If original intent is all that matters, if the LAW is only what the lawmakers specifically intended, then the text literally only matters *as evidence of original intent*

If we have reason to know that X was not intended, the fact that the text literally says X is immaterial

What does still work is that if a skeet video gets too much attention it stops working right, thus curtailing its misinformation value.

May his memory be a blessing

the idea that a handful of conservative legal scholars have an understanding that should supersede a settlement affirmed my generations of american is astoundingly arrogant, and the idea that trump — or any president — can unilaterally overturn that settlement is just despotism

If SCOTUS were to rule against the plain text of the 14th with specious reasoning - is there any precedent for that? Has SCOTUS ever done that to something in the Constitution proper? I know it is routine for laws passed by Congress (VRA), but this seems like a different scale.

Mediterranean Bronze Age societies were primarily dry land agriculture (little to confirmation). They were pretty directly exposed to variation in climate. But even the Egyptians with the comparatively of the Nile went through a decline. Whatever happened was pretty rough, and simultaneous.

Remember talking about these guys (Hittites) during my dissertation and criticizing the then-dominant economic arguments. “I am about to graduate into the Great Recession. I get that the economy is bad. But how bad would it have to be for me to forget how to speak or read English?”