Seth Barrett Tillman, 'On Afghanistan,' New Reform Club (Dec. 13,2022, 1:53 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2022/12/on-afghanistan.html>;
Seth Barrett Tillman, 'On Afghanistan,' New Reform Club (Dec. 13,2022, 1:53 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2022/12/on-afghanistan.html>;
Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘East Wall and the Plantations: Ireland and Its New Migrants,’ The American Spectator (Dec. 6, 2022, 10:48 PM), <https://spectator.org/ireland-new-migrants-east-wall/>, <https://spectator.org/author/seth-barrett-tillman/>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=4296073>;
Next up:
Andrew Hirsch and Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘More War or EU
Expansion?,’ Copenhagen Post (forth.
circa Dec. 8, 2022) (print), Copenhagen
Post Online (forth. circa Dec. 10, 2022), <https://cphpost.dk/> (English-speaking
newspaper in a Danish venue);
and,
Seth Barrett Tillman, What Court (if any) Decided Ex parte
Merryman?—A Correction for Justice Sotomayor (and others), 13(1) Br. J. Am. Leg. Studies (forth. circa
Mar. 2024) (peer review), <http://ssrn.com/abstract=4157572>;
Seth
Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘New Article(s),’ New Reform Club (Dec. 7, 2022, 8:32 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2022/12/new-articles.html>;
State
Legislatures and Governorships: before and after 2022 election
National Conference of State Legislatures, <https://tinyurl.com/yryjp4nz>; and, <https://tinyurl.com/mry5smz>.
50 State
Legislatures: Senate Dems: -9
seats
House Dems: +21 seats
Net: +12 seats
50 State
Legislatures: Senate Repubs: +20
seats
House Repubs: +35 seats
Net: +55 seats
50
States Legislatures: Senate Independents/Vacancies/Other:
-10 seats
House
Independents/Vacancies/Other: -54 seats
Net: -64 seats
*Nebraska
is unicameral and (formally) non-partisan
**3
seats added across 50 state legislatures
Republican
net pickup: 43 seats.
Dems
pickup AZ governorship: AZ government shifts from Repub to Divided control.
Dems
pickup MD governorship: MD government shifts from Divided control to Dem
control. (But already under effective Dem control: so little potential for any U.S. House redistricting.)
Dems
pickup MASS governorship: MASS government shifts from Divided control to Dem control. (But already under effective Dem control: so little potential for U.S. House redistricting.)
Dems pickup both MICH state legislative houses: MICH government shifts from Divided control to Dem control. (Potential for Dem-favored redistricting of U.S. House seats. Post-2022 election: U.S. House from Mich: 6 R / 7 D.)
Dems
pickup MINN state house and control of legislature. MINN shifting from Divided
control to Dem control. (Potential for Dem-favored redistricting of U.S. House seats. Post-2022 election: U.S. House from Minn: 4 R / 4 D.)
Repubs pickup Nevada governorship: Nevada government shifting from Dem control to Divided control. Only Repub pickup leading to change in control. But no potential for U.S. House redistricting.
Penn: Dems pickup State House. Control remains Divided.
Control in many state legislative houses remains narrow. So all results remain tentative. Eg: A single state legislative seat--in the NH state house--resulted in a tie. In 3 state Houses, the majority is 1 or 2 seats. (And, the NH state House maybe 2 or 3 seats apart depending on how the single tied seat is finally determined.) In 5 state Senates, the majority is 1 or 2 seats. Redistricting in Michigan and Minnesota based on changes in control could be consequential given the Rs 9-seat majority in the U.S. House.
Seth
Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘2022 Elections: State Legislatures, Governorships, and Changes in Control,’ New Reform Club (Dec. 1, 2022, 12:03 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2022/12/2022-elections-state-legislatures.html>;
Pascal says that God “instituted prayer in order to allow His creatures the dignity of causality”. There are some things that are within our direct power to do: we wash our hands, and (save for Lady Macbeth) our hands become clean. Most of the events that go on in the universe are, of course, out of our hands. But that is not to say they are out of our control, for we may still pray for them.
The
Hodges arrest video is making rounds on the internet, along with commentary. It
strikes me that the commentary is not focused on the most central fact of the
case.
The
focus of most of the commentary is on the Terry stop (Terry v. Ohio,
391 U.S. 1 (1968) (Warren, C.J.)) and the lawfulness of the original detention. That detention was
(it appears to me) illegal. Thus, it is no surprise (as has been reported) that
the state’s attorney has declined to prosecute Hodges. Likewise, it is no
surprise (as has been reported) that one or both of the police officers have
been disciplined.
What
is not being discussed sufficiently (if at all) is the last 10 to 15 seconds of
the video. In that segment, Hodges asks the arresting officers for their names and identification numbers, and he indicates that he will seek some sanction
against them for their wrongfully detaining him. Hodges appears to be “threatening” to sue
them. But such a “threat” is not illegal; rather, it is lawful First-Amendment-protected speech. It is only at that juncture that the
more senior police officer tells his junior to arrest Hodges for “resisting”
arrest. It seems to me that any such arrest is fairly characterized as retaliation
for Hodges’ exercising free speech. Any such retaliation is a consequential constitutional
violation quite apart from the initial wrongful detention.
When one adds, that Hodges is (apparently) legally blind, and a veteran (as has been reported), and was on the street in the early morning specifically because he was returning home from a mandatory jury duty summons (or, so he claims), he will make a most sympathetic civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983) plaintiff before any jury.
Finally, it is all captured on video. So the facts will not be much in dispute. Lawyers should be lining up around the block to take this case. It might be worth a big pay day—whether it goes to trial or settles. And even if the defendants (i.e., the municipality and the individual officers) are only compelled to make a payment at the smaller end of the spectrum, Hodges’ case should be a very easy win, and it should be a win taking little time. Any trial court victory will place the lawyer in the news. It is free favorable advertising for his or her practice and/or for a future run for political office.
UPDATE: The Arrest of James Hodges: An Update, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-QDMUdGfEw>;
Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘The Arrest of James Hodges,’ New Reform Club (Nov. 13, 2022, 5:07 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2022/11/the-arrest-of-james-hodges.html>;
Twitter: <https://twitter.com/SethBTillman/status/1591726873087729665>;
And I live in a welfare state that has more tax revenues than it can possibly find ways to squander. We live on a hill and I have a shotgun and you only see this
On Saturday,
November 5, 2022, I was awarded the 2021 North Carolina Society of Historians’ Award
of Excellence for Outstanding Contribution to the Preservation and Perpetuation
of North Carolina History and Heritage. What follows is my awards dinner speech,
parts of which were read in absentia.
First, I would like to
thank the North Carolina Society of Historians, its members, officers, and,
especially its judges for choosing my two Jacob Henry-related papers[1] for the society’s Award of
Excellence for a significant contribution to the preservation and perpetuation
of the history and heritage of North Carolina. In an earlier, simpler time, we
would not have to reflect on the need for such organizations. But now is not
such a time—ours is a time when older certainties are not merely forgotten or questioned,
but vilified. So the central task of a historical society, as with sister
cultural institutions, is a critically important one: it is to remember and to
preserve what can be preserved for a better future which all hope will emerge—even
if we cannot clearly see it today.
Second, I should especially like to thank my home institution, Maynooth University, and my current head of department, Professor Michael Doherty, for providing me with the opportunity to take a sabbatical, which made writing these articles possible. Also, there were any number of archivists and librarians, anonymous reviewers, editors, and others who I owe thanks—especially Professor Sandeep Gopalan, my former head of department, and now Vice-Chancellor of Carolina University, Annie Miller, at the North Carolina Historical Review, and Professor Yvonne Pitts, Purdue University, at the American Journal of Legal History. As usual, my wife, Nora, reviewed any number of drafts—of both articles.
Third, I would like to
express my apologies for being unable to attend your awards ceremony. My living
across the Atlantic and your dinner’s timing preclude my attending and
participating.
Fourth, I left the
United States some eleven years ago and moved abroad, to Ireland, to find work—I
teach in an Irish university. Still, one misses home. And also one’s
publications, which focus on a foreign country—that is the United States, are
of less interest to the Irish than they would be to other Americans. In such circumstances,
one can only wonder if one’s research and writing is being well received. Although
winning such an award is gratifying to any recipient, I think I can fairly
state it means a bit more to an expatriate—such as myself—to know that one’s
publications are appreciated in the home country. For that, I thank you.
And,
finally, in my papers on Jacob Henry, I attempted to peel back a veneer
of historical silence. A few have privately noted to me that in doing so, I
undid (in a small way) what Henry and his contemporaries accomplished: elevating
Henry to the status of folk hero in the hope of crafting a culture of American
religious tolerance. That may be so. But the other view, is that in reducing Henry’s
heroic status, I have elevated the accomplishment of all those other unknown
North Carolinians who, in 1809, crafted our society’s culture of religious tolerance.
And perhaps, it is those unknowns who are the heroes our society most needs
today.
Is mise le meas,[2]
Seth Barrett Tillman
[1] Seth Barrett Tillman, What Oath (if any) did Jacob Henry take in 1809?: Deconstructing the Historical Myths, 61 American Journal of Legal History 349 (Dec. 2021) (peer review), <https://tinyurl.com/3etu53m3>, <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3790115>; Seth Barrett Tillman, A Religious Test in America?: The 1809 Motion to Vacate Jacob Henry’s North Carolina State Legislative Seat—A Re-Evaluation of the Primary Sources, 98 North Carolina Historical Review 1 (Jan. 2021) (peer review), <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3498217>.
[2] Pronounced: Ish mish-a leh may-os. It is an Irish phrase meaning “It is I, with respect.”
We
now all know that the Republic of Ireland’s women’s team players were filmed
chanting (what is widely understood as) an IRA song. Before, during, and even after the Football Association
of Ireland issued its apology on behalf of those players, the great and the
good were heard saying the problem was “education.” In other words, these young
adults were too young to remember what the IRA had done, and to whom, and Irish
schools and wider society had failed to teach them. The great and the good were
correct—but not in the way they meant.
The problem is not an absence of teaching. The problem is what their betters choose to teach.
Every year the European Parliament determines the winner of the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought. Who was Andrei Sakharov? Andrei Sakharov devoted the major part of his professional life towards developing advanced atomic weapons for the former Soviet Union. He did this work under Stalin and under his successors. Sakharov’s work made it more difficult for the United States and the world’s other democracies to press for human rights reforms in the Soviet Union and the countries within its orbit—just as his work made it easier for the Soviet Union to threaten its neighbours and the other countries of the world. The nuclear weapons in Russia today which threaten Ukraine and all of Europe—who do you think made those weapons? When Andrei Sakharov has a European Union prize named after him—then lessons will be learned.
Nearer to home, Ireland issued a Che Guevara stamp on the 50th anniversary of that terrorist’s death. Similarly, President Higgins eulogized Fidel Castro—a dictator so brutal that hundreds of thousands sought escape in rickety boats on the Atlantic. When Guevara and Castro are honoured and eulogized—then lessons will be learned.
The problem is not that the system failed to teach these young people; the problem is what they were taught—in school and out of it. The problem is not that they failed to learn what was taught, but that they learned it all too well. If a society’s senior elected officials and other elites teach that Sakharov, Guevara, and Castro deserve admiration, and those elites teach this lesson repeatedly, in public, and in planned events, then why object when young athletes, in a one-off, private, and impromptu event, do much the same? The athletes were just doing what they were taught to do—at every step of the way.
Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘“Educating” the Irish Football Athletes,’ New Reform Club (Oct. 16, 2022, 9:25 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2022/10/educating-irish-football-athletes.html>;
Twitter: <https://twitter.com/SethBTillman/status/1581648620389965826>;
Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘10 out of 10,’ New Reform Club (Oct. 12, 2022, 8:55 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2022/10/10-out-of-10.html>;
Twitter: <https://twitter.com/SethBTillman/status/1580059070748561408>;
Russians
opposed to Putin have no place to go. Opposing Putin during a hot war makes members
of the Russian opposition adverse to their troops in the field and, therefore,
it exposes them to charges of disloyalty, if not worse.
Likewise,
Putin has no place to go. If he loses the war and fails to take and hold
Ukrainian territory, he will lose power. And those who take power out of his
hands might not intend or want a peaceful transfer of
power. In these circumstances, Putin has little to lose and everything to gain
by extending the war, risking escalation, and, indeed, using tactical nuclear
weapons. Such an escalation might cause his own death, as it may cause millions
of other deaths. But Putin may not be like you and me. He may draw comfort from
pulling down everyone else’s home if his own political future is in the process
of being destroyed.
What is to be done?
Give
Putin, his Russian opposition, and Ukraine a desirable place to go. What place
is that? It is a place everyone in Russia and Ukraine, from oligarch to worker
on the factory floor, wishes to gain access. That place is: the European Union.
Indeed, overtures by the EU and NATO suggesting membership for Ukraine (and
only Ukraine) were some of the ill-advised decisions that led us to today’s
terrible status quo. Those overtures might have been the wrong thing for the
West to have done, but might not modifying those decisions be today’s path to
peace? Let the European Union offer Russia AND Ukraine a deal—that is, total withdrawal
of all troops to borders as they stood prior to Russia’s February 2022 invasion,
and if done within 30 days, then both Russia and Ukraine would be granted
immediate EU membership.
If the offer is accepted and then put into effect, then
the hot war is over. That is a good result. Putin will find it easier to end
the war if he has something in-hand that his people will value. And I suggest
the average Russian, as well as every Russian oligarch, would value EU
citizenship, travel rights, and the right to work across the EU; indeed, they
would value those intangible legal rights much more than they would value
Russian troops’ holding Ukrainian territory and its sunflower oil supply.
If the offer is rejected, then Putin and his political
allies will hold even less popular support because the Russian voter will know
that Putin’s incompetence (in war) and his intransigence (in making peace) cost
them EU citizenship with all that it entails. Making Putin less popular, in this
fashion, is also a good result.
For Ukraine, there is no downside. If the plan succeeds:
the war ends, and Ukraine gets EU membership. Ukraine would be mad to reject
the offer, and they could continue to make overtures in international fora for
the return of Crimea and their eastern territories. If Putin rejects the
offer, but Ukraine accepts it, then Ukraine will lose nothing consequential, and
it will enjoy much additional good will from the international community.
The downside (such as it is) of the EU’s making this
offer is that it will be accepted, and then the EU Parliament (and other EU
institutions) will have to accommodate Russian and Ukrainian nationalists. That
will be tricky, especially as it will undoubtedly come with money laundering,
fraud, and subversive intelligence activities. But we, in the West, are not without
defences against such wrongdoing. And such wrongdoing, which is surely
regrettable, is much more manageable, then a hot war risking escalation, along
with the outflow of millions more migrants’ escaping conflict and military
conscription.
It may be the EU and its member states have the means to
end this war. Let us encourage them all to risk making peace.
Seth Barrett Tillman, Associate Professor
Maynooth University School of Law and Criminology
Scoil an Dlí agus na Coireolaíochta Ollscoil Mhá Nuad
(academic title & affiliation for identification purposes only)
Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘A Simple Plan for Ending the War in Ukraine,’ New Reform Club (Oct. 9, 2022, 10:03 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2022/10/a-simple-plan-for-ending-war-in-ukraine.html>;
Seth Barrett Tillman,
‘To End Putin’s War, Offer Both Ukraine and Russia EU Membership,’ Newsweek (Oct. 25, 2022, 4:32 PM EDT), <https://www.newsweek.com/end-putins-war-offer-both-ukraine-russia-eu-membership-opinion-1754644>,
<https://ssrn.com/abstract=4258072>;
Twitter: <https://twitter.com/SethBTillman/status/1579110594648891399>;
Seth Barrett Tillman, Associate Professor
Maynooth University School of Law and Criminology
Scoil an Dlí agus na Coireolaíochta Ollscoil Mhá Nuad
(academic title & affiliation for
identification purposes only)
7 October 2022
The Irish Times
Letters
to the Editor
lettersed@irishtimes.com
RE: William Reville, ‘We need to take the nuclear option’ The Irish Times (Dublin, 6 October 2022) 8, <https://www.irishtimes.com/science/2022/10/06/ireland-needs-to-bite-the-bullet-on-nuclear-energy/>
I do
not doubt that today’s small modular nuclear reactors are safer than their
historical large-scale predecessors. But “safer” here means with regard to
accident and acts of God. The unspoken risks posed by nuclear power do not relate
to accident; rather, the substantial risks posed by nuclear power relate to intentional
wrongdoing in connection with crime, blackmail, terrorism, and war. Adopting
nuclear power is just a way of saying you wish to lose the next war—just look at
the threat posed to Europe by Russian occupation of Chernobyl and other Ukrainian
nuclear facilities.
Today,
Ireland is at peace: Ireland has no enemies which presently or in the near
future threaten an invasion of its landmass. If you believe that this will last
forever and that history is at an end, then just maybe nuclear power is a
reasonable option. But if history is not over, then nuclear power puts both
safety and hard-won national independence at risk.
Is
mise, le meas,
Seth Barrett
Tillman
Seth Barrett Tillman,
Letter to the Editor, ‘Nuclear power and war: National independence at risk,’ The Irish Times (Oct. 10, 2022, 2:45 AM),
<https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/2022/10/10/nuclear-power-and-war/>;
Twitter: <https://twitter.com/SethBTillman/status/1578342109764980736>;