tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87768992024-03-18T12:13:56.713-04:00THE NEW REFORM CLUB<b>GOD & MAN IN THE 21ST CENTURY</b>Hunter Bakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comBlogger3416125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-89142570726360259802024-03-18T12:12:00.009-04:002024-03-18T12:13:17.147-04:00Briefs and Other Filings in United States v. Trump, Case No. 23-80101(s)-CR-Cannon (S.D. Fla. filed June 8, 2023)<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Briefs and Other Filings in United States v. Trump, Case No. 23-80101(s)-CR-Cannon (S.D. Fla. filed June 8, 2023)</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘</span><span style="text-align: left;"><span><i>Briefs and Other Filings in United States v. Trump, Case No. 23-80101(s)-CR-Cannon (S.D. Fla. filed June 8, 2023)</i></span></span><span>,’ </span><b>New Reform Club</b><span> (Mar. 18, 2024, 12:13 PM), <</span><span style="background-color: white;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/03/briefs-and-other-filings-in-united.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/03/briefs-and-other-filings-in-united.html</a></span><span>>; </span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-15252517889410143702024-03-18T04:00:00.010-04:002024-03-18T04:02:40.726-04:00A Chinese Report of the Colorado Section 3 Case<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #1d1b11;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Sun Chenghao, ‘<i>The Supreme Court and Trump’s
candidacy: controversy, trends and impact</i>,’ <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">American
Observer #89</span> (Jan. 19, 2024), <<a href="https://ciss-tsinghua-edu-cn.translate.goog/info/wzjx_mggc/6870?_x_tr_sl=zh-CN&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc">https://ciss-tsinghua-edu-cn.translate.goog/info/wzjx_mggc/6870?_x_tr_sl=zh-CN&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc</a>>,
<<a href="https://ciss.tsinghua.edu.cn/info/wzjx_mggc/6870">https://ciss.tsinghua.edu.cn/info/wzjx_mggc/6870</a>>; </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #1d1b11;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Dr Sun Chenghao is a Fellow
at the Center for International Security and Strategy, Tsinghua University. He wrote: “[S]everal
scholars argue that the President of the United States does not meet the
definition of ‘public office’ in the context of the establishment of the
Constitution, and therefore Trump cannot be the subject of the disqualification
clause. This view is also held by a few hardline conservatives.” In support of this view, Dr Sun cited Blackman & Tillman’s ‘<i>Response to Baude & Paulsen</i>’ in <i>Tex.
Rev. L. & Pol</i>. (forthcoming). <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span style="color: #0f1419; text-align: start; white-space-collapse: preserve;">I have only read a translation of Dr Sun</span></span><span style="color: #1d1b11;">’</span><span style="color: #0f1419; text-align: start; white-space-collapse: preserve;">s post on <i>American Observer <</i></span><span style="color: #333333; text-align: left;">美国观察</span><i style="color: #0f1419; text-align: start; white-space-collapse: preserve;">></i><span style="color: #0f1419; text-align: start; white-space-collapse: preserve;">. It strikes me the author (writing in Chinese) was well informed and made a good faith attempt at balance. Certainly, he was better informed and more even-handed than many in the English-speaking world who had reported on Colorado</span><span style="color: #1d1b11;">’</span><span style="color: #0f1419; text-align: start; white-space-collapse: preserve;">s Section 3 case. </span></span></p><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #0f1419; text-align: start; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Seth Barrett Tillman, </span><span style="color: #1d1b11;">‘<i>A Chinese Report of the Colorado Section 3 Case</i></span><span style="color: #1d1b11;">,</span><span style="color: #1d1b11;">’ <b>New Reform Club</b> (Mar. 18, 2024, 4:00 AM), <</span><span style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/03/a-chinese-report-of-colorado-section-3.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/03/a-chinese-report-of-colorado-section-3.html</a></span><span style="color: #1d1b11;">>; </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #1d1b11;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><br /><p></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-5361233117771054872024-03-05T02:37:00.020-05:002024-03-15T07:07:12.115-04:00The Law of the Case: Trump v. Anderson<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span><span><i>Anderson
v. Griswold, Colo. Sec. of State and Intervenors Republican State Central Cmt</i>., Case No.
2023CV32577, 2023 WL 8006216 (Dist. Ct., City and County of Denver, Colo., Nov.
17, 2023) (Wallace, J.), slip. op. at 95–102 (holding that a president is not
an “officer of the United States” for the purposes of Section 3 of the
Fourteenth Amendment), <i>rev’d</i> <i>Anderson v. Griswold, Sec. of State and
Intervenor-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Donald J. Trump</i>, Case No. 23SA300, 2023
CO 63, 2023 Colo. LEXIS 1177, 2023 WL 8770111, --- P.3d ---- (Colo. Dec. 19,
2023) (per curiam), <i>rev’d</i> Trump v. Anderson, U.S. Sup. Ct. No. 23-719, </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; text-align: left; text-wrap: nowrap;">2024 WL 899207</span>, </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #00172e; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: inherit; text-align: center;">2024 U.S. LEXIS 1190</span><span>, </span></span><span style="background-color: #fcf4f7; color: #201f1e; text-align: left;"><span style="color: #212121; text-align: center;">144 S. Ct. 662</span>, </span><span>601 U.S. ---- (U.S. Mar. 4, 2024) (per curiam),
<</span><a href="https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/23">https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/23</a><span>>, </span><span><</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #201f1e; text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html">https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html</a></span><span>>; </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>Because
the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Colorado
Supreme Court, the opinion and order of the state trial court judge remain good,
persuasive law. The Colorado state trial court held that the President of the
United States is NOT an “officer of the United States.” The trial court</span>’<span>s decision has not been overturned, overruled, or vacated. Although the trial court</span>’s decision was reversed (by the Colorado Supreme Court), that reversal was itself reversed (by the U.S. Supreme Court). So the first-in-time reversal is a nullity. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">That’s
the law of the case.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2dOzzmNciBUC5mXAzPuBI3FsxAzvvKKZDcSyoevZeUrlEtPY5e-gBGkHoUjchCUMLWbxRqFxwwzHqROlJjxRCIBt_tUOb9Uo1Hj6jOVqoHiPsh0ARTt0zkbWCaqL-tuhXmV_I8xfG9F0mR7whgjBN2qnv-OJUZ2hv1L7Xvo0-u5CEYW_s_Ru2/s932/Savage%20on%20Tillman%20on%20Trump%20March%204%202024.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="632" data-original-width="932" height="217" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2dOzzmNciBUC5mXAzPuBI3FsxAzvvKKZDcSyoevZeUrlEtPY5e-gBGkHoUjchCUMLWbxRqFxwwzHqROlJjxRCIBt_tUOb9Uo1Hj6jOVqoHiPsh0ARTt0zkbWCaqL-tuhXmV_I8xfG9F0mR7whgjBN2qnv-OJUZ2hv1L7Xvo0-u5CEYW_s_Ru2/s320/Savage%20on%20Tillman%20on%20Trump%20March%204%202024.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /><span><br /></span></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Seth
Barrett Tillman, ‘<span style="text-align: left;">The Law of the Case: <i>Trump v. Anderson</i></span>,’ <b>New Reform Club</b> (Mar. 5, 2024, 2:37 AM), <<span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/03/the-law-of-case-trump-v-anderson.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/03/the-law-of-case-trump-v-anderson.html</a></span>>;</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-58581540594087397932024-03-04T02:42:00.016-05:002024-03-05T03:52:25.263-05:00Political Evangelism in Today’s Ireland<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMagNbaLXw12j2X9Q2Zs4qyAmrusOzsl3O9p8qPj72lADjUKNhy79P4aw48bpOvQv5wgA-OoWrj6m9FWL6AevT8CjrQKBDDDpaDQCYRiOMzleFcVniYIbYD12FPbvWUCcOHdqi-Khoz75E4_N6WerqzWi54btVYNX9CetevCQEr_RJk7GTM7WG/s740/Mahony%202024.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="210" data-original-width="740" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMagNbaLXw12j2X9Q2Zs4qyAmrusOzsl3O9p8qPj72lADjUKNhy79P4aw48bpOvQv5wgA-OoWrj6m9FWL6AevT8CjrQKBDDDpaDQCYRiOMzleFcVniYIbYD12FPbvWUCcOHdqi-Khoz75E4_N6WerqzWi54btVYNX9CetevCQEr_RJk7GTM7WG/w421-h247/Mahony%202024.jpg" width="421" /></span></a></div><p></p><p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Under
proportional representation, voters pick the members of the legislature, not
the government or cabinet or executive. Under proportional representation, the
members of the governing coalition having executive power or forming the
cabinet is <b><i>not </i></b>under the control of the voters. Rather, it depends on the
bargaining positions and skills of the elected parties <b><i>after</i></b> the
election. Proportional representation has advantages if your nation has no
external enemies or has farmed out its defense to third parties. If the greatest threat your nation fears is a portion of its own citizens, then proportional representation may be the best way to organize your elections. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">On the other
hand, where a nation faces actual external threats, proportional representation inhibits decisive action by the executive during war time and other
emergencies. Proportional representation makes decisive action during war time
and other emergencies difficult because different parties within the governing
coalition or cabinet have different interests, will shift blame, and will look
to their position in the next poll and in the next election. A multi-headed
executive invites a lack of transparency, a lack of accountability, and a
lack of responsibility. <b><i>The reality is that proportional representation undermines collective cabinet responsibility</i></b>. So sure, proportional representation might very well
work here, in Ireland, but whether it is a good model for other countries ... I
have doubts. <i>See <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed70.asp">Federalist No. 70</a> </i>(1788) (Hamilton); <i>see also Federalist Nos. <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed77.asp">77</a> & <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed85.asp">85</a> </i>(1788) (Hamilton). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Seth
Barrett Tillman, ‘<span style="text-align: left;"><i>Political Evangelism in Today’s Ireland</i></span>,’ <b>New Reform Club</b> (Mar. 4, 2024, 2:42 AM), <<span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/03/political-evangelism-in-todays-ireland.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/03/political-evangelism-in-todays-ireland.html</a></span>>;</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Jason
O’Mahony (@jasonomahony) on <b>Twitter </b>(Mar. 4, 2024, 6:20 AM), <<a href="https://twitter.com/jasonomahony/status/1764536411087122802">https://twitter.com/jasonomahony/status/1764536411087122802</a>>; <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-89767196555443915762024-02-17T18:59:00.014-05:002024-02-17T19:11:25.574-05:00Power, Confidence, and Authority<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Edmund
Burke, <i>Reflections on the Revolution in France</i> (1790):<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">You would not cure
the evil by resolving that there should be no more monarchs, nor ministers of
state, nor of the gospel; no interpreters of law; no general officers; no
public councils. You might change the names. The things in some shape must remain.
<i>A certain quantum of power must always exist in the community in some hands
and under some appellation</i>. (emphasis added)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm 0cm 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm 0cm 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i><span>Federalist No. 26</span></i><span> (Hamilton) (1787):<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The idea of
restraining the legislative authority, in the means of providing for the
national defence, is one of those refinements which owe their origin to a zeal
for liberty more ardent than enlightened. We have seen, however, that it has
not had thus far an extensive prevalency; that even in this country, where it
made its first appearance, Pennsylvania and North Carolina are the only two
States by which it has been in any degree patronized; and that all the others
have refused to give it the least countenance; wisely judging <i>that
confidence must be placed somewhere</i>; that the necessity of doing it, is
implied in the very act of delegating power; and that it is better to hazard
the abuse of that confidence than to embarrass the government and endanger the
public safety by impolitic restrictions on the legislative authority. (emphasis
added)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">They [who supported
the Glorious Revolution] were aware that a certain number of troops for guards
and garrisons were indispensable; that no precise bounds could be set to the
national exigencies; that <i>a power equal to every possible contingency must
exist somewhere in the government</i>: and that when they referred the exercise
of that power to the judgment of the legislature, they had arrived at the
ultimate point of precaution which was reconcilable with the safety of the
community. (emphasis added)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm 0cm 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Huang
Tsung-hsi, <i>Waiting for Dawn: A Plan for the Prince</i> (1663):<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>Final authority
always rests with someone</i>, and the palace menials, seeing the executive
functions of the prime minister fall to the ground, undischarged by anyone,
have seized the opportunity to establish numerous regulations, [and] extend the
scope of their control . . . . (emphasis added)</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>Seth Barrett Tillman, </span><span style="text-align: left;">‘</span><span><i>Power, Confidence, and Authority</i>,</span><span style="text-align: left;">’</span><span> <b>New Reform Club</b> (Feb. 17, 2024, 6:59 PM), <</span><span color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.52)" face="Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/02/power-authority-and-confidence.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/02/power-authority-and-confidence.html</a></span><span>>;</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-3622407867998873802024-02-06T06:12:00.013-05:002024-02-14T09:35:04.094-05:00Understanding Head-of-Government Succession<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Chapter
80: Romance of the Three Kingdoms<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Xu
Jing spoke, “The late Emperor of the Hans has been slain by Cao Pi. You, O
Prince, will fail both in loyalty and rectitude if you do not assume the
succession and destroy the wrong-doers. The whole empire requests you to rule
that you may avenge the death of the late Emperor, and the people will be
disappointed if you do not accede to their wishes.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The
Prince replied, “Although I am descended from the grandson of Emperor Jing, I
have not been of the least advantage. If I assumed the title of ‘Emperor’, how
would that act differ from usurpation?” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Zhuge
Liang pleaded with him again and again, but the Prince remained obdurate. Then
Zhuge Liang bethought that where argument failed a ruse might succeed. So
having arranged the parts his several colleagues were to play, he pleaded
illness and remained at home. Presently it was told the Prince that his
adviser’s condition was becoming serious, wherefore Liu Bei went to see him as
he lay on his couch. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“What
illness affects you, my Commander-in-Chief?” asked Liu Bei. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“My
heart is sad like unto burning, and I shall soon die.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“What
is it that causes you such grief?” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">But
Zhuge Liang did not reply. And when the question was repeated again and again
he said nothing, but just lay with his eyes closed as if he was too ill to
speak. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The
Prince, however, pressed him to reply, and then with a deep sigh Zhuge Liang
said, “Great Prince, from the day I left my humble cottage to follow you, you
have always listened to my words and accepted my advice, and now this western
domain, the whole of the two River Lands is yours just as I said it would be.
But this usurpation of Cao Pi means the annihilation of the Hans and the
cessation of their sacrifices, wherefore my colleagues and I desired you to
become Emperor in order to crush this upstart Wei and restore the Hans. We all
worked for this end, never thinking that you would refuse so obstinately to
accede to our wishes. Now the officers are all annoyed, and they will drift
away before very long. If you are left alone and Wu and Wei come to attack, it
will be difficult for you to hold on to what you have. Do you not think this
sufficient reason for me to feel grieved?” </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“Unless I refused, the whole world
would blame me. I am afraid,” replied the Prince. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="text-indent: 36pt;">Quoting Confucius the
Teacher, Zhuge Liang replied, “</span><span style="text-align: left;">‘</span><span style="text-indent: 36pt;">If names be not correct, language is not in
accordance with the truth of things.’ In other words, if one be not really straight,
people will not speak of one favorably. O Prince, you are straight, and people
speak of you favorably. What more is there to say? You know when Heaven offers
and you refuse, you are certainly to blame.”</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“When
you have recovered, it shall be done,” said the Prince. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>Up
leapt Zhuge Liang from his bed</i> . . . .</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Seth Barrett Tillman, <span style="text-align: left;">‘</span><span style="text-align: left;">Understanding Head-of-Government Succession</span><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">,’ <b>New Reform Club</b> (Feb. 6, 2024, 6:12 AM), <</span><span style="background-color: white;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/02/understanding-head-of-government.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/02/understanding-head-of-government.html</a></span><span style="text-indent: 36pt;">>; </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: left;"><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: left;"><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-84674572033034443992024-02-04T09:07:00.012-05:002024-02-04T11:47:55.492-05:00Chapter 17: Romance of the Three Kingdoms<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Romance
of the Three Kingdoms<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Chapter
17<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The army
marched away. In the course of the march they passed through a wheat region,
and the grain was ready for harvesting but the peasants had fled for fear, and
the corn was uncut. Cao Cao sent proclamations to all villages and towns:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“I
am sent on the expedition by command of the Emperor to capture a rebel and save
the people. I cannot avoid moving in the harvest season; but if anyone trample
down the corn, he shall be put to death. Military law is strict without
exception, and the people need fear no damage.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The
people were very pleased and lined the road, wishing success to the expedition.
When the soldiers passed wheat fields, they dismounted and pushed aside the
stalks so that none were trampled down.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">One
day, when Cao Cao was riding through the fields, a dove suddenly got up,
startling the horse so that it swerved into the standing grain, and a large
patch was trampled down. Cao Cao at once called the Provost Marshal and bade
him decree the sentence for the crime of trampling down corn.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“How
can I deal with your crime?” asked the Provost Marshal. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“I
made the rule, and I have broken it. Can I otherwise satisfy public opinion?”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Cao
Cao laid hold of the sword by his side and made to take his own life. All
hastened to prevent him.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Guo
Jia said, “In ancient days, the days of the <i>Spring and Autumn Annals</i>,
the laws were not applied to those of the most important. You are the supreme
leader of a mighty army and must not wound yourself.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Cao
Cao pondered for a long time. At last he said, “Since there exists the reason
just quoted, I may perhaps escape the death penalty.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Then
with his sword he cut off his hair and threw it on the ground, saying, “I cut
off the hair as touching the head.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Then
he sent messengers to exhibit the hair throughout the whole army, saying, “The
Prime Minister, having trodden down some corn, ought to have lost his head by
the terms of the order; now here is his hair cut off as an attack on the head.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">This
deed was a stimulus to discipline all through the army so that not a person
dared be disobedient.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">from: Luo
Guanzhong, <i>Romance of the Three Kingdoms</i> (Charles Henry Brewitt-Taylor, trans.,
1925) (first printed version circa 1522). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Seth Barrett Tillman, <i>Chapter 17: Romance of the Three Kingdoms</i>,<b> New Reform Club</b> (Feb. 4, 2024, 9:07 AM), <<span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/02/romance-of-three-kingdoms.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/02/romance-of-three-kingdoms.html</a></span>>; </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-48022300147302990162024-01-30T05:00:00.002-05:002024-01-30T05:02:16.113-05:00Nigel Farage: Well you're not laughing now<p> </p><p style="text-align: center;"><<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvPuVc6GG1k">(65) Nigel Farage Well you're not laughing now - YouTube</a>></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/z9u7-kQWOwU" width="320" youtube-src-id="z9u7-kQWOwU"></iframe></div><br /><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Seth Barrett Tillman, 'Nigel Farage: Well you're not laughing now,' <b>New Reform Club</b> (Jan. 30, 2024), <<span style="background-color: white;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/nigel-faragewell-youre-not-laughing-now.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/nigel-faragewell-youre-not-laughing-now.html</a></span>>: </span></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-19640329532866637252024-01-30T02:38:00.008-05:002024-01-30T02:59:26.692-05:00Extracts from Justice Samour’s Dissent in the Colorado Supreme Court Decision<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><u>Paragraph 279</u></b>: The
Fourteenth Amendment was designed to address a particular juncture in American
history. William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen, <i>The Sweep and Force of
Section Three</i>, 172 U. Pa. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2024) (manuscript at 3),
https://ssrn.com/abstract=4532751. The postbellum framers were confronted with
the unprecedented nexus of historical events that gave rise to and shaped
secession, the Civil War, and <span style="color: #181717; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: #181717; mso-style-textfill-fill-colortransforms: lumm=10000; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: background2; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 26;">Reconstruction. Josh Blackman & Seth Barrett Tillman, <i>Sweeping
and Forcing the President into Section 3</i>, 28(2) Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.
(forthcoming 2024) (manuscript at 214–15), https://ssrn.com/abstract=4568771.
And their response, in some measure, sounded the clarion call of “a
constitutional revolution.” <i>Id</i>. at 99.</span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #181717;"><b><u>Paragraph 299</u></b>: Certain
legal scholars have sought to explain this purported incongruence by surmising
that Chief Justice Chase’s application of Section Three in </span><a href="https://1-next-westlaw-com.may.idm.oclc.org/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1800117982&pubNum=0000349&originatingDoc=Ifef584609f0511eeb7af84059c4429c3&refType=RP&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&ppcid=51cd062a7a5d4ec4974cda28b2fa3e49&contextData=(sc.Search)" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; cursor: pointer; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><em><span style="color: #181717; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: #181717; mso-style-textfill-fill-colortransforms: lumm=10000; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: background2; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 26; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Griffin’s Case</span></em></a><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"> was politically motivated. Consequently,
they criticize </span><a href="https://1-next-westlaw-com.may.idm.oclc.org/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1800117982&pubNum=0000349&originatingDoc=Ifef584609f0511eeb7af84059c4429c3&refType=RP&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&ppcid=51cd062a7a5d4ec4974cda28b2fa3e49&contextData=(sc.Search)" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; cursor: pointer; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><em><span style="color: #181717; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: #181717; mso-style-textfill-fill-colortransforms: lumm=10000; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: background2; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 26; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Griffin’s Case</span></em></a><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"> as wrongly decided and the result of flawed
logic. </span><em style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">See</em><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"> Baude & Paulsen, </span><em style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">supra</em><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"> (manuscript at 35–49). Other legal scholars,
however, question whether the statement quoted above from the </span><em style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Federal Reports</em><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"> accurately represented Chief Justice Chase’s
views. They point out that the case reporter, a former confederate general, was
the very attorney who represented Judge Sheffey in </span><a href="https://1-next-westlaw-com.may.idm.oclc.org/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1800117982&pubNum=0000349&originatingDoc=Ifef584609f0511eeb7af84059c4429c3&refType=RP&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&ppcid=51cd062a7a5d4ec4974cda28b2fa3e49&contextData=(sc.Search)" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; cursor: pointer; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><em><span style="color: #181717; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: #181717; mso-style-textfill-fill-colortransforms: lumm=10000; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: background2; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 26; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Griffin’s Case</span></em></a><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">.</span><sup id="co_fnRef_B00332077818929_ID0EDKAO" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><a href="https://1-next-westlaw-com.may.idm.oclc.org/Document/Ifef584609f0511eeb7af84059c4429c3/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad740110000018d5932356a0978a659%3Fppcid%3Debc6cf407aa1450294a52c5cff6f6b27%26Nav%3DCASE%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIfef584609f0511eeb7af84059c4429c3%26parentRank%3D0%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=20743dba6a054826dc059450c88ec95b&list=ALL&rank=1&sessionScopeId=7e74a1ac0eaa89d518f1b0e23836974cc185c19bd8951cf643f656a940c4f0af&ppcid=ebc6cf407aa1450294a52c5cff6f6b27&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29#co_footnote_B00332077818929" style="cursor: pointer;"><span style="color: #181717; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: #181717; mso-style-textfill-fill-colortransforms: lumm=10000; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: background2; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 26; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">7</span></a></sup><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"> </span><em style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">See</em><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"> Blackman & Tillman, </span><em style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">supra</em><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"> (manuscript at 15). Even assuming </span><a href="https://1-next-westlaw-com.may.idm.oclc.org/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1800150625&pubNum=0000349&originatingDoc=Ifef584609f0511eeb7af84059c4429c3&refType=RP&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&ppcid=51cd062a7a5d4ec4974cda28b2fa3e49&contextData=(sc.Search)" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; cursor: pointer; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><em><span style="color: #181717; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: #181717; mso-style-textfill-fill-colortransforms: lumm=10000; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: background2; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 26; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Case of Davis</span></em></a><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"> warrants any consideration at all, there is
no need to join this affray because these cases can be reconciled in a
principled manner by recognizing that there are two distinct senses of
self-execution. </span><a href="https://1-next-westlaw-com.may.idm.oclc.org/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1800117982&pubNum=0000349&originatingDoc=Ifef584609f0511eeb7af84059c4429c3&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_349_19&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&ppcid=51cd062a7a5d4ec4974cda28b2fa3e49&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_349_19" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; cursor: pointer; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><em><span style="color: #181717; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: #181717; mso-style-textfill-fill-colortransforms: lumm=10000; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: background2; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 26; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Id.</span></em><span style="color: #181717; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: #181717; mso-style-textfill-fill-colortransforms: lumm=10000; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: background2; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 26; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> at 19</span></a><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">. I find this distinction both helpful and borne out by the
case law.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #181717;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><u>Footnote 7</u></b>: <i>Griffin’s
Case</i> was decided in 1869 and the statement from the case reporter regarding
<i>Case of Davis</i> appeared in the 1894 <i>Federal</i> <i>Reports</i>. Blackman
& Tillman, <i>supra </i>(manuscript at 140).</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #181717;"><b><u>Paragraph 324</u></b>: Although
Section Three was included in </span><a href="https://1-next-westlaw-com.may.idm.oclc.org/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1969133020&pubNum=0000780&originatingDoc=Ifef584609f0511eeb7af84059c4429c3&refType=RP&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&ppcid=51cd062a7a5d4ec4974cda28b2fa3e49&contextData=(sc.Search)" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; cursor: pointer; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><em><span style="color: #181717; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: #181717; mso-style-textfill-fill-colortransforms: lumm=10000; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: background2; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 26; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Powell</span></em></a><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"> among the so-called Qualification Clauses,
closer scrutiny reveals that it is unique and deserving of different treatment.
That</span><span style="color: #181717;">’</span>s because Section Three is the only one that is “qualifie[d]” by the
following language: “[C]ongress shall have power to enforce, <em>by appropriate legislation</em>, the provision[s] of this article.” <a href="https://1-next-westlaw-com.may.idm.oclc.org/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1800117982&pubNum=0000349&originatingDoc=Ifef584609f0511eeb7af84059c4429c3&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_349_26&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&ppcid=51cd062a7a5d4ec4974cda28b2fa3e49&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_349_26" style="cursor: pointer;"><em><span style="color: #181717; text-decoration-line: none;">Griffin</span></em></a><span style="color: #181717;">’</span><em><span style="color: #181717; text-decoration-line: none;">s Case</span></em><span style="color: #181717; text-decoration-line: none;">, 11 F. Cas. at 26</span> (emphasis added) (quoting <a href="https://1-next-westlaw-com.may.idm.oclc.org/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000583&cite=USCOAMENDXIVS5&originatingDoc=Ifef584609f0511eeb7af84059c4429c3&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&ppcid=51cd062a7a5d4ec4974cda28b2fa3e49&contextData=(sc.Search)" style="cursor: pointer;"><span style="color: #181717; text-decoration-line: none;">U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 5</span></a> and stating that “[t]he fifth section qualifies the
third”). None of the other Qualification Clauses—even when viewed in the
context of the original Articles in toto—contains the “appropriate legislation”
modifier. Indeed, that modifier only appears in certain other Amendments, none
of which are objectively relevant to the instant matter. I need not contemplate
what bearing, if any, this has on the self-executing nature of constitutional
provisions more generally. While that might be an open question, <em>see</em> Blackman & Tillman, <em>supra</em> (manuscript at 23) (noting that there
appears to be “no deep well of consensus that constitutional provisions are
automatically self-executing or even presumptively self-executing”), the
demands of the instant matter counsel in favor of limiting my exposition to the
Constitution<span style="color: #181717;">’</span>s presidential qualifications, especially those found in <a href="https://1-next-westlaw-com.may.idm.oclc.org/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000583&cite=USCOARTII&originatingDoc=Ifef584609f0511eeb7af84059c4429c3&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&ppcid=51cd062a7a5d4ec4974cda28b2fa3e49&contextData=(sc.Search)" style="cursor: pointer;"><span style="color: #181717; text-decoration-line: none;">Article II</span></a>, Section One, Clause Five.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a name="OLE_LINK126" style="background-color: white;"><span style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK132;"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #1d1b11;">Anderson v. Griswold, Sec. of State and Intervenor-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Donald J. Trump</span></i></span></a><span style="background-color: white; mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK126;"><span style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK132;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #1d1b11;">, Sup. Ct. Case No. 23SA300, 2023 Colo. LEXIS 1177, 2023 WL 8770111, --- P.3d ---- (Colo. Dec. 19, 2023) (Samour, J., dissenting), slip op. at 5, 13 n.6, 15 & n.7, 29 (citing Blackman & Tillman’s ‘<i>Response to Baude and Paulsen</i>’ in <i>Tex. Rev. L. & Pol.</i>)</span></span></span><span style="background-color: white; mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK132;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #1d1b11;">, <<a href="https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf">https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf</a>>;</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK132;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #1d1b11;"><br /></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span style="background-color: white; mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK132;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #1d1b11;">Seth Barrett Tillman, </span></span></span><span style="color: #181717; text-align: left;">‘</span><span style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #181717;">Extracts from Justice Samour’s Dissent in the Colorado Supreme Court Decision</span></span><span style="color: #181717; text-align: left;">,’ </span><b style="color: #181717; text-align: left;">New Reform Club</b><span style="color: #181717; text-align: left;"> (Jan. 30, 2024, 2:38 AM), <</span><span style="background-color: white;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/extracts-from-justice-samours-dissent.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/extracts-from-justice-samours-dissent.html</a></span><span style="color: #181717;">>; </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #181717;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #181717;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p></o:p></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-56777658320413354632024-01-25T09:00:00.006-05:002024-01-26T10:22:44.002-05:00Surprise<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> <span style="text-align: center;">Romance
of the Three Kingdoms, </span><span style="text-align: center;">Chapter
72: </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Yang
Xiu was a man of acute and ingenious mind, but inclined to show off. His lack
of restraint over his tongue had often wounded Cao Cao’s susceptibilities. Once
Cao Cao was having a pleasance laid out, and when it was completed, he went to
inspect the work. He uttered no word of praise or blame; he just wrote the word
“Alive” on the gate and left. Nobody could guess what he meant till Yang Xiu
heard of it. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“‘Gate’
with ‘Alive’ inside it makes the word for ‘wide’,” said he. “The Prime Minister
thinks the gates are too wide.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Thereupon
they rebuilt the outer walls on an altered plan. When complete, Cao Cao was
asked to go and see it. And he was then delighted. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“But
who guessed what I meant?” said he. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“Yang
Xiu,” replied his people. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Cao
Cao thereafter lauded Yang Xiu’s ingenuity, but in his heart he feared.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> Available: <<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97aaflaCyBc" target="_blank">here</a>> (at 8:16ff)</span></o:p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Spielberg’s
<i>Lincoln</i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="background: white; color: #0f0f0f;">Thaddeus Stevens to a Asa Vintner Litton (a fictional </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f0f0f; font-family: times;">Radical Republican Representative</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #0f0f0f; font-family: times;">):
“Nothing surprises you, Asa, therefore nothing about you is surprising. Perhaps
that is why your constituents did not re-elect you to the coming term.”</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background: white; color: #0f0f0f;">Available: <<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le4Muw8_IEM" target="_blank">here</a>> (at 00:55ff), or <<a href="https://www.scripts.com/script-pdf-body.php?id=43" target="_blank">here</a>></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background: white; color: #0f0f0f;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #0f0f0f;"><span style="background-color: white;">Seth Barrett Tillman, </span></span><span style="text-indent: 48px;">‘Surprise,’ <b>New Reform Club</b> (Jan. 25, 2024, 9:00 AM), <</span><span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/surprise.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/surprise.html</a></span><span style="text-indent: 48px;">>; </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: 48px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: 48px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></span></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-61598554071910180912024-01-23T10:13:00.007-05:002024-01-23T14:36:43.609-05:00Is the President an Amendment XIV, Section 3 “Officer of the United States”? Answer: What People Said Before Trump<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-variant: small-caps;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-variant: small-caps;">George Washington Paschal, The Constitution of the United
States Defined and Carefully Annotated</span> (W.H. & O.H. Morrison, Law
Booksellers 1868). <i>Id.</i> at xxxviii (opining that the <i style="font-weight: bold;">Article VI oath </i>and
<i style="font-weight: bold;">Section 3</i> apply to “precisely the same class of officers” (emphases added)); <i>id</i>. at 250
n.242 (Section 3 is “based upon the higher obligation to obey th[e] [Article
VI] oath”); <i>id</i>. at 494 (noting that the “persons included in this
[Section 3] disability are the same who had taken an official oath under clause
3 of <b><i>Article VI</i></b>” (emphasis added)); </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal;">Garrett Epps, Reading the U.S. Constitution</span> 177–78 (2013)
(“And political power, beyond the mere act of voting, would be withheld from
that group of people who had sworn an individual oath before secession to
support the Constitution and had then violated that oath by joining the
Confederacy. There were three classes of such people: (1) former members of the
United States Congress; (2) <b><i>appointed</i></b> federal officials and US
military officers (both were ‘officer[s] of the United States’); and (3) state
officials, whether judges, legislators, or executive officials, who had taken
the oath prescribed for all state officials in Article VI, Section Two, to
regard the Constitution as ‘the supreme law of the land.’ If anyone meeting
this description had joined the Confederate cause by ‘engag[ing] in
insurrection or rebellion against the same, or giv[ing] aid or comfort to the
enemies thereof,’ he was barred from certain political offices. These forbidden
offices are, in order, (1) member of Congress; (2) presidential elector; (3<b><i>)
officer of the United States, meaning an appointed official either in the
military or in the civil government</i></b>; and (4) state officer of any
kind.” (emphases added));</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Christopher
R. Green, <i>Our Bipartisan Due Process Clause</i>, 26 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Geo. Mason L. Rev</span>. 1202 (2019) (noting that “section 3 of
the Fourteenth Amendment is limited to those rebels who broke <b><i>Article VI
oaths</i></b>” (emphasis added)); <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Seth adds: Presidents take <b><i>Article II</i></b> oaths, not <b><i>Article VI</i></b> oaths. And Presidents are <b><i>elected</i></b>, not <b><i>appointed</i></b>. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Seth Barrett Tillman, <span style="text-align: left;">‘</span><span style="text-align: left;">Is the President an Amendment XIV, Section 3 “Officer of the United States”? Answer: What People Said Before Trump,</span><span style="text-align: left;">’ <b>New Reform Club</b> (Jan. 23, 2024, 10:13 AM), <</span><span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/is-president-amendment-xiv-section-3.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/is-president-amendment-xiv-section-3.html</a></span><span style="text-align: left;">>; </span></span></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-17100366590607380642024-01-22T10:34:00.007-05:002024-01-24T05:56:27.664-05:00Are Section-3 Disqualified Defendants Barred From State Legislative Service?<p style="text-align: justify;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><br /></span></span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-44803456-7fff-1f71-4d2a-4dae83d40a3a"><span style="text-align: left; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Are Section-3 disqualified defendants barred from state legislative service? These sources ask the question, and their answer is <i>no</i>.</span></span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">John Randolph Tucker, </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">General Amnesty</span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">, 126 N. Am. Rev. 53, 55 (1878), </span><a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/i25110155" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">https://www.jstor.org/stable/i25110155</span></a><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">; </span></span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">‘Does the Fourteenth Amendment Exclude the Disqualified from a State Legislature,’ </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Wheeling </span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">[</span><span style="font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">West Virginia</span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">]</span><span style="font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"> Daily Register</span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">, Aug. 30, 1871, at 4; </span></span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span style="outline: none; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: collapse;">‘Does the Fourteenth Amendment Exclude the Disqualified from a State Legislature,’ [</span><span style="font-style: italic; outline: none; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: collapse;">Richmond, Virginia</span><span style="outline: none; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: collapse;">] </span><span style="font-style: italic; outline: none; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: collapse;">Daily Dispatch</span><span style="outline: none; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: collapse;">, Aug. 28, 1871, at 3.</span></span></span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span style="outline: none; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: collapse;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Editor, ‘Interesting Decision as to Disqualification Under the Fourteenth Amendment,’ </span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">[</span><span style="font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Richmond, Virginia</span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">] </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Daily Dispatch</span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">, Mar. 5, 1869, at 3</span><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">; </span></span></span></span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><span style="outline: none; text-align: left; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: collapse;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space-collapse: preserve;">Seth Barrett Tillman, </span><span style="text-align: left;">‘</span><span style="text-align: left;">Are Section-3 Disqualified Defendants Barred From State Legislative Service?</span><span style="text-align: left;">,’ <b>New Reform Club</b> (Jan. 22, 2024, 10:34 AM), <</span><span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/are-section-3-disqualified-defendants.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/are-section-3-disqualified-defendants.html</a></span><span style="text-align: left;">>; </span></span></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-50588173291569974462024-01-22T08:59:00.029-05:002024-01-25T06:51:27.037-05:00 More On Those Bayards<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">There
is a story of the apocryphal Irish defamation case where the jury determined
that the defendant’s words amounted to defamation. When it came to damages, the
court granted a remittitur, and reduced what had been a hefty jury award to one Irish Punt
(Ireland’s pre-Euro currency). The judge’s rationale was that for defendant to
have injured or harmed the plaintiff’s reputation, the plaintiff had to have had a
reputation to be injured or harmed. And as he had none ….</span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">In
what is apparently intended to be a rebuke for poor research in the Professor-Calabresi-led amicus brief in <i>Trump v. Anderson</i>, Michael Stern, the
blogger at <i>Point of Order</i>, wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">So what is the originalist evidence that supports Calabresi’s remarkable evolution? Well, see it all starts with a speech given “during the impeachment trial of U.S. Senator William Blount in 1799 by Senator Bayard, one of Blount’s defenders.” <i>See</i> Amicus Br. at 10.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Wait, you say, “I
didn’t know that there was a Senator Bayard who defended Blount during his
impeachment trial.” Sure, that’s because you are just a rando who reads blog
posts and not a famous legal scholar who gets cited by the Supreme Court. Well,
also because there was in fact no Senator Bayard in the Blount impeachment
trial. There was (as you know from reading <u><span style="color: #171717; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: #171717; mso-style-textfill-fill-colortransforms: lumm=10000; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: background2; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 26;"><a href="https://www.pointoforder.com/2024/01/15/cool-story-bro-the-historical-origins-of-the-office-officer-controversy/"><span style="color: #171717; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: #171717; mso-style-textfill-fill-colortransforms: lumm=10000; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: background2; mso-themecolor: background2; mso-themeshade: 26;">my last post</span></a></span></u>)
a Representative Bayard, but he was a House manager who was prosecuting, not
defending, Blount.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">. . . .<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">[T]here was a
Senator Bayard (actually, there were a number of them, but only one that
matters here) who is relevant to the argument the amicus brief is making, but
he was not involved in the Blount trial. Senator Bayard, the <b><i>grandson</i></b>
of the Bayard who served as a House manager during the Blount impeachment, was
the leading opponent of a controversial oath requirement that the Senate sought
to impose on its members during the Civil War.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">and,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">This resulted in
retorts from his colleagues who pointed out that Bayard’s <b><i>grandfather</i></b>
had taken the opposite position in the Blount case.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">and,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 1.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">[A]nother senator,
like Bayard an opponent of the [Civil War Era] oath requirement, took it upon
himself to show that the elder Bayard had been more consistent with his <b><i>grandson’s</i></b>
views than the opposition allowed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 1cm 0cm 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>These
quotations are from: Michael Stern, ‘<i>The One Where They Mix Up the Bayards</i>,’
<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Point of Order</span> (Jan. 21, 2024),
<<a href="https://www.pointoforder.com/2024/01/21/the-one-where-they-mix-up-the-bayards/"><span style="text-underline: none;">https://www.pointoforder.com/2024/01/21/the-one-where-they-mix-up-the-bayards/</span></a>>
(emphases added) (author</span><i>’</i>s bold removed).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">You
can find a short biography of Representative James Asheton Bayard, Sr. here:
<<a href="https://bioguide.congress.gov/search/bio/B000249"><span style="text-underline: none;">Bioguide Search (congress.gov)</span></a>>.
Representative Bayard was a House manager during the Blount impeachment. He
later became a U.S. Senator. <i>So Calabresi was not entirely wrong in describing House
manager Bayard as a Senator</i>.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">You
can also find a short biography of Senator James Asheton Bayard, Jr. here: <<a href="https://bioguide.congress.gov/search/bio/B000248"><span style="text-underline: none;">Bioguide Search (congress.gov)</span></a>>.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span>These
congressional biographies report the two Bayards as <b><i>father </i></b>and <b><i>son</i></b>, not
<b><i>grandfather </i></b>and <b><i>grandson</i></b>. <i>See generally</i> </span></span><span style="text-align: left;">Harold M. Hyman & Morton Borden, ‘</span><i style="text-align: left;">Two Generations of Bayards Debate the Question: Are Congressmen Civil Officers?</i><span style="text-align: left;">’ 5 Delaware History 225 (1953) (that is <i>two</i>, not <i>three</i>, generations). </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span style="text-align: left;">As to the substantive point under discussion, see </span><i style="text-align: left;">Attorney General </i><span style="text-align: left;">ex
rel.</span><i style="text-align: left;"> Bashford v. Barstow</i><span style="text-align: left;">, 4 Wisc. 567, 652, </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; text-align: left; text-wrap: nowrap;">1855 WL 1929 </span><span style="text-align: left;">(Wisc. Sup. Ct. 1855) (argument of counsel) (explaining that </span><i style="text-align: left;">Blount</i><span style="text-align: left;"> held that the controlling
“office”-language in the United States Constitution “did not embrace members of
the senate, but </span><i style="text-align: left;">only the</i><span style="text-align: left;"> </span><i style="text-align: left;">subordinate civil officers</i><span style="text-align: left;"> of the government
who were appointed and commissioned by the president” (emphasis added)); </span><span style="text-align: left;">Harold M. Hyman & Morton Borden, ‘</span><i style="text-align: left;">Two Generations of Bayards Debate the Question: Are Congressmen Civil Officers?</i><span style="text-align: left;">’ 5 Delaware History 225, 229 n.18 (1953) (“Since the Blount impeachment decided that </span><i style="text-align: left;">any elected official</i><span style="text-align: left;"> is not a civil officer, Bayard was wrong in defining the presidential office as a civil office” (emphasis added)). </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>I
suppose anyone can make a mistake</span><span style="text-align: left;">—</span>I am sure I have. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Seth</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Seth Barrett Tillman,
‘<i>More On Those Bayards</i>,’ <b>New Reform Club</b> (Jan. 22, 2024, 8:59 AM),
<<span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/more-on-those-bayards.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/more-on-those-bayards.html</a></span>>;</span></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-66160833440387934852024-01-18T05:17:00.010-05:002024-01-18T10:40:12.373-05:00A Response to a Journalist’s Question<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #1d2228; font-family: times; font-size: medium; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #1d2228; font-family: times; font-size: medium; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Dear Journalist,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #1d2228; font-family: times; font-size: medium; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #1d2228; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">You asked: “</span><span style="color: #26282a; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Another question comes to mind, and apologies if
you’ve already answered it in writings I missed: If the president is not
an officer under the U.S. for the purposes of the 14th amendment, wouldn’t that
mean that he cannot be disqualified from future office even by impeachment and
conviction? Article II refers to disqualification from ‘any office of honor,
trust or profit under the United States.’ So a Supreme Court of the United
States ruling that President is not an officer for 14th amendment purposes
would also mean an impeached and convicted President cannot be disqualified
from seeking another term?</span><span style="color: #1d2228; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">”</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #1d2228; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><br /></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #1d2228; font-family: times; font-size: medium; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">This is not a single question.
It is multiple questions. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #1d2228; font-family: times; font-size: medium; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #1d2228; font-family: times; font-size: medium; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">I have not taken any position on
the meaning of Section 3’s “office ... under the U.S.”-language. I have
repeatedly written on the meaning of “Office ... under the U.S.” as it appears
in several clauses of the (original) Constitution of 1788. In 1788, that
language did NOT, in my opinion, extend to any elected federal positions.
Furthermore, I have been on the record since 2011, that that meaning may or may
not have been the original public meaning in 1868. Why? There may have been
linguistic drift between 1788 and 1868. My brief (with Josh Blackman) has not
taken any position on the 1868 meaning of the phrase. We have not asked the
Court to reach that issue. If the Court does reach this issue, and does adopt a
limited construction of that phrase as used in Section 3, then that
determination may or may not extend to the same language as used in provisions
of the Constitution of 1788. We will have to wait and see what the Supreme
Court decides and how it rationalizes its decision. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #1d2228; font-family: times; font-size: medium; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #1d2228; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">As for the Impeachment
Disqualification Clause in the Constitution of 1788 ... there was a special issue on the scope of that
clause in <i>Quinnipiac Law Review</i> in 2014. I contributed to that symposium
here: </span><span style="color: #1d1b11; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Seth Barrett Tillman, <i>Originalism
& The Scope of the Constitution’s Disqualification Clause</i>, 33 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Quinnipiac L. Rev.</span> 59 (2014),
<<a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2484377">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2484377</a>>. I
maintained, then and now, that a defendant impeached by the House, and tried,
convicted, and disqualified by the Senate cannot serve in appointed federal
positions in all 3 branches of the federal government, but such a party may be
elected to either house, to the vice presidency, to the presidency, and elected
or appointed to any state position. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #1d1b11; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><br /></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #1d2228; font-family: times; font-size: medium; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">As to “office ... under the U.S.”
in Section 3, Professor Lash has taken the position, as I understand it, that
the weight of evidence does not support any inference that that language
extends to the presidency (as used in Section 3). That is his position, not
mine. I am still studying this issue—as I have been since 2011. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #1d2228; font-family: times; font-size: medium; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #1d2228; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">My amicus brief (with Josh
Blackman) takes the position that in 1788, 1868, and now—that “officer of the
United States” only extends to appointed positions in the Executive Branch and
in the Judicial Branch of the federal government. I do not see any good
evidence of linguistic draft between 1788 and 1868. <i>See, e.g.</i>, </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #1d2228; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">United
States v. Germaine</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #1d2228; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">, </span><span style="color: #1d2228; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">99 U.S. 508 (1878); </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #1d2228; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">United States v. Mouat</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #1d2228; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">, 124 U.S. 303 (1888).</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #1d2228; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><br /></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #1d1b11; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Finally, in <i>United
States v. Smith</i>, 124 U.S. 525, 532 (1888) (Field, J.), the Court
held: </span><span style="color: #1d2228; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 34.0pt; margin-right: 34.0pt; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 34pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: times; font-size: medium; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">An officer of the United States can only be
appointed by the president, by and with the advice and consent of the senate,
or by a court of law, or the head of a department. A person in the service of
the government who does not derive his position from one of these sources is
not an officer of the United States <b>in the sense of the constitution</b>. This
subject was considered and determined in <i>U.S. v. Germaine</i>, 99 U.S.
508 [(1878)], and in the recent case of <i>U.S. v. Mouat</i>, 124 U.S. --,
ante, 505 [(1888)]. What we have here said is but a repetition of what was
there <b>authoritatively declared</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 34.0pt; margin-right: 34.0pt; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 34pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: times; font-size: medium; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 34.0pt; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 34pt 0cm 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black; font-family: times; font-size: medium; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 34.0pt; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 34pt 0cm 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i><span style="color: black; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Id</span></i><span style="color: black; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">.
at 532 (bold added).</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 34.0pt; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 34pt 0cm 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: black; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><br /></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #1d2228; font-family: times; font-size: medium; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">In <i>Smith</i>, the Supreme Court’s use of
“authoritatively declared” is quite exceptional. And, because the language of
“officer of the United States” is used in the Constitution as a defined term,
much (if not most) of the evidence collected by Heilpern and Worley, Professor
Graber, and others, which only reflects popular usage, is (in my view) substantially irrelevant to
the issue at hand.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #1d2228; font-family: times; font-size: medium; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #1d2228; font-family: times; font-size: medium; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">I hope that answers your
questions.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #1d2228; font-family: times; font-size: medium; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #1d2228; font-family: times; font-size: medium; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">Seth<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #1d2228; font-family: times; font-size: medium; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Seth Barrett Tillman, <span style="background-color: transparent; text-align: left;">‘</span><span style="background-color: transparent; text-align: left;">A Response to a Journalist</span>’<span style="background-color: transparent;">s Question</span><span style="background-color: transparent;">,’ </span><b style="background-color: transparent;">New Reform Club</b><span style="background-color: transparent;"> (Jan. 18, 2024, 5:17 AM), <</span><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/a-response-to-journalists-question.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/a-response-to-journalists-question.html</a><span style="background-color: transparent;">>;</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1d2228; font-family: times; font-size: medium; text-align: left;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1d2228; font-family: times; font-size: medium; text-align: left;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #1d2228; font-family: times; font-size: medium; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-32900060958183291922024-01-17T07:39:00.014-05:002024-01-17T07:43:59.391-05:00The Self-Executing Nature of the Takings Clause is Nothing New<p> </p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt;">What
follows is an extract from Blackman and Tillman’s <i>Response to Baude &
Paulsen</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 35.45pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 35.45pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13pt;">In
our view, Griffin invoked Section 3 in an offensive posture, that is, as a
cause of action in support of affirmative relief, but he lacked a federal
statute authorizing his doing so. We do not put this view forward as an
after-the-fact invention or ahistorical gimmick which merely accommodates
otherwise inconsistent or difficult to explain prior case law. Our position is
that this is what Chase was saying in 1869, how he was understood, and how
courts and commentators understood the Fourteenth Amendment until . . . until
about 2020, and more recently, by Baude and Paulsen. For example, in <i>Cale v.
Covington</i> (1978), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, held<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 35.45pt; margin-right: 35.45pt; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 35.45pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 35.45pt; margin-right: 35.45pt; margin-top: 0cm; margin: 0cm 35.45pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">It is true that in
[<i>T</i>]<i>he Civil Rights Cases</i> [(1883)] the [Supreme] Court referred to
the Fourteenth Amendment as self-executing, [and] when discussing the
Fifteenth, but it is also true that earlier in the opinion, discussing s 1 of
the Fourteenth Amendment, the [Supreme] [C]ourt stated: “in order that the
national will, thus declared, may not be a mere Brutum fulmen [a mere warning
without effect], the last section of the amendment invests Congress with power
to enforce it by appropriate legislation.” <i>The Civil Rights Cases</i> did
not overrule <i>Ex parte Virginia</i>, and any apparent inconsistency between
the two just quoted statements in [<i>T</i>]<i>he Civil Rights Cases</i> may be
resolved, we think, by reference to the protection the Fourteenth Amendment
provided of its own force as a <b><i>shield</i></b> under the doctrine of
judicial review. See the dissent of Mr. Justice Harlan in the <i>Civil Rights
Cases </i>quoted infra. See also the<i> Slaughter-House Cases</i>, 16 Wall. at
81, where the Court, referring to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, had stated that when it is a State dealt with and not alone the
validity of a State law, the matter should be left until Congress should has
exercised its power or some case of State oppression by denial of equal justice
in its courts claims a decision at the hands of the Supreme Court. Another
early opinion, not by the Supreme Court but by Chief Justice Chase sitting as a
Circuit Justice, is <i>Griffin’s Case</i>, 11 Fed. Cases 7 (C.C.D. Va. 1869),
which held that the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment, concerning
disqualifications to hold office, was not self-executing absent congressional
action . . . With this understanding in mind, we believe that the Congress and
Supreme Court of the time were in agreement that <b><i>affirmative relief</i></b>
under the amendment should come from Congress.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13pt;">And
what authority did the Fourth Circuit look to and cite: <i>Griffin’s Case</i>.
Former Fourth Circuit Judge Michael Luttig, who recently wrote that <i>Griffin’s
Case</i> was “poorly reasoned,” seems unaware of his former court’s precedents.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13pt;">We
don’t doubt that there are some exceptions to the sword-and-shield framework which we
have put forward. <i>Bivens </i>is one exception; <u>Takings Clause cases and inverse
condemnation proceedings</u>, another. Contracts Clause cases, which also turn
on government abridgment of a form of property, may be another. We suspect
other exceptions may exist where concrete property rights are in dispute under
Article III’s equity prong, as opposed to the law prong. There may be other
exceptions too. But they are individually and collectively exceptions</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: left;">—</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 13pt; text-indent: 36pt;">often of
recent judicial creation. The historically dominant view is what was put
forward by Chase in </span><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 13pt; text-indent: 36pt;">Griffin’s Case</i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 13pt; text-indent: 36pt;">. Our view is that this
sword-and-shield framework undermines Baude and Paulsen’s core position: they
believe that the Fourteenth Amendment is self-executing. If Baude and Paulsen
believe all constitutional provisions are self-executing in both senses</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: left;">—</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 13pt; text-indent: 36pt;">as a
sword and shield, we think they are in error. If they believe that Section 3 is
distinguishable from other constitutional provisions, and yet Section 3 is self-executing
in both senses, as a sword and shield, even if other constitutional provisions
are not, then we fail to see how they distinguish Section 3 from other
constitutional provisions.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><a name="OLE_LINK45"><span style="color: #1d1b11;">Josh
Blackman & Seth Barrett Tillman</span></a><span style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK45;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-IE;">,<i> Sweeping and Forcing the President into Section 3</i>, 28(2) <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Tex. Rev. L. & Pol</span>. 350, 483–84 (forth.
2024) (footnotes omitted) (underscore added) (bold and italics in the original)
(posted on: Sept. 19, 2023), <https://ssrn.com/abstract=4568771>.</span></span><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-IE;"> <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-bookmark: OLE_LINK45;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">Seth Barrett Tillman, <span style="text-align: left;">‘</span><span style="text-align: left;">The Self-Executing Nature of the Takings Clause is Nothing New</span><span style="text-align: left;">,’ </span><b style="text-align: left;">New Reform Club </b><span style="text-align: left;">(Jan. 17, 2024, 7:39 AM), <</span><span style="background-color: white;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-self-executing-nature-of-takings.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-self-executing-nature-of-takings.html</a></span>>; </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: left;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: left;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-language: EN-IE;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-6948152171356864612024-01-12T08:01:00.007-05:002024-01-12T08:06:52.470-05:00How To Write A Letter of Recommendation<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Liu
Bei dismounted, took Xu Shu by the hands, and said, “Alas! We part. Each goes
his way, and who knows if we shall meet again?” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">His
tears fell like rain and Xu Shu wept also. But the last goodbyes were said.
When the traveler had gone, Liu Bei stood gazing after the little party and
watched it slowly disappear. At the last glimpse he broke into lamentation. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“He
is gone! What shall I do?” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">One
of the trees shut out the traveler from his sight, and Liu Bei pointed at it,
saying, “Wish that I could cut down every tree in the countryside!” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“Why?”
said his officers. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“Because
they hinder my sight of Xu Shu.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Suddenly
they saw Xu Shu galloping back. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Said
Liu Bei, “He is returning: Can it he that he is going to stay?”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">So
he hastened forward to meet Xu Shu, and when they got near enough, he cried,
“This return is surely for no slight reason.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Checking
his horse, Xu Shu said, “In the turmoil of my feelings, I forgot to say one
word. There is a person of wonderful skill living about seven miles from the
city of Xiangyang. Why not seek him?” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“Can
I trouble you to ask him to visit me?” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“He
will not condescend to visit you. You must go to him. But if he consents, you
will be as fortunate as the Zhou when they got the aid of Lu Wang, or the Han
when Zhang Liang came to help.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“How
does the unknown compare with yourself?” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“With
me? Compared with him I am as a worn-out carthorse to a palomino, an old duck
to a phoenix. This man often compares himself with the ancient sages Guan Zhong
and Yue Yi but, in my opinion, he is far their superior. He has the talent to
measure the heavens and mete the earth. He is a man who overshadows every other
in the world.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“I
would know his name.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“He
belongs to Langye, and his name is Zhuge Liang. He is of the family of the
former General Zhuge Feng. His father, Zhuge Gui, was the Deputy Governor of
Taishan but died young, and the young fellow went with his uncle Zhuge Xuan to
Jingzhou. Imperial Protector Liu Biao was an old friend of his uncle, and Zhuge
Liang became settled in Xiangyang. Then his uncle died, and he and his younger
brother, Zhuge Jun, returned to their farm in Nanyang and worked as farmers.
They used to amuse themselves with the composition of songs in the Liangfu
style. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“On
their land was a ridge of hills called the Sleeping Dragon, and the elder of
the brothers took it as a name and called himself Master Sleeping Dragon. This
is your man. He is a veritable genius. You ought really to visit him. And if he
will help you, you need feel no more anxiety about peace in the empire.”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">[</span><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">From chapter 36:<i> </i></span></span><b style="background-color: #fcf4f7; text-indent: 36pt;">Luo Guanzhong, Romance of the Three Kingdoms</b><span style="background-color: #fcf4f7; text-indent: 36pt;"> (translated Charles Henry Brewitt-Taylor, 1925) (first printed version circa 1522).</span><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">]</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">Seth Barrett Tillman, </span><span style="text-align: left;">‘</span><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">How To Write A Letter of Recommendation</span><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">,</span><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;">’</span><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;"> </span><b style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">New Reform Club</b><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;"> (Jan. 12, 2024, 8:01 AM), <</span><span color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.52)" style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/how-to-write-letter-of-recommendation.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/how-to-write-letter-of-recommendation.html</a></span><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;">>; </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><p></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-3130652569319607182024-01-11T15:50:00.010-05:002024-01-12T03:53:26.403-05:00The Supreme Court on “Officer of the United States” as used in the Constitution<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #1d1b11;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/124/525">United States v. Smith</a>, 124 U.S. 525 (1888) (Field, J.):<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">“An
officer of the United States can only be appointed by the president, by and
with the advice and consent of the senate, or by a court of law, or the head of
a department. A person in the service of the government who does not derive his
position from one of these sources is not an officer of the United States <i><b>in
the sense of the constitution</b></i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
subject was considered and determined in <i>U.S. v. Germaine</i>, 99 U.S. 508
[(1878)], and in the recent case of <i>U.S. v. Mouat</i>, 124 U.S. --, ante,
505 [(1888)]. What we have here said is but a repetition of what was there
authoritatively declared.”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i>Id</i>. at 532 (emphasis added). </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I suggest that this authoritative statement goes far to establish that the President of the United States is not an “officer of the United States.” And so Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is part of the Constitution, and which uses “officer of the United States”-language, does not extend to the presidency. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Seth Barrett Tillman, <span style="text-align: left;">‘</span><span style="text-align: left;">The Supreme Court on “Officer of the United States” as used in the Constitution</span><span style="text-align: left;">,’ </span><b style="text-align: left;">New Reform Club</b><span style="text-align: left;"> (Jan. 11, 2024, 3:50 PM), <</span><span style="background-color: white;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-supreme-court-on-officer-of-united.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-supreme-court-on-officer-of-united.html</a></span>>; </span></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-15442429078269689052024-01-06T15:59:00.029-05:002024-01-07T07:15:00.771-05:00A Judge on Twitter<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; tab-stops: 104.4pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; tab-stops: 104.4pt; text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">You
might know that I write on and follow the developing literature on the scope of
the Constitution’s “office”- and “officer”-language. More recently, Section 3’s
“officer of the United States”-language has been litigated in a variety of courts
of record. Moreover, the Supreme Court of the United States will apparently opine
on this issue soon.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Insights
can be found in a variety of fora. So I also monitor what is said on social
media, including Twitter. I came across this interesting post.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEMkyqu_lLzT9Rn15C6oKXgjeAHBFyAcsOqEU5btB1-hu1Ebj5Clky7cEYzPRHpXyKMitdENOR7fx8UorckrRlDCK1Sf2fbNFkDQCbVviJUmIJrZm8ZwWC4EJwYIpmRUrWyJrcRtGbYFdvQzlNusUR2nzrkmyOB4aohMRquH50GQ3yVnZ44YIv/s1920/DOCarpenter2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1020" data-original-width="1920" height="413" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEMkyqu_lLzT9Rn15C6oKXgjeAHBFyAcsOqEU5btB1-hu1Ebj5Clky7cEYzPRHpXyKMitdENOR7fx8UorckrRlDCK1Sf2fbNFkDQCbVviJUmIJrZm8ZwWC4EJwYIpmRUrWyJrcRtGbYFdvQzlNusUR2nzrkmyOB4aohMRquH50GQ3yVnZ44YIv/w596-h413/DOCarpenter2.jpg" width="596" /></span></a></div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i><span style="color: #0d0d0d;">See</span></i><span style="color: #0d0d0d;"> David O. Carpenter (@DavidOCarpenter) on
<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Twitter</span> (Nov. 21, 2023, 9:59 PM),
<<a href="https://twitter.com/DavidOCarpenter/status/1727084297562300427"><span style="color: #0d0d0d; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 242; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">https://twitter.com/DavidOCarpenter/status/1727084297562300427</span></a>>.
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Now before
you go—“<i>Oh no! Oh no! Tillman joined the cancel culture crowd!</i>”—that is
entirely wrong. I am not commenting on whether a state trial court judge is permitted,
as a matter of judicial ethics, to opine on litigation strategy and offer advice
to parties in a case in another court. Nor am I suggesting that this judge has
<i>his</i> own free-speech right to speak out publicly on a legal issue which
is a matter of public interest. Those issues are for Judge Carpenter and others
to consider.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I am
interested in the substance of Judge Carpenter’s comment.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span>Judge
Carpenter says that “officer of the U.S.” is </span>“repeatedly” used in <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/71/475.html"><i>Mississippi
v. Johnson</i>, 71 U.S. 475 (1866) (Chase, C.J.</a>). That’s a canonical or leading case. If you went
to law school, it was probably assigned in <i>Introduction to Constitutional Law </i>or <i>Introduction
to Federal Courts</i>. Still, I have written on this issue since 2008—<i>Did I
really miss this? </i>And it is not just me—many others have written (or recently
begun to write on this issue)—<i>Did they all miss this too? </i>So I looked it
up. That phrase—“officer of the United States”—appears exactly one time in the
report for the case. It does not appear “repeatedly.” Hyperbole is, at best, a
legitimate tool for lawyers. For judges, I think it is less than appropriate.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span>More
importantly, the phrase “officer of the United States,” although it appears in
the case’s report, it is not part of the opinion of the Court. And, it is not
part of any concurrence. It is not even part of a dissenting opinion. Actually, Judge Carpenter is quoting from an editor</span>’s headnote reproducing a lawyer’s argument. (Nineteenth century case reports frequently reproduced the lawyers</span>’ arguments <i>before </i>reporting the judicial decision proper.) So,
the Supreme Court of the United States never used the phrase “officer of the United States” in <i>Mississippi
v. Johnson</i> (1866). Not even once.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Ours
is a dying legal culture. A recrudescence of reason may yet be possible, but
only just possible. <i>See generally</i> Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Practice Tip:
Citing Older U.S. Cases—state and federal,’ <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">New
Reform Club</span> (Dec. 7, 2023, 7:16 AM), <span style="color: #0d0d0d; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 242;"><<a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/practice-tip-citing-older-us-casesstate.html"><span style="color: #0d0d0d; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 242; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/practice-tip-citing-older-us-casesstate.html</span></a>>.
<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #0d0d0d; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-themetint: 242;">Seth</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #0d0d0d; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">PS: Do not take legal advice from judges. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #0d0d0d;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #0d0d0d;">Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘A
Judge on Twitter,’ <b>New Reform Club</b> (Jan. 6, 2024, 3:59 PM, 8:59 PM local time), <</span><span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/a-judge-on-twitter.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/a-judge-on-twitter.html</a></span><span style="color: #0d0d0d;">>;</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #0d0d0d;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></span></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-12239055836073730322024-01-06T14:18:00.003-05:002024-01-06T14:19:22.537-05:00A Response to a Journalist<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Hello again, professors, <span style="background: white;">I’m sorry to come back to you so soon with yet another
question, but I was wondering if you had any comments about the Supreme Court’s
decision to take up the Colorado case. </span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><span style="color: black;">Seth: It was expected by most
that the United States Supreme Court would hear this appeal. That result is not
surprising. Albeit, I had expected a more demanding briefing schedule and that
the oral argument would have been held some time in mid or late January, and
not as late as February 8, 2024. I do not think this late schedule is good for
Trump’s team. </span></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background: white; color: black;">
<!--[endif]--></span><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background: white; color: black;">Were there
any persuasive arguments, in your view, for denying cert? </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><span style="background: white; color: black;">Seth: I
think that is the wrong question. As far as I know, the parties—on both sides—supported
cert or, at least, they did not actively oppose it. I believe there was some
disagreement among the parties as which questions were cert-worthy, but that is
a lesser disagreement. </span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i><span style="background: white; color: black;">What do you
expect the most pivotal issue(s) to be? </span></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><span style="color: black;">Seth: The usual ones. Is the
president an “officer of the U.S.” as that phrase is used in Section 3 of the
Fourteenth Amendment? Is the presidency an “office under the U.S.” as that
phrase is used in Section 3? Does enforcement of Section 3 by private parties
seeking affirmative relief against the government require prior congressional
authorization? Does the relief sought by Plaintiffs trespass on the state
Republican Party’s First Amendment free-speech and freedom-of-association
rights? Is the relief sought by Plaintiffs barred by the Electoral Count Act?
Does Congress, at the Joint Session (which open the states’ electoral
certificates and tabulates the electoral votes), have exclusive jurisdiction to
determine issues related to presidential qualifications and eligibility? </span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><i><span style="background: white; color: black;">What will
you personally be looking for in the oral arguments? </span></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><span style="background: white; color: black;">Seth: A
good seat.</span></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><span style="background: white; color: black;">
<!--[endif]--></span></b><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="background: white; color: black;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">All the
best,</span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="background: white; color: black;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Seth<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="background: white; color: black;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background: white; color: black;">Seth
Barrett Tillman, ‘A Response to a Journalist,’ <b>New Reform Club </b>(Jan. 6, 2024, 2:18 PM, 7:18 local
time), <</span><span style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/a-response-to-journalist.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2024/01/a-response-to-journalist.html</a></span>>;</span></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-11521304190195892332023-12-27T16:20:00.009-05:002024-01-19T03:08:05.220-05:00A Short Defense of the Tillman Comma<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">In a
list of nouns or adjectives following a colon, the rule is to separate the elements
of the list with commas.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">However,
where a series of parallel phrases follows a colon, the rule is to separate the
elements of the list with semi-colons. The semicolon is a particularly good
choice if one or more elements of the list already have internal commas.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The
problem with the latter rule, i.e., using semicolons to separate elements of
the list, is that the last element of the list is preceded by an “and.” The “and”
in the last element breaks the parallel structure across the list’s elements.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Therefore,
my suggested practice is to use a semicolon prior to the “and” and to use a comma
following the “and.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Eg:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">My
car uses: high beam lights for seeing into the distance; low beam lights for driving
at night<b>; </b>and<b>,</b> running lights for day-time driving.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Eg:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">My
car uses: [i] high beam headlights for seeing into the distance; [ii] low beam headlights
for driving at night<b>; </b>and<b>,</b> [iii] running lights for daytime driving. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The
[i], [ii], and [iii] also facilitate clarifying the sentence’s parallel structure.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Seth
Barrett Tillman, ‘A Short Defense of the Tillman Comma,’ <b>New Reform Club</b>
(Dec. 27, 2023, 4:20 PM), <<span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/a-brief-defense-of-tillman-comma.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/a-brief-defense-of-tillman-comma.html</a></span>>;</span></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-66071431048478956762023-12-26T04:39:00.004-05:002023-12-29T02:21:54.899-05:00Professor Vikram David Amar and the New Civility<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Professor
Vikram David Amar, Part One, ‘Bad Arguments Against the Application of Section
3 of the Fourteenth Amendment Against President Trump,’ <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Verdict</span> (Dec. 26, 2023), <<a href="http://tinyurl.com/ycxpav4x">http://tinyurl.com/ycxpav4x</a>>:</span></p>
<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Now
there are those who challenge whether the President is an officer under the
United States (although there are very few prominent academics from highly
regarded institutions who take that position).</span></p></blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Seth
Barrett Tillman, ‘Professor Vikram David Amar and the New Civility,’ <b>New
Reform Club</b> (Dec. 26, 2023, 4:39 AM), <<span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/professor-vikram-david-amar-and-new.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/professor-vikram-david-amar-and-new.html</a></span>>;</span></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-9837799067434392782023-12-25T07:58:00.009-05:002023-12-25T08:00:02.959-05:00Are Provisions of the Constitution Self-Enforcing?<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a name="OLE_LINK140"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #171717;">Michael McConnell
et al., ‘<i>2023 National Lawyers Convention: Insurrection & the 14th
Amendment</i>,’ <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">The Federalist Society, </span></span></a><span style="color: #171717;">at 55:45–57:50 </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #171717;">(Nov. 10, 2023, 2:00 PM) (posted online Dec. 20, 2023), <<a href="https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/2023-national-lawyers-convention-insurrection-the-14th-amendment">https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/2023-national-lawyers-convention-insurrection-the-14th-amendment</a>>,
<available on PROQUEST> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #171717;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #171717;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: transparent; text-align: left;">Professor Michael McConnell: “</span>I think the general
rule, at least until very modern times, was that things in the Constitution
could be invoked as a <b><i>defense</i></b>, but that they did not constitute a <b><i>cause of
action</i></b> in which you can go to court and sue. . . . Don’t forget that the 14th Amendment
is, in fact, enforced, for the most part, against States [and] state officers under
Section 1983. So you don’t just go into court and say—<i>Obergefell </i>[<i>v.
Hodges</i>], for example, was a [Section] 1983 case—so it was not one brought
without any congressional authority.” (emphases added).</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #171717;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US">Seth Barrett Tillman, </span><span style="background-color: transparent; text-align: left;">‘</span><span style="background-color: transparent; text-align: left;"><i>Are Provisions of the Constitution Self-Enforcing?</i></span><span style="background-color: transparent; text-align: left;">,’ </span><b style="background-color: transparent; text-align: left;">New Reform Club</b><span style="background-color: transparent; text-align: left;"> (Dec. 25, 2023, 7:58 AM), <</span><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/are-provisions-of-constitution-self.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/are-provisions-of-constitution-self.html</a><span style="background-color: transparent;">>; </span></span></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-24726362770271259922023-12-24T07:26:00.010-05:002023-12-24T07:30:38.127-05:00Seeking a Correction from a Journalist<p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Dear
Journalist, </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">See
our [prior] correspondence below. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">You
wrote me the following question: “I’m just curious about your reaction to last
night’s [Colorado Supreme Court] ruling—specifically over the ‘officer’
argument—one you know very well.” </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I
responded with: “I think it an argument about which reasonable persons can
disagree. That argument and others will likely be addressed in a further appeal
to the U.S. Supreme Court.” My comment was measured, vanilla, and even handed. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">In
your publication, you wrote: Tillman “thought the ‘officer’ issue would be one
of paramount importance at the Supreme Court’s level.” Paramount?!? I never said anything remotely close to “paramount
importance.” And, in fact, I do not think the “officer”-issue is of “paramount”
importance. It is just one issue, among several issues, that is “likely” to be
addressed on appeal. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I
know today is the 24th; still, you should correct this error, as soon as it is
reasonable for you to do so. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Sincerely, </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Seth</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘<span style="text-align: left;">Seeking a Correction from a Journalist,</span>’ <b>New Reform Club</b> (Dec. 24, 2023, 7:26 AM), <<span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/seeking-correction-from-journalist.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/seeking-correction-from-journalist.html</a></span>>; </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18.6667px;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 18.6667px;"><br /></span></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-66496326758836705122023-12-22T14:49:00.008-05:002023-12-22T14:51:43.620-05:00Is It Soup Yet?<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #26282a;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Professor Paul Horwitz’s <i><a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2023/12/what-getting-on-the-wall-is-and-isnt.html">Prawfsblawg</a></i>
post is a basically fair appraisal of the sociology and pathologies of law. It
is not much in the way of praise. But I do not expect praise—at least not as a
matter of course. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #26282a;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span style="color: #26282a;">He gets two things, in my view,
wrong. First, the media elites did not push Judge Wallace, in the Colorado
trial court, to rule as she did. That was all on Judge Wallace. Also Blackman
and I did not push Judge Wallace—as we had no amicus brief at that stage.
Indeed, to date, during the Section 3 cases, Blackman and I have pushed the
non-self-executing argument much more heavily than the “officer of the U.S.”
argument. Moreover, Judge Wallace, is (I have read) a Democratic donor in a
Democratic state, and I believe she was (initially) appointed by a Democratic
governor to her judicial position. Was she really moved by<i> Fox News </i>and
other media reports? It is true that the Blackman/Tillman </span></span><span style="color: #26282a;">“officer of the U.S.”-</span><span style="color: #26282a;">position on did not fare well before the Colorado Supreme Court. But it was adopted by the trial court. That</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #26282a; text-align: left;">’</span><span style="color: #26282a;">s enough to put it on or near the <o:p></o:p></span><span style="color: #26282a;">“wall.”</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #26282a;"><o:p><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #26282a;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Second, I am not “monkish”—even
if it is used as a “compliment.” Just, maybe, I am boringly repetitive. In my
defense, I would point out that I am on U.S., Irish, and other foreign media
fairly regularly. And I write in many fora—not just academic journals with
small and specialized readerships. My email address is public information.
People of all sorts and all perspectives reach out to me all the time. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Seth Barrett Tillman, <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #26282a; text-align: left;">‘Is It Soup Yet,’ <b>New Reform Club</b> (Dec. 22, 2023, 2:49 PM), <</span><span style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/is-it-soup-yet.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/is-it-soup-yet.html</a></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #26282a; text-align: left;">>;</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #26282a; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt; text-align: left;"><br /></span></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-13689612990506703082023-12-15T03:09:00.011-05:002023-12-15T03:18:24.633-05:00Academia: Same As It Ever Was<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-outline-level: 1; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-outline-level: 1; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #1d1b11; font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-outline-level: 1; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #1d2228;">Kusuma Mahendra Wijaya, ‘</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #1d1b11;">Kewenangan
Presiden Dalam Pembentukan Undangundang (Studi Komparasi Indonesia Dan Amerika
Serikat)’</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #1d2228;"> / ‘Presidential Authority in Law Formation (Comparative
Study of Indonesia and the United States)’ 18 (University of Mataram,
Indonesia, Faculty of Law, Master’s dissertation, <b>[circa Oct.] 2023</b>) (advisor Prof. Dr.
H.M. Galang Asmara) (</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #1d1b11;">citing Tillman’s <i>Textualist Defense</i><i> </i>in <i>Texas Law Review</i> (2005)</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2228;">)), <<a href="http://eprints.unram.ac.id/41231/">http://eprints.unram.ac.id/41231/</a>>.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-outline-level: 1; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2228; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">and later ...</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-outline-level: 1; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #1d1b11; font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Wijaya Kusuma, Galang Asmara, and Chrisdianto Eko Purnomo, <i>Kewenangan Presiden Dalam Pembentukan Undang-Undang (Studi Komparasi Indonesia Dan Amerika Serikat)</i> / <i>Presidential Authority in Legislation Formation (A Comparative Study of Indonesia and the United States)</i>, 2(2) <span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal;">Jurnal Diskresi / Discretion Journal</span> 210, 217 (December 2023) (peer review) (citing Tillman’s <i>Textualist Defense</i><i> </i>in <i>Texas Law Review</i> (2005)) (Indonesia), <<a href="http://tinyurl.com/yhnwezte">http://tinyurl.com/yhnwezte</a><a name="OLE_LINK121">>. </a></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-outline-level: 1; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #1d1b11; font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a name="OLE_LINK121">Think about it.</a></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-outline-level: 1; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #1d1b11; font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><a name="OLE_LINK121"><br /></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-outline-level: 1; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white;">Seth Barrett Tillman, </span><span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;">‘Academia: Same As It Ever Was,’ <b>New Reform Club</b> (Dec. 15, 2023, 3:09 AM), <</span><span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><a href="https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/same-as-it-ever-was.html">https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/12/same-as-it-ever-was.html</a></span><span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;">>; </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-outline-level: 1; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2228; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14pt; text-align: left;"><br /></span></p>Seth Barrett Tillmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597182448693278803noreply@blogger.com0