1. collect and organize research in a designated note in apple notes
2. write first draft by hand in a notebook
3. type up draft on ipad and print out for a second pass.
4. transfer final edits to ipad.
5. convert to a .docx & send to editor.
i find it much easier to get words and thoughts out by hand, and the process of typing it up further helps me structure and revise what i am trying to say. printing helps me see things i may have missed.
americans have long recognized a right to ones labor, the populist movement claimed a right to democratic input into the nature of the economy, the works progress administration during the depression was arguably rooted in this sense of a right to decent employment.
ones relationship to labor (their own or others) is a critical area of political contestation in american political thought, and the idea that one has a right to a decent living is very much a part of that discourse.
given that the constitution was effectively rewritten by the reconstruction amendments, it would be great to see a supreme court nominee say something like “I will interpret the Constitution as it was understood in 1870.”
let’s resurrect the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment baby
the authors of the 13th amendment sought to eliminate the “badges of slavery” and the second section gives Congress the power to “enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” let’s take it for a spin!
one basic takeaway i’ve had from reading, at this point, a couple thousand pages on the writing and ratification of the constitution is that those bamas didn’t even agree amongst themselves what the Constitution meant at the time of ratification
ah yes, the ignorant take is that “the constitution was a political document that sought to build a working mechanism for self government while satisfying a large number of mutually exclusive interests” and the smart take is “no it’s not”
mine isn’t an argument about legislative history, it’s an argument about the political disputes around ratification as well as the subsequent decade of american politics.
most anti-court expansion arguments depend on pretending not to notice a 40 year conservative effort to make the judiciary a permanent veto point for progressive lawmaking
“installing right-wing judges is so critical to the conservative project that the entire movement united behind a white supremacist demagogue to accelerate and complete the project and also HOW DARE you try to do anything about it!”
“if a vestigial organ of the constitution unexpectedly gives us power without support from most voters, then of course we have the right to turn a whole branch of government into a permanent redoubt for our partisan & ideological interests & it would be unfair of you to stop us.”