My son the law professor made his TV interview debut yesterday.
I’m naturally biased, but I think he’s good at this.
Incidentally, the weird background is somewhere at a conference he was attending.
My son the law professor made his TV interview debut yesterday.
I’m naturally biased, but I think he’s good at this.
Incidentally, the weird background is somewhere at a conference he was attending.
If I had to bet it would be Harris, a Democratic House, and a Republican Senate. But I say that with no confidence.
Pulls no punches here: LeBron James on X: “What are we even talking about here?? When I think about my kids and my family and how they will grow up, the choice is clear to me. VOTE KAMALA HARRIS!!!
Click through if you don’t see the devastating video…
George Clooney, via Vote Common Good, gives us the bro version of their recent ad featuring Julia Roberts reminding women that the secret ballot means that women don’t have to vote like their husbands tell them to.
Whether either ad will persuade large numbers of people is probably besides the point: it’s a game of small numbers at this point.
Incidentally, one of the terrible things about large-scale mail-in voting (as opposed to early in-person voting) is that it opens the door to voter intimidation and vote selling. It’s tough to sell your vote if there is no way for the buyer to know if you did what you promised. Both sales and pressure are easy at the kitchen table.
I voted via dropbox and it seems Miami-Dade elections accepted my ballot:
Some guy named David B. Froomkin has a nice piece up at the Regulatory Review arguing that the Constitution’s Vesting Clause is not a broad grant of presidential power. It begins:
The Vesting thesis is back in the news.
Aditya Bamzai and Saikrishna Prakash recently published an article in which they returned to their exchange with Andrea Katz and Noah Rosenblum last year in the Harvard Law Review about the President’s power to remove executive officials from office. The debate centers on the Vesting Clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The debate is primarily a historical one about which sources to rely on and how to interpret them in reconstructing Founding-era understandings of the meaning of “executive power.”
It is worth taking a step back from the historical discussion to appreciate the debate’s premises about how one ought to read the Constitution’s text.
Read the rest of Textual Tensions in the Vesting Thesis.