Robert Black
@hurricanexyz.bsky.social
Constitutional scholar, general law nerd, Izzet mage, bear lover, Mets fan.
Trans rights are constitutional rights!
Uphold Yang Wenli Thought
He/him
https://www.eveningconstitutional.net
Trans rights are constitutional rights!
Uphold Yang Wenli Thought
He/him
https://www.eveningconstitutional.net
Y'all better get ready to support Markey in this primary
December 2, 2025 at 8:43 PM
Y'all better get ready to support Markey in this primary
Except this is somehow worse than careless, like, Hegseth loves violence and cruelty and destruction, he does a lot of it on purpose
It just turns out he ALSO does some of it, on top of that, out of reckless indifference
I hate him so much
It just turns out he ALSO does some of it, on top of that, out of reckless indifference
I hate him so much
December 2, 2025 at 8:42 PM
Except this is somehow worse than careless, like, Hegseth loves violence and cruelty and destruction, he does a lot of it on purpose
It just turns out he ALSO does some of it, on top of that, out of reckless indifference
I hate him so much
It just turns out he ALSO does some of it, on top of that, out of reckless indifference
I hate him so much
Yeah I basically just don't care
I know the correct answer (historical argument, yes that means argument from the intentions of the Founders, is one among several legitimate modes of legal reasoning), I don't need to join the debate about how many angels dance on a pin that isn't even there
I know the correct answer (historical argument, yes that means argument from the intentions of the Founders, is one among several legitimate modes of legal reasoning), I don't need to join the debate about how many angels dance on a pin that isn't even there
December 2, 2025 at 8:23 PM
Yeah I basically just don't care
I know the correct answer (historical argument, yes that means argument from the intentions of the Founders, is one among several legitimate modes of legal reasoning), I don't need to join the debate about how many angels dance on a pin that isn't even there
I know the correct answer (historical argument, yes that means argument from the intentions of the Founders, is one among several legitimate modes of legal reasoning), I don't need to join the debate about how many angels dance on a pin that isn't even there
Do they have an answer for "John Marshall was very obviously using all six of Bobbitt's modalities"?
December 2, 2025 at 8:20 PM
Do they have an answer for "John Marshall was very obviously using all six of Bobbitt's modalities"?
(I confess to being not *that* familiar with these metaphysics-of-originalism fights haha)
December 2, 2025 at 8:15 PM
(I confess to being not *that* familiar with these metaphysics-of-originalism fights haha)
Oh yeah they almost certainly do not lol
Since, you know, they need to justify a conclusion that is false
Since, you know, they need to justify a conclusion that is false
December 2, 2025 at 8:15 PM
Oh yeah they almost certainly do not lol
Since, you know, they need to justify a conclusion that is false
Since, you know, they need to justify a conclusion that is false
Anyway I might actually bang out the next installment later today. Once you get worked up writing about slavery, it's easy to keep going haha. We'll see.
December 2, 2025 at 8:14 PM
Anyway I might actually bang out the next installment later today. Once you get worked up writing about slavery, it's easy to keep going haha. We'll see.
Right. Katrina wasn't exactly unforced, although like, he didn't NEED to have Michael Brown be FEMA head lol
But they could've Just Not, with social security
But they could've Just Not, with social security
December 2, 2025 at 8:13 PM
Right. Katrina wasn't exactly unforced, although like, he didn't NEED to have Michael Brown be FEMA head lol
But they could've Just Not, with social security
But they could've Just Not, with social security
The pitch the South Carolina planter class made to the yeomen farmers, to get the latter to vote for nullification against their own economic interest , should sound realllllll familiar
December 2, 2025 at 8:12 PM
The pitch the South Carolina planter class made to the yeomen farmers, to get the latter to vote for nullification against their own economic interest , should sound realllllll familiar
We are going to meet the Nullification Crisis, in particular, again when we get to Level Two. For today's purposes I only very lightly brush up against the big constitutional issues at stake; the point is how it acted as a crucible for the development of "positive good" ideology
December 2, 2025 at 8:11 PM
We are going to meet the Nullification Crisis, in particular, again when we get to Level Two. For today's purposes I only very lightly brush up against the big constitutional issues at stake; the point is how it acted as a crucible for the development of "positive good" ideology
Social security privatization bill 2005
December 2, 2025 at 8:10 PM
Social security privatization bill 2005
Next time I will actually cover the lead-in to the Civil War, the destabilization of the Missouri Compromise equilibrium, the Compromise of 1850, and the decade of chaos it unleashed.
Then Reconstruction, and then... that's basically it for Level One???
Then Reconstruction, and then... that's basically it for Level One???
December 2, 2025 at 8:10 PM
Next time I will actually cover the lead-in to the Civil War, the destabilization of the Missouri Compromise equilibrium, the Compromise of 1850, and the decade of chaos it unleashed.
Then Reconstruction, and then... that's basically it for Level One???
Then Reconstruction, and then... that's basically it for Level One???
When I started writing this, I thought it was going to cover the story all the way from the Founding up to the Civil War.
Ha.
No, this is just from the Founding to 1833: on the one hand, the Missouri Compromise of 1820; on the other, Nat Turner's Rebellion and the Nullification Crisis
Ha.
No, this is just from the Founding to 1833: on the one hand, the Missouri Compromise of 1820; on the other, Nat Turner's Rebellion and the Nullification Crisis
December 2, 2025 at 8:09 PM
When I started writing this, I thought it was going to cover the story all the way from the Founding up to the Civil War.
Ha.
No, this is just from the Founding to 1833: on the one hand, the Missouri Compromise of 1820; on the other, Nat Turner's Rebellion and the Nullification Crisis
Ha.
No, this is just from the Founding to 1833: on the one hand, the Missouri Compromise of 1820; on the other, Nat Turner's Rebellion and the Nullification Crisis
Because you can't appeal an acquittal, I assume
December 2, 2025 at 6:28 PM
Because you can't appeal an acquittal, I assume
We deserve a government that is better at prosecuting and punishing murderers 🤷♂️
December 2, 2025 at 6:25 PM
We deserve a government that is better at prosecuting and punishing murderers 🤷♂️
Yes! When I clerked for a district court judge, he would always say they were the best part of his schedule, the only time a bunch of people walk into court and they all leave happy
December 2, 2025 at 5:19 PM
Yes! When I clerked for a district court judge, he would always say they were the best part of his schedule, the only time a bunch of people walk into court and they all leave happy
That's partly because I take the I think unorthodox view that they don't matter nearly as much as all the participants in that debate seem to think
(E.g., Scalia is still doing historical argument, just like Meese, even though he purports to disclaim "original intent.")
(E.g., Scalia is still doing historical argument, just like Meese, even though he purports to disclaim "original intent.")
December 2, 2025 at 5:13 PM
That's partly because I take the I think unorthodox view that they don't matter nearly as much as all the participants in that debate seem to think
(E.g., Scalia is still doing historical argument, just like Meese, even though he purports to disclaim "original intent.")
(E.g., Scalia is still doing historical argument, just like Meese, even though he purports to disclaim "original intent.")
Haha sure
Honestly I personally would probably not to try to get super deep in the weeds of all the different metaphysical accounts given for originalism with the 1Ls haha, but,
Honestly I personally would probably not to try to get super deep in the weeds of all the different metaphysical accounts given for originalism with the 1Ls haha, but,
December 2, 2025 at 5:12 PM
Haha sure
Honestly I personally would probably not to try to get super deep in the weeds of all the different metaphysical accounts given for originalism with the 1Ls haha, but,
Honestly I personally would probably not to try to get super deep in the weeds of all the different metaphysical accounts given for originalism with the 1Ls haha, but,
Not entirely! A good reason to use those methods of reasoning which are generally acknowledged by the legal and political culture as Legitimate Law is to maintain the legitimacy of the system
December 2, 2025 at 5:11 PM
Not entirely! A good reason to use those methods of reasoning which are generally acknowledged by the legal and political culture as Legitimate Law is to maintain the legitimacy of the system
Oh, sorry, I guess we were stipulating the (wrong) fact claim?
I guess you could say it's the way Bobbitt frames the modalities (recognized as legitimate law by convention; they could be different but then we would be different, etc.) except only for one of them?
I guess you could say it's the way Bobbitt frames the modalities (recognized as legitimate law by convention; they could be different but then we would be different, etc.) except only for one of them?
December 2, 2025 at 5:09 PM
Oh, sorry, I guess we were stipulating the (wrong) fact claim?
I guess you could say it's the way Bobbitt frames the modalities (recognized as legitimate law by convention; they could be different but then we would be different, etc.) except only for one of them?
I guess you could say it's the way Bobbitt frames the modalities (recognized as legitimate law by convention; they could be different but then we would be different, etc.) except only for one of them?
Yeah, this is just entirely false. "Originalism," or really the historical modality, has been a PART of our law since the beginning, and therefore is a part of our law today.
But so were, and are, the other five modes
But so were, and are, the other five modes
December 2, 2025 at 5:07 PM
Yeah, this is just entirely false. "Originalism," or really the historical modality, has been a PART of our law since the beginning, and therefore is a part of our law today.
But so were, and are, the other five modes
But so were, and are, the other five modes