Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
michaelmorley11 Profile picture
@michaelmorley11
Jul 21, 2019 • 3 tweets • 1 min read • Read on X
1/ Sketchy, sketchy Elbridge Gerry. At the Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph proposed that Congress have power "to call forth the force of the union against any member … failing to fulfil its duty" under the Articles of Confederation.
2/ Gerry "thought this clause 'ought to be expressed so as the people might not understand it to prevent their being alarmed.'"
3/ McHenry claims that Gerry's idea was "rejected on account of its artifice." No other accounts of the convention mention Gerry's suggestion.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with michaelmorley11

michaelmorley11 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @michaelmorley11

michaelmorley11 Profile picture
Jan 5, 2021
1/This piece says if Repubs keep objecting in Congress 1/6 session it's "possible, though unlikely, that the business of counting the votes wouldn’t be concluded in five days, at which point the Electoral Count Act says that the recesses for debating objections to votes must end"
2/ The joint session of Congress does not go into "recess" to debate objections, however, but rather "dissolves." A recess is only when Congress is done with its business for the day. Even when Congress is barred from taking recesses, it may still dissolve to vote on objections.
3/ In other words, the Electoral Count Act ("ECA") doesn't state that "recesses for debating objections . . . must end" after five days.
Read 11 tweets
michaelmorley11 Profile picture
Dec 29, 2020
1/ This piece argues based on a precedent set by Thomas Jefferson in 1800 that VP Pence should present & count only the alternate unofficial slates of electoral votes from states like PA when Congress meets in joint session to count electoral votes on Jan. 6. The argument fails.
2/ Jefferson, as VP, presided over the joint session where electoral votes from the Election of 1800 were counted. Georgia's votes suffered from several technical procedural defects that were facially apparent.
3/ As presiding officer, Jefferson had the contestable votes counted w/o giving members of Congress a chance to object. This is allegedly a precedent for allowing Pence to unilaterally count whatever slates of electoral votes he wants. But the analogy fails for many reasons.
Read 19 tweets
michaelmorley11 Profile picture
Oct 31, 2020
1/ A new Texas lawsuit seeking to invalidate 100,000 curbside votes is flatly wrong & should be immediately dismissed. This legally baseless suit was filed by a Republican state rep, two Republican candidates, and a voter (not the Texas Republican Party) assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2040…
2/ In my view, the plaintiffs definitely have standing (though their claims are completely meritless). Candidates have a right to have their election resolved based solely on legally valid votes, & voters have a right to not have the weight of their votes diluted by invalid ones.
3/ From there on out, the suit's a tire fire. As the Complaint itself EXPRESSLY acknowledges, Texas law specifically authorizes curbside voting if "voting inside the polling location would create a likelihood of injuring the voter’s health." Tex. Elec. Code 64.009.
Read 25 tweets
michaelmorley11 Profile picture
Oct 11, 2020
Are you an @FSUCollegeofLaw student? Sign up to take REMEDIES next semester!! Learn all the ways to sue in Restitution that your TORTS professor doesn't want you to know about!! Discovery the mysterious secrets of equity that lie BEYOND the common law!
Baffle and confound your CONTRACTS professor with your mastery of the different ways to determine damages and maximize recovery! Master ancient incantations like REPLEVIN. LEVY on those who have wronged you! Scale the mighty wall of economic loss that separates contract & tort!
And learn, once and for all, why it should be called a "defendant-oriented injunction," not a "nationwide injunction"!

REMEDIES has it all. Remedies breathe life into rights. Rights without remedies are meaningless. No matter what field of law you like, this class is for you!
Read 4 tweets
michaelmorley11 Profile picture
Apr 6, 2020
1/ Wisconsin Governor Evers order suspending in-person voting appears to exceed his power under Wisconsin law. The state lacks a broad election emergency statute empowering election officials to modify the rules governing the electoral process in response to unexpected disasters
2/ The Governor's Executive Order 74 purports to invoke the state's general emergency statute, Wis. Stat. 323.12(4)(b), which allows the governor to "Issue such orders as he or she deems necessary for the security of persons or property" in an emergency.
evers.wi.gov/Documents/COVI…
3/ The problem is, Wis. Stat. 323.12(4)(b) likely doesn't let him suspend/ignore state statutory requirements, for 2 reasons. First, Wis. Stat. 323.12(4)(d) lets the Gov "[s]uspend the provisions of any administrative rule if the strict compliance" would hinder disaster response.
Read 19 tweets
michaelmorley11 Profile picture
Sep 7, 2019
1/ If an act is unconstitutional, and it's "clearly established" that the act is also a crime in which officers may not engage or that dep't policy would prohibit the act, then a plaintiff shouldn't have to *also* show that the act's unconstitutionality is clearly established.
2/ The "clearly established" law prong of qualified immunity is all about notice to officers & ensuring zealous law enforcement. The Supreme Court doesn't want police held unexpectedly liable based on activist judges' unpredictable ex post facto decisions to create new rights.
3/ But if there are already binding sources of law, such as state criminal law, that clearly establish an act as prohibited, then officers already know they may not engage in that conduct. They already have adequate notice they shouldn't be engaging in such conduct.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(