Few conflicts in human history have such a clear aggressor, and a clear victim of aggression.

It is morally correct to funnel as much aid - including lethal weapons - to the victims of the aggression as possible.

The whole appeal of UET is its ruthless simplicity. It isn’t about “enough” control (which should obviously be a political decision) it’s about ANY lack of control. It’s a really appealing argument!! This admits it was always just about “enough”

This is a beautiful description.

The American needs to tell the Commonwealth guy constitutions aren't entirely written?

Where does it say judicial review exists at all? It's understood.

The Roberts court has set aside 29 Acts of Congress...the Marshall court 1. I'm inclined to believe ppl in the early republic knew better.

…be “renewed” every year, as if vehicles expire like out of date milk after a certain time period. There is absolutely no purpose served by this other than raising revenue and giving cops an excuse to do a traffic stop so they can look in side your car, etc., yet Americans just accept this as OK.

Clear error review is law - it always was and we've never changed it. It doesn't matter that today's lawyers ignore what was once orthodox; they have no authority to change the law of judicial review.

I recommend Webb's "The Lost History of Judicial Restraint" papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Make Thayer Great Again!

Treating their doctrine as final is the problem. Like all courts, they decide cases between parties and settle the fates of their claims. Their precedents, however, are no more than working answers for lower courts and officials.

Claims to the conrtary should simply be ignored.

POTUS: Congress, please create this new agency for me.
CONGRESS: But the bill will prohibit you from firing anyone working there except for proven malfeasance or the like.
P: Sounds fair, but the Court says we, the political branches, aren't allowed to make that political agreement.
C: Then, no.

Perhaps the most amazing footnote I have come across in my two years in law school. Comparing a Learned Hand opinion with an XKCD comic. Bravo, @williambaude.bsky.social

...yes

Big Ten schools creating a ‘mutual defense compact’ against Trump actions The faculty senates in the Big Ten Academic Alliance are creating a “mutual defense compact” to fight against President Trump’s ongoing attacks on higher education.   The faculty senate o…

If all the Big Ten schools get on board this is pretty big. Some of the richest and most influential schools are in the Big Ten. This could be a very good sign.

thehill.com/homenews/edu...

Two photos. In the first, deep in a conifer forest a man in winter clothes holds a reindeer and sprays something from an aerosol can on the antlers. The second photo is of a small town street in the dead of night. Little shops and dim street lights. A deer stands in the middle of the road. It's barely visible, just a feint silhouette. But, its eyes and antlers glow like something ancient and supernatural.

To prevent deer from being hit by cars Finland has tried using reflective paint. (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/avoid-deer-strikes-finland-painting-deer-antlers-reflective-paint-180949792/)

File this under "solutions to modern problems that summon the old gods."

A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations found in the 9th section of the 1st article introduced? It is also in some degree warranted by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation. In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding.

Chief Justice Marshall, in McCullough v Maryland (1819).

In one week's time at Yale Law School. Honored by this symposium and very much looking forward to the conversation!

yaleconnect.yale.edu/yjlh/symposi...

Congratulations! I hope it's recorded.

We needed to put history back in the curriculum, yesterday.

Had you seen this?

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

This one:

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

Sai Prakash just published this gem:

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

(Maybe he'll rethink his unitarianism... one can hope, at least)

Also didn't Prakash just publish a paper about the importance of consequences in framing era interpretation?

And the consequences of an indefeasible power here are... quite something.

Having so many so many former WH lawyers on the court is a problem. Congress should pass a law restricting the number of former admin lawyers who can be on the court.

Lol

Jeff Sutton? CJ of 6CA? That one?

Not to mention, in the Anglo-American tradition, acts are only regarded as governmental when they follow the law.

E.g. an unlawful arrest is a private tort.

Critiques of popular constitutionalism too often miss crucial distinctions between different forms of popular politics, both in form and in substance.

The rule needs to be that when Congess passes any act, and the act disagrees with prior court precedent on constitutionality, it gets de novo review.