Mensch tracht, un Gott lacht

Monday, April 29, 2019

Statistics on New Reform Club's Audience

United States
United Kingdom

Seth Barrett Tillman, Statistics on New Reform Clubs Audience, New Reform Club (Apr. 29, 2019, 12:01 AM), <>. 

Sunday, April 28, 2019

Why Obama and Clinton Described the Sri Lankan Victims as “Easter Worshippers” and not as “Christians”: A Friendly Amendment for Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager wrote: “The reason neither [President Obama nor Secretary Clinton] mentioned Christians or churches is that the left has essentially forbidden mention of all the anti-Christian murders perpetrated by Muslims in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, and of all the Muslim desecration of churches in Europe, Africa, and anywhere else.” Dennis Prager, Why Obama and Clinton Tweeted About ‘Easter Worshippers,’ Not Christians, The Daily Signal (Apr. 23, 2019), <>. The problem here is that Prager is merely describing the phenomenon; he is not explaining the worldview that gives rise to Obama’s and Clinton’s politically correct newspeak.

Why do senior politicians across the Western world systematically engage in this and other similar sorts of newspeak? Here, I suggest, Obama and Clinton (and their peers) believe millions of otherwise ordinary American citizens are deplorables. They believe that if they were to discuss the reality of world events with their fellow citizens, and do so without dissembling, then any number of our fellow citizens would organize communal violence, mayhem, and murder—on a mass scale.

That’s what they think of us—of you—and of me. If we are not with them, then we are against them we are the 47% we are the deplorables. They think we have no self-control. They think we are ready to explode on a moment’s verbal provocation. They think we are ready and eager to engage in communal violence. And they believe it is their sacred duty to manage all our incipient violence. Indeed, they think we ought to thank our lucky stars that they will consent: to be our rulers and to guide our fate.

They believe that by engaging in newspeak they are saving lives, and then they are puzzled why Trump won. 

Seth Barrett Tillman, Why Obama and Clinton Described the Sri Lankan Victims as “Easter Worshippers” and not as “Christians”: A Friendly Amendment for Dennis PragerNew Reform Club    (Apr. 28, 2019, 11:32 AM), <>. 

Welcomes Instapundit and ChicagoBoyz readers! 

Saturday, April 27, 2019

A Mere Eighth of an Inch

Dear Hearts and Gentle People, 

So close we have come, and yet -- so far away! We had healed all the ancient wounds. We had arrived at ourselves. But detente is over. We are restored to our trenches. We are faced, as King Louis taking on the infidels, echoing his friend St. Thomas, with the mortal decision: to prevail "on the reasons of the philosophers themselves" as a real philosopher can argue, or else to "thrust a sword through his body as far as it will go." But while our pointedness and tendentiousness are set to the maximum power, whooping and gesticulating, who of us advocates any great principle, any transcendent philosophy, the sacred sound of the universe? No, we hold forth merely each of us our own coarse interests. But who else, prithee, is going to do so? There were those who shrieked and caterwauled in the great cause of liberty. But liberty is mere self-preservation with superior branding. To fight for liberty is to fight for protection of the intelligent few against the teeming mob of idiots. But we had now arrived! With some light redrawing of the ancient arbitrary lines we now have majorities -- great majorities, large majorities, army-sized majorities, enthusiastic and excitable and fightsome majorities -- who are enlightened. What need have the enlightened of liberty, or of philosophy? Who needs St. Thomas when we have Sir Dawkins? The age of liberty is past; the age of intelligent and enlightened and right rule is arrived. Liberty never needed more than a bit of doggerel barked at the low majorities. It cannot reach the trained ear of the elevated. And now we are the majority! 

Nevertheless, let us not take too much flattering unction to our souls. It is not because of any merit of our own, but simply by the providence -- not of God, certainly; the sacred sound of the universe, perhaps, or of Dawkins -- that we are not such boobs and suckers as other men are. How thick, after all, is the partition which separates us from the capitalists, the nationalists, the Trumpistas, the Constitutionalists, the Christians, the gun nuts, the MAGA-hat-wearers, the liberal-tear-drinkers and hot-dog eaters? Not more than an eighth of an inch. A slight shove in early youth and we would have burst through it, and so come out as deplorables and bitter-clingers. Think how narrow the escape! And then give thanks for it in all humility of spirit. 

Furthermore, let us not underestimate these lowly brothers, for they, too, serve their benign uses in the world, and have human needs and feelings. Even a right-winger, for all his stupidity, contains the same dignity as an MS-13 gang member. (The proper authorities on this have been consulted.) He may labor diligently at some necessary, though perhaps ignoble, trade, art or profession—for example, valet to Taco Bell food robots, or dispenser of free syringes in San Francisco, or Uber-driver for Facebook engineers. His wife may love him, and even venerate him. His children may look up to him as to a pillar of wisdom. He may be esteemed in his submerged circle for qualities which do credit to his heart however they may expose and denounce his head. He may go, in the end, not to Heaven, surely, but wherever the likes of Adam Smith are now to shine and oil their celestial robots for all eternity. Such a man is not to be sniffed at. He may be foolish, but he is surely not quite degraded.

I know, in fact, a number of such knuckle-draggers. They approach a capacity for human reason very closely; they are at least anthropoid; mammals without a doubt, they bring forth their young alive, and their ideas in passable English. I hope I am not one to sneer at these worthy creatures. A few seidels of authentic Pilsner would convert the best of them into excellent second-rate men.

I did not start out, however, to defend the deplorables, but to protest gently against a too contemptuous view of the boneheads of the world. Secure behind the ramparts of our superior sagacity, let us look down upon them with kindly feeling and genuine bonhomie. They do their darndest with their meager machinery and a New Atheists could do no more. It is surely nothing against them that their skulls are somewhat tight, and so give little play to the peristaltic action of their pituitary bodies. You and I, for all our amazing acumen, would be in the same boat if some footpad were to sneak up behind us when we were in our cups, and dent our trapeziuses with a blunt weapon. In brief, our infallibility resides chiefly in a purely physical accident, or, at any rate, in a physical immunity, and so we should be no more uppish about it than we are about our bulk or our loveliness. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Well, not the Lord, surely. Dawkins, I mean. 

What do we want?
When do we want it?
After we win the next election!

[Adapted from H.L. Mencken's Jan. 4, 1915 column.]

Thursday, April 25, 2019

North Wales Poll for May 23, 2019 EU Parliament Elections

North Wales Poll for May 23, 2019 EU Parliament Elections:

BREXIT Party (Farage’s new party): 45%
Liberal Democrats: 17%
Change UK: 8%
Plaid Cymru: 7%
Labour: 7%
UKIP (Farage’s former party): 5%
Tory: 1%
Other party: 5%
Not voting: 2%
Undecided: 2%

UKIP + BREXIT Party = 50%.
Labour + Tory = 8%


Seth Barrett Tillman, North Wales Poll for May 23, 2019 EU Parliament Elections, New Reform Club (Apr. 25, 2019, 12:47 PM), <>

Wednesday, April 24, 2019

A Response to Checks & Balances' Press Release on the Mueller Report

Checks & Balances issued a press release: New Statement from Checks and Balances on the Mueller Report (Apr. 23 2019), <>. The Press Release stated: “The Special Counsel’s investigation was conducted lawfully, and under longstanding Attorney General guidelines.” I think a more prudent approach might have been for the Press Release’s signatories to await a review of the process that launched the Special Counsel’s investigation before describing its conduct as “lawful.” My understanding is that such a review is expected in the near future from the Inspector General’s office, and it appears that Attorney General Barr will authorize a review of the Department of Justice’s conduct.

The Press Release also states: “The facts contained in the report reveal that the President engaged in persistent conduct intended to derail, undermine and obstruct ongoing federal investigations.” It is unclear what specific allegations within the report the Press Release is relying on. Whether those allegations are, in reality, facts or not has not been established by anything like an unbiased or independent decision-maker—like an Article III judge—after both parties have had notice and an opportunity to be heard. By contrast, the Special Counsel’s report is merely a prosecutors office’s memorandum which attempts to marshal one side of the evidence, where the object of the investigation has had no opportunity to respond (e.g., to submit physical evidence, to file affidavits, to cross-examine witnesses and other persons interviewed by the Special Counsel, or to present his own witnesses). As far as I know, the Special Counsels report is not even sworn to, as one would swear (or affirm) to any ordinary affidavit or declaration offered into evidence. Yet the Press Release relies on this report in arriving at far-reaching conclusions about the President’s conduct. Checks & Balances’ care free attitude in regard to fair play (a/k/a due process) is somewhat odd for an organization named “Checks & Balances.”

Finally, the Press Release speaks to “the President’s violations of his oath, including but not limited to [1] his denigration of the free press, [2] verbal attacks on members of the judiciary, [3] encouragement of law enforcement officers to violate the law, and [4] incessant lying to the American people.” Examples of [1], [2], and [4] are not specified. Absent some specific examples, I will posit that the Press Release’s signatories (which includes several legal academics) are merely characterizing lawfully protected free speech as constitutional violations by the President. Likewise, no example in regard to [3] is specified—if it refers to the President’s exercise of his pardon power, then the critique amounts to just a mundane political disagreement in regard to who should be the object of the President’s bountya matter entirely committed to the Presidents discretion. All the allegations, mentioned above, from the Press Release amount to [1] constitutionally protected free speech; [2] internal Executive Branch deliberations (and legal advice) about policy during policy formation; and, [3] normal politicsbeing recharacterized as a constitutional wrong, tort, or crime. Indeed, the Press Release concludes by supporting an investigation of the President based upon his having had engaged in First Amendment protected free speech and his exercise of the pardon power (which remains lawful even when exercised to achieve contested or political purposes). If this is not the criminalization of democratic politics, it is too close for comfort. 

But I guess some people long to bring back the Sedition Act of 1798.


Seth Barrett Tillman, A Response to Checks & Balances Press Release on the Mueller ReportNew Reform Club (Apr. 24, 2019, 8:42 AM), <>. 

Welcome Instapundit Readers! 

Monday, April 22, 2019

The Populist and the Philosopher

Two sets of quotes in juxtaposition, for your consideration. First, representing the Populist approach:   
"Sir, I have got no further than this: Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it." -- Samuel Johnson
"My acceptance of the universe is not optimism, it is more like patriotism. It is a matter of primary loyalty. The world is not a lodging-house at Brighton, which we are to leave because it is miserable. It is the fortress of our family, with the flag flying on the turret, and the more miserable it is the less we should leave it." -- G.K. Chesterton
"The people of Nebraska are for free silver and I am for free silver. I will look up the arguments later." -- William Jennings Bryan

For the Philosopher: Mr. Dudley Field Malone's speech during the Scopes trial, echoing that old-time stoicism:
"The truth does not need the law. The truth does not need the forces of government. The truth does not need Mr. Bryan. The truth is imperishable, eternal and immortal, and needs no human agency to support it."
And Allan Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind, on the admixture of philosophy and power:

"Doctor and policeman, enhanced by the application of science to their endeavors, were to be the foundations of a wholly new political undertaking. If the pursuit of health and safety were to absorb men and they were led to recognize the connection between their preservation and science, the harmony between theory and practice would be established. The actual rulers, after a couple of centuries of astute propaganda directing popular passions against throne and altar, would in the long run be constrained by their subjects and would have to enact the scientists’ project. The scientists would, to use Harvey Mansfield’s formula, be the hidden rulers. The ends pursued by politicians and the means they use would be determined by philosophers. Scientists would be free and get support, and scientific progress would be identical to political progress so conceived."
One may object to the Populist that disagreements about primary loyalties are not very nice, and have led to endless wars throughout human history. Yet, the Populist may answer, we have survived. What we more nearly did not survive, and still might not survive, is the rule of the Philosopher, the hidden ruler...the Doctor-Policeman. "I doubt," said Tom Wolfe, "that any Calvinist of the sixteenth century ever believed so completely in predestination as these, the hottest and most intensely rational young scientists in the United States at the end of the twentieth."

Friday, April 19, 2019

Twitter, Lawfare, and Conlawprof

Professor Dan Hemel on Twitter (Apr. 19, 2019, 12:02 PM) <>: “Trump told White House Counsel Don McGahn to lie to Robert Mueller. Trumps best defense? That he really wanted McGahn to lie to 330 million people, of whom Mueller was only one.” (emphasis added)

Scott R. Anderson et al., What Mueller Found on Russia and on Obstruction: A First Analysis, Lawfare (Apr. 18, 2019, 11:43 PM), <> (characterizing Mueller’s report as: “creating a rigorous factual record concerning both Russian intervention in 2016 and presidential obstruction of the effort to investigate that intervention” (emphasis added)).

On Conlawprof, Professor AAA wrote: Judge Wright’s findings [from Clinton v. Jones] are no less damning (probably more) than those of Mr. Mueller.” (emphasis added).

Tillman responds:
I, for one, do not see any obvious equivalence between an unbiased independent judges findings in an opinion after the parties have had notice and opportunity to be heard, and a prosecutors offices report which attempts to marshal one side of the evidencewhere the object of the investigation (i.e., investigation=failed prosecution) has no opportunity to respond. As far as I know, the Special Counsel's report is not even sworn to, as one would swear (or affirm) to any ordinary affidavit or declaration offered into evidence. 


Seth Barrett Tillman, Twitter, Lawfare, and Conlawprof, New Reform Club (Apr. 19, 2019, 3:45 PM), <>.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

Have a look around New Reform Club—my co-bloggers do good work.

Thursday, April 18, 2019

Conlawprof, WWII’s War Crimes Tribunals, and the Death Penalty

Responding to a prior discussion involving the death penalty and Justice Jackson (who had been a prosecutor at the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg), AAA, a regular CONLAWPROF participant, wrote:
“I don’t care whether [Justice] Jackson was pro or con the death penalty personally. It hardly seems to matter. What’s important is that he recognizes that the death penalty exerts a distorting effect on the law and legal process …. Nobody has explained the rationality of the death penalty …. When’s the last time you told a child, or grandchild of yours that ‘killing other people is okay so long as we’re doing it to them because bad people deserve it; this is how we show people how good we are, by killing all the bad people’?”

Tillman responded:
Professor AAA would you affirm (in line with your prior post) that the death penalty imposed by the International Military Tribunals (IMTs) at Nuremberg, Tokyo, and Manilla were substantially wrongful?

I would have no problem explaining to adult third-parties that the reason the IMTs imposed the death penalty was that many of the war criminals remained hugely popular with large numbers of their countrymen (and their soldiers), and, for that reason, the Allies thought it prudent to block their election (or reelection) to public bodies after hostilities had ended. Many believed that WWII followed WWI in part because no such punishments had been meted out after WWI, and that but for the death penalty following the IMTs, the same people would look for a rematch in a WWIII. I dont know that they were wrong.

I think Professor BBB believes the EEC/EU has kept the peace (or helped to do so) in Europe. Some believe it was NATO. Maybe it was Nuremberg and its executions? It is a question I don’t claim to know the answer to. But I would be hesitant to say the Allied authorities, judges, and prosecutors at the IMTs were wrong based on my personal experience as a lawyer (and citizen) during peacetime in the United States.


Seth Barrett Tillman, Conlawprof, WWII’s War Crimes Tribunals, and the Death Penalty, New Reform Club (Apr. 18, 2019, 7:19 AM), <>. 

Welcome Instapundit and ChicagoBoyz readers!

Have a look around New Reform Club--my co-bloggers do good work.

Tuesday, April 16, 2019

Conlawprof, Soft Power, and the Murder of Jamal Kashoggi

Professor AAA wrote: “But soft power is different. We translated copies of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence into Spanish and sent them out to Spain’s colonies in the New World. It is hard to imagine any policy that is more in our interest than to have a conversation with the nations around the globe why it is in their self interest to adopt some form of constitutional government ....”

Professor BBB wrote: “The fourth Count of the indictment is based on Crimes against Humanity.  Chief among these are mass killings of countless human beings in cold blood.  Does it take these men by surprise that murder is treated as a crime?”—Justice Robert H. Jackson, Opening Statement to the Int’l Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Nov. 21, 1945”

Tillman responds:
I have no clear idea what Professor AAA meant by “constitutional government”? Did he mean: [1]—American-style separation of powers, with a president having an electoral mandate independent of the legislature? Or, [2]—Did he mean simply written constitutionalism? Or, [3]—Did he mean just having a government subject to norms and conventions? (Perhaps there is a fourth position?)

As to [2] and [3], I don’t think most recently formed countries ever thought of building on a foundation absent a written constitution (Israel is somewhat anomalous by this standard), much less absent any norms and conventions. If we, the United States, are recommending that newly formed countries adopt [1], that is, American-style separation of powers, then such advice is (in my view) positively harmful. I can think of few things more likely to destroy the chances of a new nation’s living at peace with itself and its neighbours than to take on such a system—a system which only worked in the U.S. (to the extent it worked at all—e.g., the American Civil War) for wholly fortuitous reasons (i.e., big oceans as defense in depth and relatively weak neighbours). If this is “soft power,” then it is positively a destructive force in the world.

Still, the people who marketed soft power over the last decade in the halls of power and among the voters were more than happy to engage in real politik when it suited them. See President Obama called Libya “a mess” <>. There are now slave markets in Libya. I wonder why that is? Secretary of State Clinton on Qaddafi: “We came, we saw, he died”: <>. She laughs while saying it. Laughs.

As to Professor BBB … As long as we are looking to Nuremberg for a model or precedent: Did anyone laugh while the war criminals were executed? Did any of the prosecutors or the proponents of the war-time policies that led to Allied victory in WWII, go on film or radio, and in public discussions of the post-war executions, did they start laughing?

I also wonder if there is any cognitive dissonance amongst the participants on CONLAWPROF who: [1] oppose the death penalty under peace time conditions administered by independents courts and juries; and, [2] support a concomitant willingness to turn to Nuremberg as a model to guide current standards and thinking? What penalty do you think Jackson and the other prosecutors at Nuremberg (and at the other international military tribunals following Allied victory) sought?


Seth Barrett Tillman, Conlawprof, Soft Power, and the Murder of Jamal Kashoggi, New Reform Club (Apr. 16, 2019, 12:10 PM), <>

Saturday, April 13, 2019

Academics and Brexit

An American academic sent me the following e-mail:

“Actually what people are saying is something like the following:

A majority of us wanted Brexit. We have discovered, however, that within that majority there is no agreement on how Brexit should be done. Indeed, we are learning that a strong possibility exists that a majority prefers remain to any particular manifestation of Brexit (i.e., imagine three different versions of Brexit). Remain beats all three in a head to head vote. Given we have discovered the strong probability that any particular manifestation of Brexit is likely to have even less support than remain, revisiting Brexit seems a good idea.

Tillman wrote back as follows:

“If only we had honest and accurate polls, and if only people took polls as seriously as they do actual voting, and if all these things and more were true, you’d have a point, except the polls and pollsters thought Brexit would lose, thought Hillary would win, and thought Netanyahu in trouble. But none of it was true. None of it.

I also note that you don’t actually link to any polls that purportedly support what you are saying in your e-mail.


PS to NRC Readers: notice my interlocutor’s use of “actually” and “imagine” as if his points were difficult or novel ideas and concepts.

PPS: I have yet to receive a link to any such head-to-head polls, or even any polls showing a majority wants a second vote.

Seth Barrett Tillman, Academics and Brexit, New Reform Club (Apr. 13, 2019, 16:25 PM), <>. 

Friday, April 12, 2019

100% of the Israeli Vote Counted

With 100% reporting <> Netanyahu/Likud 36 seats; Gantz/Blue-&-White 35 seats. Same as it ever was.... But the pre-election polls and exit polls showed a tie or Gantz ahead by 2 or 4 seats. After Brexit, and after Clinton-Trump, why trust the polls?

Seth Barrett Tillman, 100% of the Israeli Vote Counted, New Reform Club (Apr. 12, 2019, 6:25 AM), <>. 

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

Today’s Question On CONLAWPROF: Where Would You Put Trump?

Professor ZZZ asks: “Trump is not Stalin but in the history of national (federal) political figures in this country, I’m wondering … where [would] you put Trump? …  Having a POTUS so publicly awful along those lines lowers the horrible bar so dramatically that we will pay for years to come. Not being Stalin but being Roy Cohn is a hell of a legacy.

Tillman responded:

Professor ZZZ asks: “[W]here [would] you put Trump?”

No new, major land war(s) in Asia—so Trump is ahead of LBJ.

No missile crisis risking an exchange of nuclear weapons with a superpower—so Trump is ahead of JFK.

No wars of national conquest—so Trump is ahead of Polk (Texas) and McKinley (Philippines, Cuba).

No move to war after foreign power made full, reasonable efforts to amicably settle reasons for dispute—so Trump is ahead of Madison (War of 1812). Under Madison, we burned down the capital of British North America (York/Toronto), and they returned the favor in Washington. So Trump beats Madison.

No wars against native American tribes—so Trump is ahead of [fill in the blank—many such presidents could be listed here].

No wars based on poor intelligence or to prop up foreign absolute monarchies—so Trump is ahead of both Bush I and Bush II.

Trump has not interned 100,000s of US citizens based on race—so Trump is ahead of FDR.

Trump has not allowed a U.S. state or territory to go into civil war and then allow its government to be hijacked by the brigands who engineered the civil war—so Trump is ahead of [Pierce and] Buchanan (Bleeding Kansas [a/k/a Bloody Kansas, or Border War]).

I still don’t know why President Clinton blew up an aspirin factory or why Secretary Clinton permitted NATO forces and materiel to blow up Libya—so Trump probably comes out ahead of both of them too.

Trump is ahead of Woodrow Wilson: World War I, and! his resegregation of the federal civil service. I grant you that being ahead of Wilson is not saying much...but then, the nation survived Wilson, and no one today thinks of Wilson as having lowered the bar vis-a-vis future presidents. Professor ZZZ seems to be worried about this. He wrote: “Having a POTUS so publicly awful along those lines lowers the horrible bar so dramatically that we will pay for years to come.” Really?—Will we pay for it in years to come, or is this just a shabby slippery slope-type argument?

I cannot say I see much sense in Professor ZZZ’s references to Roy Cohn. Roy Cohn’s permanent claim to fame is his association with McCarthy and aggressive anticommunism. Trump, by contrast, has been criticized for being too close to Putin. It is not exactly the same; actually, the two are not alike at all.

If words and pretty speeches are the measure of a president, then Trump comes up short. The question is whether that is the correct standard for measuring presidents in a dangerous world.


Seth Barrett Tillman, Today’s Question On CONLAWPROF: Where Would You Put Trump?, New Reform Club (Apr. 10, 2019, 14:19 PM), <>. 

Israeli Election 2019: Before and After

BEFORE: Haaretz: “Channel 12 News[] [poll] has the center-left and right-wing blocs with 60 seats each—a tie. The channel’s exit polls also have Kahol Lavan [Gantz’s party] with 37 seats to Likud’s [Netanyahu’s party] 33.” <> (Tuesday, 10 PM entry)

AFTER: The Times of Israel: “With some 97% of votes counted, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud and Benny Gantz’s Blue and White party still appear on track to get 35 seats each…. These results give the right and religious bloc 65 seats, while the center, left and Arab parties have 55.” <> (Wednesday). 

Seth Barrett Tillman, Israeli Election 2019: Before and After, New Reform Club (Apr. 10, 2019, 1:43 AM), <>. 

see also: <>

see also: Seth Barrett Tillman, Israeli Election 2019: Netanyahu and the PollsNew Reform Club (Apr. 9, 2019, 3:44 PM), <>.

Tuesday, April 09, 2019

Monday, April 08, 2019

Response to Neal Goldfarb

Mr Neal Goldfarb, apparently a linguist and Deans Visiting Scholar with the Georgetown University Law Center, reached out to me on Twitter. What he had to say was spirited & interesting. You can see the full Twitter exchange here: <>. Neal’s chief complaint was that, in my court filings in the Emoluments Clauses cases against the President, I denominated the relevant constitutional provisions: the Foreign Emoluments Clause and Presidential Emoluments Clause, as opposed to the Foreign Emolument Clause and Presidential Emolument Clause

On Friday, April 5, 2019, I sent him a response by e-mail. See below. I have yet to hear back from him. But hope springs eternal.



Dear Neal,

Thank you for reaching out to me via Twitter. New friends are always welcomed—however late they are to join the debate. I have given your paper a once over. I don’t see any citations to my publications or to my co-authored publications with [Professor] Blackman, so I continue to wonder why you tweeted to me and Blackman, but not to [all the] other amici and parties—who all used the nomenclature adopted by plaintiffs in their complaints. It is a real puzzle!

If you could find your way to cite my publications, then I will be in a better position to respond. I write a great many responsive pieces: this academic year alone, I have had one article responding to Professor Yoo, a second article responding to Professor Fallon, and a third responding to Chief Judge Eckerstrom. I must give priority in relation to the people who actually cite me, as opposed to other people who just contact me informally by e-mail or by Twitter. I am sure you can understand that. If you still seek a response from me, particularly in the near term, I suggest you cite my publications and/or [amicus] filings in your paper in and around your footnotes 50 & 51—where you suggest the “emoluments” nomenclature is “near-universal.” [Goldfarb: <>] You can find my briefs and other [judicial] filings here: <>. You can find my publications here: <>.

I will also need some clarification from you in regard to a single point you make several times in your paper. You wrote: “[T]he lawsuits [are] against President Trump alleging that because of certain of his business interests he is in violation of the Constitution’s Foreign Emolument Clause and Presidential Emolument Clause.” (p.5) (emphasis added), <>. Again, you wrote: “These two clauses are of course the subject of pending litigation against President Trump.” (p.19) (emphasis added). You make this claim in several other places in your paper. Can you identify for me who or what you mean by “President Trump”—What are you intending?; What is your meaning?; What you are trying to communicate?; and, How you think the reader will understand your writing here?, etc. I assure you, although you might think my question odd, it is not. It is meant seriously, and I intend to quote your answer in my future Response to Neal Goldfarb. My question is not “grammatical wonkery” or “academic wonkery.” I cannot turn to my future Response to Neal Goldfarb until you respond. So let me hear from you, particularly in the near term if you want to facilitate a response from me in the near future.

Best wishes & welcome to the debate,


Seth Barrett Tillman, Response to Neal Goldfarb, New Reform Club (Apr. 8, 2019, 1:07 PM), <>.