Paul Gowder (@gowder.io) profile banner on Bluesky

Paul Gowder

@gowder.io

18.1Kfollowers
6.7Kfollowing
5.4Kposts

Prof @ Northwestern law, political theorist, cat parent. Black lives matter. Profile, pubs, etc: https://gowder.io All my books (rule of law, racial justice, platform governance) are downloadable in free open access pdf @ https://books.gowder.io

Top posts

Paul Gowder avatar
Paul Gowder·Sep 6

A couple more thoughts on this. There is exactly one crime defined in the U.S. Constitution: treason. The first definition is levying war against the United States. Trump is explicitly threatening that. U.S. soldiers are not only permitted, they are *obliged* to refuse an order to commit treason.

29
511
1.4K
Paul Gowder avatar
Paul Gowder·Aug 29

Officially prepared for the orange moron's national guard occupation (thanks @raygunsite.com )

Post image
13
130
886
Paul Gowder avatar
Paul Gowder·Sep 9

The president does not have the power to make laws. That’s literally the first (operative) sentence in the constitution. The president does not have the power to make laws. The president does not have the power to make laws. The president does not have the power to make laws.

21
145
520

Latest posts

Paul Gowder avatar
Paul Gowder·1d

cry havoc

Post image
0
0
3
Paul Gowder avatar
Paul Gowder·3d

reading Richard Epstein update: kill me now someone please (this one short enough that I actually managed to get alt text in for once)

pg. 79-80 more just asserting about the naturalization acts. in an attempt to refute a state law case from 1844 that applied the birthright principle to the child of a temporary sojourner (and cited it as the common law) he issues the following absurdity: 

> At no point does the court quote the language of the 1790 statute or its 1795 amendments. Both clearly do apply to the case of Julia Lynch. She did not become a natural citizen because her father did not attempt to become such, and the fate of the child follows that of the parent. Nor is there any reason to say that there are gaps in the statutory scheme, which has in fact provided a complete account of the treatment of children that "occupies the field," and thus leaves no room for state innovations or exceptions. It makes no sense to say the Naturalization Acts somehow do not apply to aliens who fail to seek naturalization. Of course they do. As with *Gardner* and with *Snug Harbor*, federal law controls, but federal law is ignored to wrongly apply a presumed British common law rule that the Naturalization Acts preempt.

	- WHAT?????  That "Of course they do" does an *insane* amount of work. Of course they do not!  The Naturalization Acts describe the conditions for citizenship by NATURALIZATION. It's right in the name. They do not "occupy the field" of defining who is a citizen by BIRTH, and they *obviously* do not, because they do not, among other things, specify the status of a person born in the U.S. to persons who are themselves U.S. citizens! This is a total non sequitur!!  Stupid stupid stupid!!!!!
7
8
56
Paul Gowder avatar
Paul Gowder·4d

I am trying ONCE AGAIN to get through all of Epstein's birthright citizenship book to try to reconstruct and answer the whole "argument" and it is so agonizing because every sentence requires 20 to explain why it's so horribly confused. A representative sample (sorry for too long for alt text):

Post image
5
7
34
Paul Gowder avatar
Paul Gowder·6d

Why does Walgreens even pretend to have vaccine appointments when you're inevitably waiting at least half an hour past the designated time. Worse than the DMV

1
1
12
Paul Gowder avatar
Paul Gowder·Oct 4

Has anyone bothered to actually sit down and rip up the stupid bonus argument about the word “resides” that the solicitor general trotted out in Barbara? It‘s not hard at all, can be done in a few screenshots of text (to be shoved into a symposium piece soon for your citing pleasure).

Post image 1
Post image 2
Post image 3
Post image 4
1
1
6
Paul Gowder avatar
Paul Gowder·Oct 3

I refuse to believe that Alito ever had friends

1
5
26