Jack Rakove
banner
jrakove.bsky.social
Jack Rakove
@jrakove.bsky.social

Native Cook County Democrat, Cubs fan, and long-time historian of the American Revolution and Constitution

Jack Norman Rakove is an American historian, author, and professor at Stanford University. He is a Pulitzer Prize winner.

Source: Wikipedia
Political science 72%
Economics 9%

I watched it. And as I previously tweeted (but not skeeted) my sister lives a block away from the recent incident that happened on Asbury just north of Oakton. cf:
x.com/JRakove/stat...
I rarely post to the nazi site but there are some people I still follow there.

A quick historical footnote: When I was writing my first book on the Continental Congress, I found a few references to disaffected Americans hankering for "the onions and the garlic" of imperial Britain (under Pharaoh George III). Washington also liked the image of the vine & fig tree: he had both.

But of course Lairmore represents Pharaoh's army, not the migrants seeking refuge in the promised land, which includes my hometown of Evanston, the subject of Rachel Maddow's final segment in last night's episode.

In fact this is an obscure evocation of Numbers 11:5
We remember the fish, which we were wont to eat in Egypt for nought; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic;
זָכַרְנוּ, אֶת-הַדָּגָה, אֲשֶׁר-נֹאכַל בְּמִצְרַיִם, חִנָּם; אֵת הַקִּשֻּׁאִים, וְאֵת הָאֲבַטִּחִים, וְאֶת-הֶחָצִיר וְאֶת-הַבְּצָלִים, וְאֶת-הַשּׁוּמִים
Border Patrol agent Lairmore testifies that he was not injured by the sandwich, but he felt the impact through his ballistic vest.

The sandwich came apart and "kind of exploded" on his chest upon impact, he says.

"I could smell the onions and mustard."
Border Patrol agent Lairmore testifies that he was not injured by the sandwich, but he felt the impact through his ballistic vest.

The sandwich came apart and "kind of exploded" on his chest upon impact, he says.

"I could smell the onions and mustard."

Of course 2016 is the only one that really matters.
No matter what happens tomorrow, I think this World Series is going to be up there with 1975, 1991, and 2001.

Reposted by Jack N. Rakove

No matter what happens tomorrow, I think this World Series is going to be up there with 1975, 1991, and 2001.

Having been emeritus for six years, I am out of the loop on these things. Probably have to work through the Freeman Spogli Institute, I'd guess.

driven near it many times on the Ridge to Peterson to Lake Shore Drive route

Waldheim?
consider this part one of what will be an ongoing series making the case for an imperial congress (gift link)
Opinion | The Empty Promises of Trump’s Imperial Presidency
www.nytimes.com

Actually, Alyssa, my current projects include a working essay on A Theory of Constitutional Failure: The American Case, collaborating with a former student who had a major role in the January 6 prosecutions.

Probably the same way I steeped them in constitutional history, which might be politically dangerous right now, too.

When did Taney change his first name to Robert? Was it a post mortem reaction to the controversy over Dred Scott?

I'll take your word for it. But the causes of the fall-of-Rome problem are probably over-determined.

But more important, they also demonstrate why (thinking historically) the idea of legislative supremacy remains a bedrock norm of Anglo-American constitutionalism, tout simple, with or without the narishkeit of the United Executive Theory, now reaching its apotheosis.

The other technique was the annual enactment of the Mutiny Act, which evolved into a framework for regulating military discipline and other facets of military life.
Both practices set the conceptual foundation for the fundamental principle of civilian control of the military.

From that point on, the House of Commons used two techniques to ensure both its control of the entire process and the idea that it would meet annually. One was the practice of annual supplies, meaning that military appropriations were done on that basis. (Our constitutional norm is every two years.)
Charles II, the restored king, retained the power to fund the military on his own, without parliamentary assent. And indeed the suspension of Parliament was one of the main grievances underlying the Glorious Revolution (1688-89) and its ensuing "settlement."
Appropriations are *legislative* under the Constitution. *Military* funding in particular must stem from regular legislative deliberation (hence military appropriations may not extend beyond 2 years).

Private military funding brokered by the President = constitutional outrage.
Breaking News: The U.S. military accepted a private donation of $130 million to help pay troops during the shutdown. The move is highly unusual and a potential violation of federal law.
Appropriations are *legislative* under the Constitution. *Military* funding in particular must stem from regular legislative deliberation (hence military appropriations may not extend beyond 2 years).

Private military funding brokered by the President = constitutional outrage.
Breaking News: The U.S. military accepted a private donation of $130 million to help pay troops during the shutdown. The move is highly unusual and a potential violation of federal law.
Trump to Use $130 Million Donation to Help Pay Troops
It is not clear how far the gift will go toward covering the salaries of the nation’s 1.3 million troops.
nyti.ms

I'm a bit hesitant about this because I am in Tashkent right now, starting two days of flying home tomorrow, and away from my sources. But wasn't it often said that Thomson purged his papers late in life?

But I have often wondered whether he also kept notes of debates (as opposed to motions, votes, &c as in the JCC) that he later destroyed. Why? Because (if memory serves) there was a good set from 1782 relating to debates on the Vermont question that were published (I think) in the NYHS Collections.
Just pondering Charles Thomson, the secretary of the Continental Congress, who served from 1774 through the adoption of the Constitution in 1789. His choices about recording proceedings were immensely important. This is his signature on an edition of the journals of congress for 1774.

Reposted by Jack N. Rakove

Just pondering Charles Thomson, the secretary of the Continental Congress, who served from 1774 through the adoption of the Constitution in 1789. His choices about recording proceedings were immensely important. This is his signature on an edition of the journals of congress for 1774.

I would (quite likely) agree that judicial review of legislative rule making is not feasible and constitutionally improper. But that does not make the practice itself constitutional.

That strikes me as a reductio ad absurdum that explains why your position is badly mistaken. The founders did not adopt the position of the Polish diet. If it has to do with quorum calls or whatever that's one thing, but if it is about the adoption of legislation, it's another matter entirely.

That's the point I'm challenging: the convergence of a rule of deliberation with a rule of decision. The Constitution grants power over the former to each house, but it sets the rules for the latter. Suppose senators made the vote needed for cloture to 3/4 of its members: would that be legitimate?

Reposted by Steven S. Smith

I've long thought the filibuster unconstitutional on two grounds: (1) a rule of deliberation within one house has become an effective rule of decision, and (2) under the expressio unius exclusio alterius principle, one cannot add new supermajoritarian requirements for lawmaking to the Constitution.
I know we don’t live on this kind of timeline, but if the GOP nukes the filibuster I am personally going to jump through the roof in joy.

Reposted by Jack N. Rakove

I know we don’t live on this kind of timeline, but if the GOP nukes the filibuster I am personally going to jump through the roof in joy.

Just arrived in Samarkand to do some culinary research (not! how much shashlik and how many smosas can one eat?). My cookbook collection is decent but not humongous. Joyce Goldstein's Mediterranean Kitchen is probably my favorite. But I have been cooking for half a century.

We grew up on roast beef and, no, we’re not vegans. But we do eat a well balanced diet. I never met a zucchini or an asparagus until after I married (also in the Nixon years).