“Litigating (former) Senator Hillary Clinton’s Legal Woes: A Response to Professor Rick Hasen (Election Law Blog) and Michael Stern (Point of Order blog)”
In a prior post, I wrote that in evaluating election law provisions, including qualifications, we should allow ties go to the runner, expand the democracy, allow the contested candidate to compete, and allow the voters to decide. I stand behind all of that. But in a conflict, should there be a conflict, between a criminal prosecution and an election, we have two competing principles: one, protecting the democratic process from wrongful manipulation by prosecutors and courts, and two, the rule of law, applying the criminal law without fear or favor to all, even against those who are politically connected. I certainly do not want prosecutors and courts pre-empting the voters in elections. But I also do not want a candidate’s participation in an election to amount to immunity in regard to established law, particularly where other (less fortunate) people have faced similar sanctions for similar conduct. This is a genuine conflict, it is not one which I have opined on in the past, and there are no easy solutions.
[. . .]
I know that my merely raising the legal issues which are likely to arise from a Clinton indictment or impeachment does not interfere with either democracy or “letting the voters decide.” Quite the opposite. Voters who have been fully informed about the legal jeopardy Senator Clinton may or may not face under Section 2071 exercise their voting rights in a more meaningful fashion than they otherwise would. If you do not agree with that, then tell me why?
There is much more of interest in Seth’s new post.
“Airbnb slammed“. So passive. Who slammed them? Palestinians engaged in lawfare and mediafare against Israel. An accurate headline would be, “Palestinians open new front in boycott campaign against Israel”.
The Palestinian Authority says offering vacation rental properties in Jewish homes in the occupied West Bank, through U.S.-based sites such as Airbnb, Booking.com and TripAdvisor, violates international law.
No word on whether apartment owners in Mecca are using Airbnb to rent to Jews and Christians.
“Democratic Party Iowa Vote Total: under 1,500 votes — 1,500 votes — 1,500 votes: Did the Democratic Party Just Implode in Iowa?”
94% of the precincts have reported (for the Democrats). The Democratic Party vote is … 660 votes for Clinton, and 649 votes for Sanders, with each candidate getting around 50% of the Democratic Party vote, and 21 convention delegates.
Between Sanders and Clinton, there are fewer than 1,500 votes.
Seth’s brief post is worth reading in full.
UPDATE: Seth has amended his post in response to reader comments.
Guess whose candidacy raises the most complex and troubling legal questions?
There are many fora (including several widely read individual, group, and journal-run blogs) whose mission, if not primary mission, includes discussion of time-sensitive legal issues of public interest. Should not the public be informed about these Clinton-related possibilities and risks well before votes are cast? Why the silence among journalists, academic commentators (with expertise in election law, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation), and bloggers who usually very much like to write on issues of public moment? Would not this make a suitable–if not outstanding–journal symposium issue: “The Hillary Clinton Candidacy–The Legal Issues”? Any takers?
Given the silence, you would almost think “natural born citizen” were the only legal issue out there. Odd isn’t it?
Something similar happened in the early ’90s. It looked as though a political consensus favoring smaller government was taking shape. Republicans with a well-considered smaller-govt agenda took over the Congress and the Democrats started to cut deals with them. Then the Oklahoma City bombing happened, the Clinton Democrats outmaneuvered the Gingrich Republicans over the government shutdown, and the smaller-government impetus was weakened considerably (we did get cap-gains tax cuts, welfare and a few other reforms that did a lot of good in the subsequent decade).
But then Sept. 11, 2001 and the Middle East war kicked much of what was left of the smaller-government movement over the far horizon, and since 2009 a hard-Left executive branch has been extending and doing its best to entrench post-Reagan government expansion.
There are tides in the affairs of men. The problem with tides is that they can go out for a long time before they reverse and start to come in. Let’s hope that the statist tide has finally run its course and that we are near a reversal.
Professor McDonald was and will remain—long into the distant future—among the most influential historians on American history, particularly in regard to the American Revolution and the Constitution’s framing era. Some people might say he was the most influential historian of his generation. He wrote for both academics and the wider public. He also was part of the recrudescence of pro-Hamiltonian scholarship—not a small achievement considering he did this while writing in 1970s U.S. academia and while teaching in the deepest South. He wrote boldly, and he also experimented with new ideas about the past, including the so-called Celtic hypothesis.
I am not going to describe his vitae or his personal life (about which I know little). These things have been and are being done well in many other forums. Here I want to describe how kind McDonald was to me personally.
Worth reading in full.
Tillman on Lamya H: “Your complaint is that your psychology professor was too—fat? I am so sorry. I can see that that would ruin your freshman experience. You were expecting? Luke Skywalker during his youth? Princess Leia Organa during her Jabba the Hutt years?”
From: Seth Barrett Tillman, Return of the Letter to a Young Social Justice Warrior—responding to Lamya H.’s: A personal history of Islamophobia in America, Vox (January 15, 2016), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2719141.
(Related post: “Dear Young Social Justice Warrior”.)
“Seth Barrett Tillman’s Recommended Irish, British, and other European Blogs (and other publications)”
This is a good list and it’s worth reading Seth’s post for more information.
(I’ve added his links to our blogroll.)
“From the “You Can’t Make It Up Collection”: Derek Scally writing for The Irish Times on the Cologne Attacks”
If Scally knows the difference between groping and raping, then his usage here publicly victimized the victim a second time, and he also misinformed all his Irish Times readers. On the other hand, if Scally’s command of standard English usage is so poor to the extent that he really does not know the difference, then he should open his eyes, mind, and heart, and speak to his mother, sister, or daughter—someone—anyone—or, he could just buy a standard college-level English dictionary. But either way, whether Scally knows the difference or not, The Irish Times has lost my trust.
Below is a list of the books, ebooks, music and videos that Chicago Boyz readers viewed and/or ordered in December 2015 via Amazon links on this blog. (A cumulative list of Chicago Boyz readers’ Amazon purchases is here.)
Your book and non-book Amazon purchases help to support this blog via the Amazon Associates program. Chicago Boyz earns a percentage on all of your Amazon purchases as long as you get to the Amazon site by clicking on Amazon links on this blog (including the Amazon banner in the blog header, the link under the Amazon banner, and even Amazon links on Chicago Boyz for products other than the ones that you want to buy).
Seth will be speaking at the Federalist Society conference tomorrow (Friday), January 08, 2016, at around 11:00 AM at the Sheraton NY Times Square Hotel. Subject: Seth Barrett Tillman, Ex parte Merryman: Myth, History, and Scholarship, Military Law Review (forthcoming circa Summer 2016) (peer reviewed), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2646888
DJIA – down 225
NASDAQ – down 48
LMT – up 0.7%
NOC – unch
OA – up 0.7%
RTN – up 0.4%
SWHC – up 6% yesterday, up 11% this morning
RGR – up 3% yesterday, up 7% this morning
“An Open Letter to Mark Steyn, Simon Heffer, Milo Yiannopoulos, Breitbart (London), and His Grace, Archbishop Cranmer”
We are rapidly approaching the 50th anniversary of Enoch Powell’s Birmingham speech on immigration, more popularly known as the Rivers of Blood speech (April 20, 1968). Powell spoke out against unlimited immigration to England from Commonwealth nations. Because at that time such immigrants were predominantly West Indians and Asians, many saw Powell’s speech as covertly racialist…
Seth has a follow-up question.
Before heating frozen haddock fillets in your toaster oven, make sure to clean out the candle wax that dripped from the Hanukkah lamp you put in there for easy cleaning a few weeks ago.
Pro tip: A handful of sodium bicarbonate does a pretty good job on flames and you will not need to salt your food afterwards.
“A Critique of Two Left-of-Centre Views of the United States Constitution: Professor Akhil Amar & Professor Lawrence Lessig”
Professor Akhil Amar (Yale Law School) and Professor Lawrence Lessig (Harvard Law School) have both written on the scope of the Constitution’s office-language. Indeed, their individual views on the scope of the Constitution’s office-language are central to (some of) the leading theories they have each popularized.
[. . .]
Amar and Lessig cannot both be correct. At most: only one can be correct. We, the public, deserve a full, meaningful debate: not a cult—or, even, two well-placed elite academic cults—whose chief sacraments are omerta and humbug.
Will anyone—particularly those on the Left—step forward? Or will the many who have supported both Professor Amar’s and Professor Lessig’s views in this matter continue to support both, notwithstanding that these two views contradict one another?