You know, another thought about this: the bad habit we get into of thinking of the Constitution just as a thing that imposes limits is part of the problem here I think
Replies
9th amendment dead letter strikes again
aug 31, 2025, 2:29 pm • 0 0 • view
Not even! But yeah kind of
aug 31, 2025, 2:33 pm • 0 0 • view
As I discuss here, the Constitution is the thing that gives any of the organs of government their powers, their very existence Therefore, except insofar as they act pursuant to the Constitution, pumice officials have no more power than you or I
aug 31, 2025, 2:30 pm • 33 3 • view
Yes! Reframing it this way is so key. The ex post facto nature of judicial relief helps perpetuate the rote characterization of the Constitution as (merely) a limiting document. That focus imputes legitimacy to gov't action & gov't actors *unless* a court says otherwise. All gas, no brakes.
aug 31, 2025, 4:20 pm • 1 0 • view
Right, but of course the Marbury story of judicial review depends on the whole ultra vires = null and void thing! (Not that it's fashionable to believe in the Marbury story these days 🙄)
aug 31, 2025, 4:26 pm • 1 0 • view
For sure! I'm thinking less about lawyers and the law itself than about how the limits-only framing affects the "people" side of the social compact. Like, how it manifests in media coverage and the general public's conception of the government... if that makes any sense. xD xD
aug 31, 2025, 4:47 pm • 1 0 • view
Minus that second xD I didn't see I'd written. 😅
aug 31, 2025, 4:47 pm • 0 0 • view
Oh yes absolutely
aug 31, 2025, 4:50 pm • 1 0 • view
PUBLIC Public officials! Sheesh!
aug 31, 2025, 2:40 pm • 13 0 • view
Hey at least it wasn't pubic
aug 31, 2025, 2:41 pm • 1 0 • view
I think I'm pretty good at avoiding that one lol. But yeah public is one of those words that my phone autoswipe doesn't really enjoy
aug 31, 2025, 2:42 pm • 1 0 • view
The pen is mightier than the sword But damn if you aren't super careful it can also make you look like a fool However, that's better than not being super careful with a sword. You can lose your head that way haha
aug 31, 2025, 2:44 pm • 1 0 • view
(Yet.)
aug 31, 2025, 4:43 pm • 1 0 • view
Pumice officials with feet of clay, you may be on to something here.
aug 31, 2025, 2:43 pm • 3 0 • view
almost had me googling! 😂
aug 31, 2025, 2:52 pm • 0 0 • view
That makes more sense. I was about to look up pumice to see if it had a new meaning. It’s those damned anticipatory prompts that keep flitting around at the top of the keyboard!
aug 31, 2025, 5:06 pm • 1 0 • view
Politics is the strong and slow abrasion of hardened skin
aug 31, 2025, 2:47 pm • 1 0 • view
Sorry someone said it three times in a mirror, so it's pumice officials. This is now official canon.
aug 31, 2025, 2:44 pm • 1 0 • view
Seems fine 🤷♂️
aug 31, 2025, 2:46 pm • 1 0 • view
Well, they're certainly wearing ME down.
aug 31, 2025, 2:46 pm • 0 0 • view
Also true of pumice officials! (It’s a rough job)
aug 31, 2025, 2:44 pm • 1 0 • view
But if the Constitution is just about limits, then when Trump does something obviously ultra vires like this, people treat it as presumptive valid until and unless someone can show a problem with it, as though the very fact of the person who is president having done something means anything
aug 31, 2025, 2:32 pm • 27 2 • view
I can’t quite figure out how to articulate this, but I got the sense that the DC Circuit’s nonsensical impoundment decision was rooted in this same error balkin.blogspot.com/2025/08/the-...
aug 31, 2025, 4:13 pm • 2 0 • view
Very well said! It would do us well to remember that.
aug 31, 2025, 2:40 pm • 1 0 • view
It’s called “The Constitution” and not “The Prohibitions” for a reason!
aug 31, 2025, 2:54 pm • 9 2 • view
And essentially no one ever stops to think about that
aug 31, 2025, 2:55 pm • 4 0 • view
say more?
aug 31, 2025, 2:29 pm • 14 0 • view
This, basically bsky.app/profile/hurr...
aug 31, 2025, 2:33 pm • 13 0 • view
The idea of "ultra vires" has sort of dropped out of our constitutional vocabulary
aug 31, 2025, 2:34 pm • 19 0 • view
Of course things like QI and the Trump immunity decision contribute to this as well
aug 31, 2025, 2:35 pm • 10 0 • view
Outstanding point.
aug 31, 2025, 2:29 pm • 1 1 • view
Thanks!
aug 31, 2025, 2:32 pm • 0 0 • view
We also see this in how SCOTUS has treated the litigation against Trump, which has been disastrous for our democracy. This 👇 appears to provide a slightly different, but consistent, framing. bsky.app/profile/maxk...
aug 31, 2025, 2:56 pm • 1 0 • view
The conception of rule of law we need to strive for is that, for the individual, everything is permitted unless expressly prohibited; for the state nothing is permitted unless expressly provided.
aug 31, 2025, 3:49 pm • 1 0 • view
there’s no rule in the constitution saying a dog can’t play basketball
aug 31, 2025, 2:30 pm • 1 0 • view
That’s Trump’s forte—doing whatever he wants as though it’s perfectly valid. Maybe somebody will stop him, maybe not. The messed up thing is that in most of his life, nobody has stopped him, or if they have, the consequences haven’t been punitive to him personally so it’s in fact a great strategy.
aug 31, 2025, 6:41 pm • 0 0 • view