C.S.
LightNews LightNews
cephander.bsky.social
C.S.
@cephander.bsky.social
230 followers 320 following 1.6K posts
he/they | polisci major (for my sins), recovering theatre kid, seattle mariners enthusiast, food discourse centrist, theoretically I write sometimes
Posts Replies Media Videos
cephander.bsky.social
Oh I hate buying clothes so much I learned how to darn my socks instead of losing them to attrition
December 27, 2025 at 11:17 PM
Reposted by C.S.
videogamep.bsky.social
If his definition of American requires viewing things through a 2000 year old lens that has never been part of American legal tradition, then maybe, just maybe, he took a wrong turn somewhere.
December 27, 2025 at 5:20 PM
Reposted by C.S.
videogamep.bsky.social
The biggest irony of all, though, is that Vermeule is trying to come up with a definition of American by importing a foreign legal tradition. One of the core features of American law is that it's built on English common law, NOT Roman civil law.
Unlike the heritage view, at least in its purest form, the model of adoption I have offered from the principles of Roman law does not say that the right sort of descent by blood is necessary to be fully American. But, unlike the pure form of the creedal view, this model also understands that it may be harmful for a natural family to take in too many adopted children at once — a concern analogous to Roman scrutiny of adrogations that might unduly burden an existing household (cf. D. 1.7.15, which admonishes against adrogating several children). Most of all, it understands that the adopted child of the American family who appoints himself a mere critic or even a political enemy of the traditions, the culture, and the very substance of that family and its history, has violated the filial obligations of pietas and reverentia, and is thus no true American at all. In this sense, our law and its interpretation should reflect what being an American really means.
December 27, 2025 at 5:20 PM
Reposted by C.S.
videogamep.bsky.social
And again, Vermeule fails to explain why the statutes he cites incorporate Roman ideas, he just declares that they do because he wants them to.
For the immigrant to denigrate the heritage, culture and history of the very nation that opened its doors to him, to neglect or to belittle the ancestral cult of the very family has granted him the privilege of being counted by the law as their child, is in a substantive sense for the immigrant to self-denaturalize. He thereby forfeits the privilege of being treated as though he is a natural child of the American family. Such principles of legal justice can and should make up the spirit that informs the interpretation of our laws, such as the provision (18 U.S.C. 1425(a)) that establishes penalties for anyone who “knowingly procures or attempts to procure, contrary to law, the naturalization of any person” (my emphasis), including the immigrant himself; or the provision (8 U.S.C. 1451) allowing de-naturalization of those who, within five years of naturalization, “become a member of or affiliated with any organization, membership in or affiliation with which at the time of naturalization would have precluded such person from naturalization,” because such membership or affiliation is “prima facie evidence that such person was not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and was not well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States at the time of naturalization.” When interpreting such provisions, executive officers and judges ought not read them in a cramped and strictly positivist way, but in a way that captures the point and spirit of citizenship-as-adoption.
December 27, 2025 at 5:20 PM
Reposted by C.S.
videogamep.bsky.social
There's also a certain irony in Vermeule declaring that immigrants must show respect for American traditions when those same traditions include a right to criticize this country.
December 27, 2025 at 5:20 PM
Reposted by C.S.
videogamep.bsky.social
He also disdainfully mentions "positive law" in a few places, framing it as something insignificant and insubstantial. What is positive law? It's what everyone else would call "law." He literally means the statutes and Constitution of this country, which he deems "thin" and "minimum."
He must not say, even to himself, “all of that history happened before I got here; it has nothing to do with me and mine; we are free to wield our rights however we like, free to do as we like within the minimum boundaries of the positive law.” In contrast to Ilhan Omar and her kind, he must not assume that because he has the right legal status in the thin positive-law sense, he is free to spew venom at the American ancestors who built the very framework of society and legality that now protects his speech, his livelihood, and his very life.
December 27, 2025 at 5:20 PM
Reposted by C.S.
videogamep.bsky.social
Is he saying the people who passed the INA in 1952 intended to incorporate Roman ideas of justice and fairness? That's obviously not true. Is he saying they shared the Romans' understanding of these ideas? Also obviously not true. So where does this idea come from? I don't know and he doesn't say.
December 27, 2025 at 5:20 PM
Reposted by C.S.
videogamep.bsky.social
Right away, he runs into the obvious question: why? And you know, he never actually answers it. Vermeule gestures toward the idea of the "spirit" of the law without saying how modern immigration law (largely stemming from a 1952 statute) incorporates the law and principles of ancient Rome.
Because it is an analogy, not an identity, what I propose is not a set of legal rules to be directly mapped from Roman law into the American legal system. Rather it is a suggestion that the Roman law of adoption rested on a set of discernible principles of legal justice and political morality that represent the spirit of the laws bearing on immigration and citizenship in America — a time-honored mode of legal interpretation here, albeit not an originalist mode. Such principles should affect the interpretation of actually existing legal texts, rules, and doctrines; they should be understood as the soul of our law of citizenship. Needless to say, this does not answer or even purport to speak to all questions bearing on immigration. I do not speak here, for example, to the enforcement of the immigration laws against illegal immigrants, or to prospective questions of policy about exactly how much legal immigration, if any, there should be, and from where. All I address is the question what principles of legal justice and political duty apply, under existing law, to the immigrant who is already here legally. To that end I suggest a conceptual model for understanding the role and obligations of that immigrant — what justice classically understood requires of him.
December 27, 2025 at 5:20 PM
Reposted by C.S.
joshuajfriedman.com
Goat down! I repeat: Goat down! www.dn.se/sverige/stor...
Auto-translation of news site: Storm Johannes overturned the Gävle goat. The Gävle goat has once again met an unfortunate fate.
December 27, 2025 at 5:43 PM
Reposted by C.S.
louisevans.bsky.social
> Roman analogy for citizenship rights
> never mentions the Edict of Caracalla

HACK DETECTED
December 26, 2025 at 8:37 PM
cephander.bsky.social
Similar to my sincere joy and delight at getting three identical pairs of socks. My Abuela knew that I buy all my socks as big batches of matching ones and that I’d been complaining about my feet being cold.
December 26, 2025 at 8:56 PM
cephander.bsky.social
What’s a Usenet? Was it like a telegraph? Or perhaps the pony express?
December 26, 2025 at 6:14 AM
cephander.bsky.social
Look you’re clearly a troll and I’m down for a fight to keep killing time but that’s so absurdly false and offensive I’m not dignifying it with a response. You have One Chance to pick something better to fight about
December 26, 2025 at 6:09 AM
cephander.bsky.social
> Andrew Tate
> Repented
LMAO
December 26, 2025 at 6:01 AM
cephander.bsky.social
A) who the fuck is “they”? B) if you spend a lot of time thinking about transitioning… you can do that instead of arguing with people on the internet. Might make you happy. just saying… I know lots of cis autistic people. They don’t spend that much mental energy on it
December 26, 2025 at 5:34 AM