Profile picture
, 3 tweets, 2 min read
My Authors
Read all threads
My ⁦@washingtonpost⁩ op-ed on today’s Trump tax cases, the Founders’ Constitution, and the imaginary unitary executive:

The Founders checked and balanced the president’s finances washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/…
This op-ed is based on two recent papers I posted:

"The Indecisions of 1789: Strategic Ambiguity and the Imaginary Unitary Executive (Part I)"
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
3/ And Part 2:

"The Decisions of 1789 Were Non-Unitary: Removal by Judiciary and the Imaginary Unitary Executive (Part II)"

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Enjoying this thread?

Keep Current with Jed Shugerman

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!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jedshug see all

Profile picture
Jed Shugerman
@jedshug
The argument "The Constitutional Oath Requires Originalism" is ironic.

Because its anti-pluralist/orthodox view of oaths is inconsistent with the original public meaning and constitutional text on oaths.

Start with @GGKrishnamoomoo @erikencarnacio2:
Their rebuttal to @crgreen24601 @evanbernick:
Oaths drafted by the 1st Congress:
"I will faithfully & impartially...perform all the duties incumbent upon me, according to the *best of my abilities* & *understanding*, agreeably to the constitution"

But wait. There's more. 2/
3/ Let's go directly to the text of the Constitution.

The Framers deliberately used the phrase
"OATH OR AFFIRMATION"
*4 times*
because of their religious toleration of Quakers and (to use an anachronistic term) pluralism.
Here is Art. I, Sec. 3:
Read 16 tweets
Profile picture
Jed Shugerman
@jedshug
Well, she sure taught Trump a lesson this time.
@SenatorCollins is trying to take credit for this “the Inspector General Reform Act.”
It is a paper manifestation of Collins herself:
Toothless. Just words. No enforcement, no backbone. An embarrassment.
Co-sponsored w/ Joe Lieberman & @clairecmc.
Here is the “Go ahead, you can fire Inspectors General, just give us pretextual reasons” passage of the statute:
Read 4 tweets
Profile picture
Jed Shugerman
@jedshug
Emoluments breaking news:
4th Circuit votes 9-6 to reinstate DC & MD v. Trump.

Wilkinson's dissent is whiplash after Tuesday's Trump tax case:

Wilkinson: The remedy is Congress, not Courts!
Trump's argument in tax case: Congress has no power to subpoena!
assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6890…
Wilkinson dissent:
"But if plaintiffs cannot run to judges to enforce the Clauses, how could th[ey] ever guard against corruption? The answer is simple, common in our constitutional scheme: the interests protected by the Clauses are to be vindicated in...the courts of Congress."
I addressed this question in a @washingtonpost op-ed Tuesday on the Trump Tax Cases:
"Since the framers focused on the historic dangers of secret bribes, it is fair to assume they wanted such secrets to be uncovered. How can these clauses be enforced without oversight?"
Read 4 tweets

Embed code for your website

×
Follow Us on Twitter!

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 ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

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

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!