“This life is slow suicide, unless you read.”Herman Wouk

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

DOJ Response to Office of Inspector General Report (and, by implication, to Jonathan Hennessey)

Plaintiffs also dispute the significance of the historical precedent of President George Washington purchasing several lots of public land from the federal government. Def.’s Suppl. Br. at 15. The President had urged that this precedent demonstrated that the Framers did not intend the term “Emolument” as used in the Constitution to extend to all benefits regardless of context. Plaintiffs now argue that this historical precedent is undermined by the fact that the Inspector General of the General Services Administration (“GSA”) found evidence indicating that the lots of land purchased by Washington—which were “ceded to the United States for the District of Columbia,” GSA Inspector General Report (“GSA Report”), ECF No. 63-1, App. A at 15—were “owned privately,” Pls.’ Opp’n at 21 (quoting GSA Report at 15); see also GSA Report, App. A, at 4. The GSA report itself, however, describes the lots purchased by Washington as “public lots,” stating that “[t]he six public lots that Washington purchased during his presidency appear to be among the lots that the proprietors donated for sale, in order to raise funds for the President’s House (White House), the Capitol and other government buildings (and return a share of the proceeds to the proprietors).” GSA Report, App. A at 4 (emphasis added). The Inspector General’s view—which expressly did “not reach a definitive judgment,” id. at 6—that the sales were private transactions apparently was based on her finding that “Maryland’s cession of land for the new district ceded sovereignty to the United States . . . but not title to the land,” and that the cession was not intended to “vest in the United States any right of property in the soil, as to affect the rights of individuals therein . . . .” Id. at 4 (citation omitted). 
   Even assuming ambiguity about the title and ownership of the land donated to the United States by the landowners, there is no doubt that Washington benefited personally from the federal government through his purchase of the land donated to the United States. The Commissioners were federally appointed and authorized by President Washington to conduct the public sale of the donated land, and they described the land as public property. [See Certificate for Lots Purchased in the District of Columbia (Sept. 18, 1793); see also 1 Stat. 130; Letter from Commissioners for the District of Columbia to George Washington (Sept. 16, 1793) (seeking Washington’s “permission to make sales of the publick property in the City of Washington”).] They did not conduct the sale on behalf of the private landowners, and in fact, the landowners received no proceeds from the sale.
As President Washington explained to Thomas Jefferson about the agreement he reached in his capacity as President with the individual landowners, the land was “ceded to the public” except that “[t]he landholders [were] to have the use and profits of all their ground until the city is laid off into lots, and sale is made of those lots which, by this agreement, become public property.” [See Letter from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson (March 31, 1791).]
That is, the land sold by the D.C. Commissioners was land donated to the United States and was public property when purchased by Washington. In addition, Washington stated that “the present Proprietors shall retain every other lot” beyond those ceded and would “be allowed at the rate of Twenty five pounds per acre” as payment “for such part of the land as may be taken for public use, for square, walks, &ca.” [Id.] Consistent with this understanding, one amicus has explained that although the Commissioners “did make certain payments to the landowners . . . , those payments were not [to pay] for auctioned land, such as the lots Washington bid on,” but were for land appropriated for public use at £25 per acre, and “[n]o payments were made to the proprietors for the land that was sold at auction. The proprietors gifted such land to the government in the expectation that their other properties in the new federal capital would become more valuable.” [quoting Brief of Amici Curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and the Judicial Education Project at 14–16, DC & MD v. Trump, No. 18-2488 (4th Cir. Jan. 31, 2019), Doc. No. 31-1, 2019 WL 411728.]
In any event, the Court need not decide this disagreement as to the historical record. Again, for purposes of interlocutory appeal, it is enough that reasonable jurists could conclude that Washington received benefit from the federal government through the land sale transactions; that if Plaintiffs’ interpretation of “Emolument” were correct, then Washington likely violated the Domestic Emoluments Clause; and that this historical precedent therefore casts doubt on Plaintiffs’ interpretation.

Extract from: Defendant’s [Supplemental] Reply in Support of his Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and of its Motion to Stay Proceedings at 14–16, Blumenthal v. Trump, Case 1:17-cv-01154-EGS (D.D.C. May 28, 2019) (Sullivan, J.), ECF No. 77 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). See generally Docket in Blumenthal v. TrumpSeth Barrett Tillman, A Work in Progress: Select Bibliography of Court filings and Other Sources Regarding the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses CasesNew Reform Club (Feb. 28, 2018, 8:59 AM)




Seth

Seth Barrett Tillman, DOJ Response to Office of Inspector General Report (and, by implication, to Jonathan Hennessey)New Reform Club (May 29, 2019, 9:21 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/05/doj-response-to-office-of-inspector.html>.


See also Jonathan Hennessey, The Foreign Emoluments Clause Applies to the President, Vice President, and All Other Positions in the Federal Government: A Response to Prof. Seth Barrett Tillman (May 14, 2019); Jonathan Hennessey, News & Commentary, ‘Obfuscation’ on emoluments issue, The Baltimore Sun, Mar. 19, 2019, at 13; Jonathan Hennessey, “BROTHER FARMER”: GEORGE WASHINGTON, ARTHUR YOUNG, AND DISMISSING ANOTHER FOREIGN EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE INTRIGUE, Medium (Feb. 22, 2019); Jonathan Hennessey, A PROSPECT OF AMPLE FUNDS: THE WASHINGTON “EMOLUMENT,” Medium (Sept. 20, 2018); Jonathan Hennessey, Article: The Washington “Emolument, Jonathan Hennessey (Sept. 20, 2018); Jonathan Hennessey, ReConstituting: The U.S.Constitution’s Emoluments Clause and Donald Trump—Full Documentary, Jonathan Hennessey (July 24, 2017)

Welcome Instapundit and ChicagoBoyz and Originalism Blog readers.

Have a look around New Reform Clubmy co-bloggers do good work!




The Media Is Complaining That Their Tired Old Tricks No Longer Work!—So Much Winning!





Here is Ian Dunt (@IanDunt) over at Politics.Co.UK:

[Brexit Party] rallies were treated like some kind of spontaneous spasm of British Leave desire. Farage was handled like a political savant. If you interviewed him, it gave him what he wanted. If you asked him tough questions, it allowed him to play the victim. If you threw milkshake at him, you turned him into a martyr. No matter what you did, he won. Even the party’s logo, an ugly sideways house that doubled for an arrow on the ballot paper, was treated like a stroke of unrivalled genius.

Let’s analyse this one step at a time.

[Brexit Party] rallies were treated like some kind of spontaneous spasm of British Leave desire.

The desire to leave among a substantial part of the citizenry is long-standing. But the rallies were treated as spontaneous because they were spontaneous—in the sense that Brexit Party had only been created a few weeks prior.

Farage was handled like a political savant.

Dunt means Farage’s success could not be denied, although the Remain-media wanted to do just that and they would have done just that had Farage’s party not had a first place showing by a wide margin. Farage was handled like a political savant because he is a political savant—by any fair measure.

If you interviewed him, it gave him what he wanted.

All politicians want to be interviewed, especially after a success. Dunt means only that the media could not have avoided interviewing Farage, although that is precisely what they had wished to do.

If you asked him tough questions, it allowed him to play the victim.

Dunt means only that the old, tired dirty tricks and deflection no longer work.

If you threw milkshake at him, you turned him into a martyr.

Here, Dunt means only that the new dirty tricks did not work. And notice how he fails to suggest that it is wrong to assault politicians (including, if not especially, those you disagree with). He only rues that such assaults fail to work as intended by the assailants involved. Is not he on the side of the assailants? If you dont believe me, see <https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1130466736178958341> (Ian Dunt: “This should not need saying but apparently it does. Throwing a milkshake at someone is a non-violent act.”). Pure Orwelling newspeakno introspection and no shame. 

No matter what you did, he won.

Which just proves that Farage is a savant, and notice that Dunt does not say that Farage cheated or lied. Dunt just rues that Farage had a comprehensible political goal shared by a substantial part of the electorate. IE: Leave. For Dunt, the problem is little things: voters, democracy, reality, etc. In other words, as hard as the media tried to put forward road blocks, and doing so is their real job, Farage continued to succeed. 

Even the party’s logo, an ugly sideways house that doubled for an arrow on the ballot paper, was treated like a stroke of unrivalled genius.

It is like Dunt ran out of complaints, but just had to go on doing so anyway, and wont he or somebody else please tell I’m-With-Her Hillary!

Seth

Seth Barrett Tillman, The Media Is Complaining That Their Tired Old Tricks No Longer Work!—So Much Winning!, New Reform Club (May 29, 2019, 4:55 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-media-is-complaining-that-their.html>. 


Welcome Instapundit and ChicagoBoyz readers. 

Have a look around New Reform Clubmy co-bloggers do good work!

Monday, May 27, 2019

FINAL RESULTS: What They Are Not Telling You About The UK Election Results




UK-wide results are now in. In 2016, there was a binary referendum: Remain or Leave. Leave prevailed. But the professional chattering classes told us that the British public did not mean it, did not understand it, and it cannot be brought about in any event. It did not seem to matter that Leave had more votes. Evidently democracy did not count for much.

Now in 2019, in the European Union election for UK members of the European Parliament, the new wisdom is that the Remain parties beat the Leave parties in terms of the popular vote. The problem is that the 2019 election was not a binary choice. It was not a referendum on Leave or Remain, and many parties do not have a clear vision for Remain or Leave: including the long dominant Labour and Tory parties. Again: the UK election was not a referendum, it was an election for seats in the European Parliament.

In terms of seats: Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party (29 seats) + Democratic Unionist (1 seat) > Liberal Democrats (16 seats) + Greens (7 seats) + Scottish National Party (3 seats) + Plaid Cymru (1 seat) + Alliance (1 seat) + Sinn Fein (1 seat). In other words, 30 seats (Leave) > 29 seats (Remain). With the 2016 referendum, the referendum was about votes, and Leave prevailed over Remain: 52 to 48. By contrast, the 2019 election was about seats, and here too, Leave prevailed over Remain: 30 to 29. See how they changed the goal posts—yet again?

The second, and more important, thing you will not see reported … is about votes. The Remain parties are saying they won the popular vote: Brexit Party (30.5%) + Democratic Unionist (0.7%) + UKIP (3.2%) < Liberal Democrats (19.6%) + Greens (11.8%) + Scottish National Party (3.5%) + Plaid Cymru (1.0%) + Sinn Fein (0.7%) + Alliance (0.6%) + Change UK (3.3%). In other words, 34.4% (Leave) < 40.5% (Remain).

Those numbers are not telling—at least, not as predictors for the next general election for the (national) Westminster (or UK) Parliament. EU citizens (who are not UK citizens) who are resident in the UK are allowed to vote in the UK in EU elections, but as a general matter, such EU citizens (who are not UK citizens) do not have voting rights in a general election for the (national) Westminster (or UK) Parliament. That will cost Remain 100,000s, if not millions of votes in the next general election. That’s what they are not telling you, and they never will.

Seth

For results, see: <https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2019/may/26/european-election-latest-results-2019-uk-england-scotland-wales-ni-eu-parliament>. The totals at the top of the page only include Great Britain (and Gibraltar), absent Northern Ireland results. NI results are further down the page. 

Seth Barrett Tillman, FINAL RESULTS: What They Are Not Telling You About The UK Election Results, New Reform Club (May 27, 2019, 2:26 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/05/final-results-what-they-are-not-telling.html>. 

ORIGINAL POST: Seth Barrett Tillman, What They Are Not Telling You About The UK Election ResultsNew Reform Club (May 27, 2019, 3:59 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/05/what-they-are-not-telling-you-about-uk.html>. 



Welcome Instapundit and ChicagoBoyz readers.





Have a look around New Reform Clubmy co-bloggers do good work!






What They Are Not Telling You About The UK Election Results




Only England’s results are now in. Scotland and Northern Ireland will not report until later today (Monday), or perhaps tomorrow. (See <https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2019/may/26/european-election-latest-results-2019-uk-england-scotland-wales-ni-eu-parliament>.)

As to England’s results… in 2016, there was a binary referendum: Remain or Leave. Leave prevailed. But the professional chattering classes told us that the public did not mean it, did not understand it, and it cannot be brought about in any event. It did not matter that Leave had more votes.

Now in the 2019 EU MEP races, the new wisdom is that the Remain parties beat the Leave parties in terms of the popular vote. The problem is that the 2019 election was not a binary choice. It was not a referendum on Leave or Remain, and many parties do not have a clear vision for Remain or Leave: including Labour and Tory. Again: this was not a referendum, it was an election for MEP seats.

In terms of seats:
Brexit Party (28 seats) > 
     LibDem (15 seats) + Green (7 seats) + Plaid Cymru (Welsh regional party) (1 seat); that is,
28 seats (Leave) > 23 seats (Remain)
[UKIP had zero seats]
[Change-UK had zero seats]
[There are some reports that Brexit Party has 29 seatsthat may include a yet to be finally determined seat in Scotland.]

With the 2016 referendum, the referendum was about votes, and Leave prevailed: 52 to 48. By contrast, the 2019 election was about seats, and Leave prevailed over Remain: 28 to 23. See how they changed the goal postsagain?

The second, and more important, thing you will not see in the media … is about votes. The Remain parties are saying they won the popular vote:
Brexit Party (33.3%) + UKIP (3.5%) < 
     LibDem (20.9%) + Green (12.5%) + Plaid Cymru (1.0%) + Change UK (3.6%)
36.8% (Leave) < 38.0% (Remain)
[Again: UKIP had zero seats]
[Again: Change-UK had zero seats]

Those numbers are not telling—at least, not as predictors for the next general election for the (national) Westminster (or UK) Parliament. Non-British EU citizens who are resident in the UK are allowed to vote in the UK in EU elections, but as a general matter, such Non-British EU citizens do not have voting rights in a general election for the (national) Westminster (or UK) Parliament. That will cost Remain 100,000s, if not millions of votes in the next general election. That’s what they are not telling you, and they never will.

Seth

For results, see: <https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2019/may/26/european-election-latest-results-2019-uk-england-scotland-wales-ni-eu-parliament>. The totals at the top of the page only include Great Britain (and Gibraltar), absent Northern Ireland results. NI results are further down the page. 


Seth Barrett Tillman, What They Are Not Telling You About The UK Election Results, New Reform Club (May 27, 2019, 3:59 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/05/what-they-are-not-telling-you-about-uk.html>. 

For update, see: 
Seth Barrett Tillman, FINAL RESULTS: What They Are Not Telling You About The UK Election ResultsNew Reform Club (May 27, 2019, 2:26 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/05/final-results-what-they-are-not-telling.html>. 



Welcome Instapundit and ChicagoBoyz readers.





Have a look around New Reform Clubmy co-bloggers do good work!

Friday, May 24, 2019

Conlawprof and the Recent EU Elections


Professor AAA wrote: “The European elections are exposing the fact that the British party system is well and truly collapsing.” True: but why is this a bad result? A majority of the voters voted for Leave in the referendum. A majority of MPs (from both major parties) are for Remain. In those circumstances, it is hardly surprising that there would be something like a significant realignment. If there were no meaningful realignment, then democratic institutions would be a failure. It is almost as if some people despise democracy and want that precise failure as long as their preferred outcome should be preserved and their knowledge base of extant institutions should remain prized. One could more easily understand this point of view if the people who held it were citizens of the entity about which they have such strong views, or if they lived in that entity and so would share with others the consequences of promoting such extreme views.

Seth

Seth Barrett Tillman, Conlawprof and the Recent EU Elections, New Reform Club (May 24, 2019, 4:36 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/05/conlawprof-and-recent-eu-elections.html>.  

Welcome Instapundit and ChicagoBoyz readers.




Have a look around New Reform Clubmy co-bloggers do good work!


Tuesday, May 21, 2019

General George Washington and the Bank of England

There is substantial evidence to support the inference that Washington, for one, did not view “private business pursuits . . . with foreign state-chartered trading companies” as emoluments. [DC & MD v. TrumpCiv. A. No. 17-cv-1154-EGS, at *23 & *27 (D.D.C. Apr. 30, 2019) (Sullivan, J.)] During the Revolutionary War, George Washington owned stock in, and received dividends from, the Bank of England.[1] This foreign corporation received its charter by operation of an act of the English Parliament: the Tonnage Act of 1694.[2] The Bank of England, which was analogous to the first Bank of the United States,[3] served as the private banker for the British Exchequer.[4] More importantly, the Bank of England was analogous to the foreign government “instrumentalit[ies]” that Plaintiffs allege Trump-affiliated commercial entities are doing business with.[5]
At the relevant times, the Articles of Confederation governed our young republic. That charter included a Foreign Emoluments Clause, which provided “[N]or shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them [i.e., any State], accept of any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State . . . .”[6] Furthermore, the Continental Congress had chosen Washington as the commander-in-chief of the nation’s armed forces. As an appointed military officer, he held an “office . . . under the United States,” and could not “accept of any . . . emolument” from a “foreign State.”
If the Court’s analysis were correct, then General Washington would not have been permitted to accept distributions—a “profit, gain, or advantage”—from the Bank of England, a “foreign state-chartered . . . company.” [DC & MD v. TrumpCiv. A. No. 17-cv-1154-EGS, at *23 & *27 (D.D.C. Apr. 30, 2019) (Sullivan, J.)] But he did. Nor was Washington a passive beneficiary of bank-related benefits. For example, throughout the Revolution, Washington’s personal London representatives, at his instructions, transferred such monies out of the Bank of England, to make payments to his creditors.[7] Thus Washington was not a mere passive recipient of automatic distributions; rather, he made timely use of sophisticated foreign commercial agents who actively “accept[ed]” dividend income on his behalf during the war. After peace was made, Washington took action to close the account and to repatriate the funds from the Bank of England account.[8]
Amici know of no evidence that any contemporaries or that any subsequent historians or legal scholars suggested that these transactions violated established law. This absence of debate reaffirms DOJ’s position that “substantial ground for difference of opinion” exists with respect to how Washington, and those in the early Republic, understood the term emolument. The better reading is that during the Founding era, an emolument was tied to lawfully authorized office-related or employment-related compensation.




[1] See Bryan Jones, The Farming Game 151 (1982); Eugene E. Prussing, George Washington, Captain of Industry/The Bank of England Stock—The Bank of the United States, 70(5) Scribner’s Mag. 549, 554, 556–57 (Nov. 1921); see also Sol Bloom, Our Heritage: George Washington and the Establishment of the American Union 210 (1944); Thomas Bayard McCabe, Central Banking’s Role in Our Free Enterprise Society 17 (1951).
[2] Robert J. Reinstein, The Limits of Congressional Power, 89 Temp. L. Rev. 1, 11 n.53 (2016).
[3] See Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton 347 (2004).
[4] See Our History, Bank of England, https://perma.cc/B7FQ-Y5QA; see also Robert E. Wright, The Wealth of Nations Rediscovered 13 (2002).
[5] See Plaintiffs’ Amend. Compl., ECF No. 14, at ¶¶ 56, 59, 62, 65, Part VI/Prayer For Relief.
[6] Articles of Confederation of 1781, art. VI, para. 1. Textually, the Confederation provision was very similar to the Foreign Emoluments Clause now in force under the United States Constitution. Accord U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8 (“[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them [i.e., the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”).
[7] See Bloom, supra note 1, at 210; Letter from George Washington to Robert Cary & Co (May 1, 1759), Founders Online, https://tinyurl.com/yy3arfaf.
[8] See Bloom, supra note 1, at 210; Prussing, supra note 6, at 556. 


The above is an extract from my just-filed amicus brief: 
Brief of Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman and Judicial Education Project as Amici Curiae in Support of the Defendant’s Supplemental Brief in Support of his Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for Certification of the Court’s Denial of Motion to Dismiss and Defendant’s Motion to the Stay, Senator Richard Blumenthal v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America, Civ. A. No. 1:17-cv-01154-EGS (D.D.C. May 21, 2019) (Sullivan, J.), ECF No. 73-1, ____ WL _______, 2019 U.S. Dist. Ct. Briefs LEXIS __, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3381838>. 


Seth Barrett Tillman, General George Washington and the Bank of England, New Reform Club (May 21, 2019, 4:05 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/05/general-george-washington-and-bank-of.html>. 

Welcome Instapundit and ChicagoBoyz readers.




Have a look around New Reform Clubmy co-bloggers do good work!


EU Elections and Brexit

EU elections for Member of the European Parliament (MEP) seats will be held between May 23, 2019 and May 26, 2019. Irelands elections will be held on Friday, May 24, 2019. The UK’s elections will be held on Thursday, May 23, 2019. Brexit will be a key issue on voters’ minds. My primary prior Brexit-related posts include:

Seth Barrett Tillman, Who Was On The Remain Side?, New Reform Club (Jan. 18, 2019, 7:32 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/01/who-was-on-remain-side.html>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, The Libertarian/Popperian Case for Brexit: A Response to Professors Somin, Levy, Norberg et al., New Reform Club (July 19, 2016, 11:16 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-libertarianpopperian-case-for.html>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Reflections on the Revolution in the UK: Part 4: Errors of the Labour Party and the Remain Camp, New Reform Club (July 1, 2016, 3:10 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2016/07/reflections-on-revolution-in-uk-part-4.html>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Reflections on the Revolution in the UK: Part 3: Farage’s Poster Is Racist, The New Reform Club (July 1, 2016, 3:02 AM), <http://reformclub.blogspot.com/2016/07/reflections-on-revolution-in-uk-part-3.html>;

Seth Barrett Tillman, Reflections on the Revolution in the UK: Part 2: The U.K.’s Bradley/Wilder Effect Is Enough To Swing Elections, The New Reform Club (June 30, 2016, 3:54 AM), <http://reformclub.blogspot.com/2016/06/reflections-on-revolution-in-uk-part-2.html>; and,

Seth Barrett Tillman, Reflections on the Revolution in the UK: Part 1: It Is All Cameron’s Fault, The New Reform Club (June 30, 2016, 3:40 AM), <http://reformclub.blogspot.com/2016/06/reflections-on-revolution-in-uk-part-1.html>.


Seth Barrett Tillman, EU Elections and Brexit, New Reform Club (May 21, 2019, 1:53 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/05/eu-elections-and-brexit.html>. 

Welcome Instapundit and ChicagoBoyz readers.



Have a look around New Reform Clubmy co-bloggers do good work!






Conlawprof—It Is Infuriating

Professor AAA at 10 AM 
It never ceases to amaze me how so many men on this listserv systematically silence women’s voices, with such comments as the post being off topic or off the mark, or overly simplistic. There are so few women that post to this list anymore, and when we do, many of us are waiting for a cutting remark. The only women who do post regularly have to be 10x as good as a man to be taken seriously. It is infuriating.

Professor AAA at 12:45 PM 
This is clearly different, and if you can’t see that, then you’re being disingenuous. 

Seth adding here at New Reform Club
What about conservative/libertarian voices on Conlawprof? Or at law schools in the United States? It is infuriating.


Seth Barrett Tillman, Conlawprof—It Is Infuriating, New Reform Club (May 21, 2019, 1:52 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/05/conlawprofit-is-infuriating.html>. 

Welcome Instapundit and ChicagoBoyz readers.


Have a look around New Reform Clubmy co-bloggers do good work!

Monday, May 20, 2019

The Past Is Another Country



I have some history with your [peer reviewed] journal. A good number of years ago, before the Hamilton documents imbroglio, I proposed an article to your then-editor-in-chief outlining how the reproduction of Hamilton’s 1793 financial statement appearing in The Papers of Alexander Hamilton was based on the actual Hamilton-signed original, but that the reproduction of that document appearing in American State Papers was based on a copy made some time later by or for Senate employees and printers.

The editor-in-chief told me, in no uncertain terms, that such an article would not be welcomed by your journal’s busy editors, as the Hamilton documents at issue did not involve any of the great issues of Hamilton’s era, nor was it specifically related to more modern inquiries relating to race, class, gender, identity, etc. As such, there would be no real interest and no real audience in regard to what appeared to be little more than an archivist’s oddity.

In reply, I pointed out how the original Hamilton-signed document had some interesting legal implications in relation to Professor Zephyr Teachout’s First-Amendment-related scholarship. The editor-in-chief told me it was very unlikely that such a tangential line of research (meaning my research, not Teachout’s) could ever come up in actual litigation, and maybe … I ought to look to publish my idea in some student-edited law journal instead. After the Hamilton documents imbroglio, no one at your journal, including your current editor-in-chief, invited me to submit an article discussing how to authenticate eighteenth century American documents.[1] 

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

So you see: your journal and I already have a history.

Seth




[1] See Declaration of Seth Barrett Tillman, Lecturer (Exhibit D), in Amicus Curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman’s and Proposed Amicus Curiae Judicial Education Project’s (JEP’s) Response to Amici Curiae by Certain Legal Historians, CREW v. Trump, Civ. A. No. 1:17-cv-00458-GBD (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2017) (Daniels, J.), ECF No. 85-5, 2017 WL 7795997, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3037107> (discussing how to authenticate eighteenth century American documents); see also Seth Barrett Tillman, Scholarly Papers & Other Papers, Social Science Research Network (last accessed Jan. 3, 2019), <https://tinyurl.com/hkzwasq> (collecting my papers, briefs, declarations, etc). See generally Declaration of Professor Kenneth R. Bowling, Ph.D. (Exhibit H), in Amicus Curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman’s and Proposed Amicus Curiae JEP’s Response to Amici Curiae by Certain Legal Historians, supra, ECF No. 85-9, 2017 WL 7964211 (discussing how to authenticate eighteenth century American documents); Declarationof John P. Kaminski (Exhibit G), in Amicus Curiae ScholarSeth Barrett Tillman’s and Proposed AmicusCuriae JEP’s Response to Amici Curiaeby Certain Legal Historians, supra, ECF No. 85-8, 2017 WL 7964226 (same); Declaration of Professor Stephen F. Knott (Exhibit I), in Amicus Curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman’s and Proposed Amicus Curiae JEP’s Response to Amici Curiae by Certain Legal Historians, supra, ECF No. 85-10, 2017 WL 7964225 (same); Declaration of Professor Robert W.T. Martin (Exhibit J), in Amicus Curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman’s and Proposed Amicus Curiae JEP’s Response to Amici Curiae by Certain Legal Historians, supra, ECF No. 85-11, 2017 WL 7964229 (same); Declaration of Michael E. Newton (Exhibit E), in Amicus Curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman’s and Proposed Amicus Curiae JEP’s Response to Amici Curiae by Certain Legal Historians, supra,ECF No. 85-6, 2017 WL 7964201 (same); Supplemental Declaration of Michael E. Newton (Exhibit F), in Amicus Curiae Scholar Seth Barrett Tillman’s and Proposed Amicus Curiae JEP’s Response to Amici Curiae by Certain Legal Historians, supra, ECF No. 85-7, 2017 WL 7964223 (same).

Seth Barrett Tillman, The Past Is Another Country, New Reform Club (May 20, 2019, 1:43 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-past-is-another-country.html>. 

Seth Barrett Tillman, A Work in Progress: Select Bibliography of Court filings and Other Sources Regarding the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses Cases, New Reform Club (Feb. 28, 2018, 8:59 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-work-in-progress-select-bibliography.html>, <https://tinyurl.com/ybg5dg6u>. 


Welcome Instapundit and ChicagoBoyz readers.


Have a look around New Reform Clubmy co-bloggers do good work!