Very pleased to share my newly published "Indigenizing Legal Republicanism," out with the Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities. What can a neorepublican lens (eliminating domination) offer Indigenous Peoples Law? How can Indigenous philosophy refine legal republicanism?

“The nature of the Constitution … is that it is a brief against the exercise of arbitrary power. And here is the Supreme Court blessing a president’s exercise of arbitrary power as if the executive were the sovereign lord of the nation and not a mere servant of the Constitution.”
@jamellebouie.net

thinking of one of abraham lincoln's great quotes this morning:

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy."

I return to the work to recall how insistence keeps us alive, realizes the power of the seemingly powerless, gums up tyranny's gears, and affirms that freedom from domination is achievable. May this work and your own help us to insist on the reality of law and the requirement of liberation.

And so I keep returning to ideas in my own recent work, Indigenizing Legal Republicanism (forthcoming Yale J.L. & Human.), for renewed sense as I venture into tort theory that law has meaning. It is not, and must not be, an empty enterprise, unmade by mere say-so. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

. . . to gesture at old documents or new, to recite profound axioms or mundane, to evidence injuries great or small, and to insist on their bases that justice be done, democracy achieved. Scholarship too is insistence, our past selves advising our present ones, "This is what we now know."

It feels trivial, if also vital, to indulge in and share theory scholarship right now. But as I mused with my Civ Pro II students this morning, the lawyer’s greatest, most unique power is *to insist*: . . .

Very grateful to Lewis & Clark Law Review for all of their painstaking, thoughtful work on this. And for helping to make legal scholarship possible!

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
New: critical civ pro + legal change! I parse claim from count (theory of relief); theorize count proliferation; imagine cross-centuries doctrinal flux—simplicity (fewer open-textured counts) to complexity (more rigid counts) and back (at system failure or new rules).