writing.exchange is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A small, intentional community for poets, authors, and every kind of writer.

Administered by:

Server stats:

335
active users

#constitutionallaw

2 posts2 participants1 post today
Replied in thread

@mark @talia_christine

As I've said elsewhere, this is the most judicially activist #SCOTUS in history. It has outright voided part of Art2§4 already, and neutered part of the 14th Amendment.

Everyone has this idea that they are textualists or originalists. But no originalist would have ignored #AlexanderHamilton's Federalist 69.

They're judicial activists, happy to be erroneously viewed by everyone as entirely the opposite.

Replied in thread

@IanDSmith

Actually, the Founders got the idea from a quite perverse understanding of the way that the U.K. government worked in the early 18th century. The "separation of powers" came from Montesquieu's understanding of the way that the U.K. worked.

But it didn't work that way at the time, and we didn't in fact realize what (others thought that) Montesquieu thought that we had until 2005 when the Lord Chancellor was *finally* split into its legislative, judicial, and executive parts. Even now, we are still a monarchy and the "separate" powers still emanate from one person.

Moreover, the Founders did anticipate such things. They wrote about "tyrants" quite a lot, in fact. Remember the "refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants" thing? That was old Tommy son of Jeff. There's lots of stuff from that time about mad tyrants (including George 3, who actually was mentally ill in some way) and preventing them.

A quick post on Dellinger v. Bessent, in which a District Court upheld the power of Congress to protect some federal employees by statute. This will shoot up to SCOTUS and might be an opportunity for it to revisit Humphrey’s Executor. The Court is poised to embrace an extreme version of the Unitary Executive theory, which would allow the President to terminate any federal employee, even those whom Congress tried to insulate from caprice.

#law #contracts #FederalWorkers #Litigation #ConstitutionalLaw #SCOTUS

lawprofessors.typepad.com/cont

Constitutional scholars say Article 2 does not grant the president unlimited power, despite Trump's legal arguments. A political science professor explains why the Supreme Court may ultimately have to decide how far executive authority can go. buff.ly/3Xeij8b
#constitutionallaw

The ConversationTrump’s claims of vast presidential powers run up against Article 2 of the Constitution and exceed previous presidents’ power grabs
More from The Conversation U.S.
Continued thread

It is also interesting that the predictions of the critics of the U.S.A. Constitution when it came to the pardon power, that presidents would use it for personal ends, corruption, and cronyism, have come true; and that the idea that impeachment would be the check on abuse of the pardon power, has proven to be wrong — now that this has all finally been put to the test after 2 centuries.

Here is how #USLaw is turning on its head.

Until now, accepting a POTUS pardon has been an implicit admission of guilt (although court decisions on this are not unanimous, and there is dicta that a POTUS can force a pardon on someone).

But now, Pamela Hemphill is refusing to accept a pardon on the grounds that xe admits to being guilty.

The idea that pardons confer innocence, long understood to be a mistaken reading of an old English opinion, is taking root.

Continued thread