The Insurrection Act says: “Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions. . . make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State…he may use the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws.” A couple things to notice… 1. The Act doesn’t just let POTUS federalize the national guard to protect federal buildings. He can send in active duty military to enforce the law and do civilian law enforcement. MUCH MUCH bigger power.

The TDA ruling by SCOTUS was a *total loss* for the admin—and not just on process. And it was a Marbury-esque move by the Chief Justice. 🧵 The whole purpose of invoking the Alien Enemies Act was to do expedited removals without having to go through the INA administrative hearings.

Overheard in Georgetown outside a Michelin star restaurant : “I’m a member of the new administration and the fact you don’t offer takeout food seems like proof that you’re biased against us!” [I’m not joking…this really just happened] “Not even a salad? There are restaurants on Park Ave that offer take out. I’m from New York!”

A 🧵 on the future of Harvard's Federalist Society. Elections tomorrow will be run using "natural law," which they say "may mean, in some circumstances, reference to 'the law written in the hearts of men, which iniquity itself effaces not.'"
Yes, this is for a student group's election code, and as you might suspect, it reads like an immature law student. There's "notice and comment" on their election code as well as "administrative opinions" on who may vote.

I’m going to put some of the best sept 11 longforms in this thread as a way of remembering what we lost and why. Feel free to respond with your own.

To start, a haunting look at one of the most famous pictures from that morning. esquire.com/news-politics/… A glimpse at what we lost that day: newyorker.com/magazine/2002/…

Everyone is using the term “Republican Party” interchangeably to refer to two totally different political parties.

1) Goldwater-2012: project American strength abroad, abortion/guns, limited govt
2) Populist now: isolationism, anti-woke, grow govt safety net When Trump defeated the GOP(1) in 2016 primary, it was like a new marriage. Folks assumed there was a decent chance of divorce. The Vance pick is like when the couple has a baby and you realize they’re actually serious about this.

But this is the problem: if Dems become convinced they’re going to lose either way—with either Biden or Harris, Dems are way better off losing with Biden. Here’s why:

https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1813305135570837515

If Biden loses, people will blame
Biden and his team. If the elites of the party/pundit class pressure Biden to step aside and Harris loses, the 1/3 of the party that still wants Biden as the nominee, will blame them and hold to the counterfactual that Biden would have won.

The next constitution crisis. AKA another problem w Joe Biden as the Dem nominee....a 🧵

The 12th Amendment says that the presidency goes to the person who wins the majority of electoral college votes *out of the whole number available.* In 2020, the Supreme Court upheld state laws that bind electoral college members to vote for the candidate that wins the popular vote in the state. Over half of states have such a law and half of those have penalties for non compliance.

SCOTUS created 3 buckets:
--core presidential action like pardon power (absolutely immune)

--purely private conduct (indict all you want)

--all other official acts are immune UNLESS govt can show they arent intruding on authority of potus (quasi balancing test) This is bad for Trump. He was always going to get the DOJ-related charge tossed out. Thinking about replacing your AG is not indictable...otherwise, we'd look into every POTUS motive for every removal. What about mixed motives? Political motives? It's a mess.

What are the arguments for why the 14th Amendment doesn't bar Trump from the ballot? Here are the best arguments for those who want to understand the other side🧵

thedispatch.com/newsletter/the… For starters, the text of the amendment never says anything about the president. In fact, it lists a lot of other offices specifically—including electors of the president or vice president—but not the president or vice president themselves.

This is why criminal cases should be decided by juries and not by podcast listeners. washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/… People seem to misunderstand my point. Let me try again. This case would not be in the news but for the true crime obsession in our culture. The people who feel strongly in either direction did not hear what the jury heard. That is my only point.

As I was saying (cough cough), I don’t think AG Garland had a choice here—the reg is clear in my view—but the buck still stops with him. Now let’s talk Potus, Hunter, etc. 🧵

https://twitter.com/whignewtons/status/1592243100939862020

The Hunter Biden investigation doesn’t need a special counsel bc there’s no conflict. Pursuing Trump was the conflict. *Not* pursuing Hunter would be a conflict but they already have a U.S. Attorney appointed by Trump moving forward.

§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General *will* appoint a Special Counsel when he determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and that investigation would present a conflict of interest for the Department. Note: A special counsel has the same powers as any other US Attorney. Think of them as a special US attorney over a matter rather than a district. Most importantly, they still report to the Attorney General who has to make the final call regardless.

Dems should have taken Hillary’s mishandling of classified info more seriously and now remember she was never charged despite evidence she violated §793 and committed obstruction. But GOP should be willing to apply the Clinton standard to their guy too. substack.com/app-link/post?… But Trump could declassify anything he wanted! A: Clinton had power to classify and declassify State Department information up to the “top secret” level. And Congress actually limits what either can declassify.

A sitting president cannot be charged with a crime under the theory that he is the executor of the laws (he has to be impeached, convicted, and removed from office first). But Trump isn’t president. And there’s no reason 18 USC 793 wouldn’t apply to a former president.

https://twitter.com/marklevinshow/status/1558460616213397509

The President is a declassifying authority—but Congress can (and did) put limits on that in the Atomic Energy Act and I haven’t heard any arguments as to why those limits aren’t valid. Ie Trump couldn’t just declassify everything that left the WH as a general order.

Also…this is spot on by @Nedfoley washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/… Known as Duverger’s law, the incentive created by the need to win more votes than any other candidate prompts political factions to coalesce into two competing parties, each vying to capture the electorate’s median voter. But Duverger’s law does not work in party primaries.

Advocates, whether progressives worried about climate change or conservatives focused on religious liberty, should think long and hard about whether “winning” at the Supreme Court is slowly killing their cause. politico.com/amp/news/magaz… Climate change can’t be fixed in four-year increments. To effectively stem carbon emissions, the country needs a long-term plan that can be followed for 25, 50, even 100 years — something that can only be put in place by the U.S. Congress. politico.com/amp/news/magaz…

This isn't quite the mic drop that resistance twitter wishes it were. More to come on AO tomorrow...but here's the short version below politico.com/news/2022/03/0… The committee is trying to overcome attorney client privilege to get Eastman's communications with Trump through the crime/fraud exception. Like a search warrant requires a fair probability that a search would produce evidence of a crime....

On the last pod, Steve and I debated whether Liz Cheney created the space for the current pushback against Trump. But the whole conversation assumed that Trump’s sway over the party is, in fact, weakening. I've made the opposite case here 🧵 sweep.thedispatch.com/p/the-sweep-th… In short, if you look under the hood at how federal campaigns actually raise money, then Donald Trump is more powerful than he’s ever been. The problem used to be too many hungry, hungry hippos...but now there’s only one hippo and he has the size and temperament of a T. Rex.

News outlets do a disservice to their readers when they only offer them a single narrative. And that readers should be wary of any reporting that too neatly lays out who the good guys and the bad guys are. The world is rarely so neatly organized. thedispatch.com/p/how-to-under… Facts as we know them: A reporter has at least 2 sources who told her that the Chief wanted the other justices to wear a mask to court. Gorsuch didn’t wear a mask to the argument on Jan 7. Sotomayor, whose seat is next to Gorsuch’s, didn’t attend the argument in person on Jan 7.

Yall. Casey overturned Roe 30 years ago for all intents and purposes. The Court said they were keeping the “essence” of Roe but replacing its reasoning and analysis. So when you cite a poll that asks whether Roe should be overturned to prove your point—either way—I’m pulling my hair out.