"Vesting" updated on @SSRN:
"Vested" in UVA Founding Era Collection, 1776-1789:
My database of over 1000 uses.
Bottom line: The use of "all" in Art I & its absence in Art II both may be significant, in favor of non-delegation but against unitary executive.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
"Vested" in UVA Founding Era Collection, 1776-1789:
My database of over 1000 uses.
Bottom line: The use of "all" in Art I & its absence in Art II both may be significant, in favor of non-delegation but against unitary executive.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Thanksgiving is a good time to thank my excellent research assistants Michael Albalah, Anne Brodsky, Xinni Cai, Chloe Rigogne, Emily Rubino, Colin Shea, and Tatum Sornborger.
Thank you!
Thank you!
It is odd that some conservative Justices make a big deal of the "all" in Art. I:
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress."
But though "all" is missing from Art. II, they just add it like no big deal.
Compare Justice Thomas in Whitman (2001):
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress."
But though "all" is missing from Art. II, they just add it like no big deal.
Compare Justice Thomas in Whitman (2001):
5/ vs. Scalia in Morrison dissent... & the unitary executive theorists after him.
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President."
The "all" is missing, but he adds it anyway.
My research suggests that the use and non-use of vesting "all" had legal meaning circa 1776-89.
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President."
The "all" is missing, but he adds it anyway.
My research suggests that the use and non-use of vesting "all" had legal meaning circa 1776-89.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
