecom. regulation. Publications: http://bit.ly/tnarecha
Law prof at Temple University. Formally at OSU. Interested in copyright, art law, contracts, law&econ, and Buckeyes football. My scholarship:
http://ssrn.com/author=521761
he/him/his
Dogecoin Professor of Law & Grifting. Securities artist & conceptual lawyer. Legal scholarship's #1 plagiarism apologist. Maybell Romeroβs +1. https://linktr.ee/brianlfrye
Law professor @ Georgetown Law
Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law
Copyright & Trademark Law (especially but not exclusively history), plus bankruptcy/business law and property. Among other things, but that's probably what I'm here for.
Law Prof and Co-Director, Berkeley Center for Law and Technology. linktr.ee/colleenchien
A law professor helping you learn innovation law; author; former BigLaw IP litigator; speaker; moot court world champion.
Www.Christalaser.com
UCLA Law Prof., Of Counsel, Lex Lumina PLLC
Associate Professor, Northeastern University School of Law
www.davidasimon.us
Co-Director, Amy J. Reed Collaborative for Medical Device Safety
https://www.safemedicaldevices.org/
Researcher, the CLASSICA Project
https://classicaproject.eu/team/