Samuel Issacharoff at Just Security t.co/72OCunr4jz

Jan-Werner Müller @jwmueller-pu.bsky.social at project syndicate (discussing Trump and Björn Höcke, a leader of the AfD) t.co/9zWUrQYbp7

The Lawfare debate between Sam Moyn @samuelmoyn.bsky.social and Ilya Somin www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...

Lawfare podcast debate between Samuel Motn @samuelmoyn.bsky.social and Ilya Somin www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...

For me, Carl Schmitt was an unexpected (long) detour on my way through Neumann and Kirchheimer

Yes!!!!!

My book lays out a new normative theory for defending constitutional democracy against legal revolutionary tactics. It defends the use of militant defenses of democracy, like the Art 67 “positive” vote of no confidence. It argues future constitutions should be designed that way

Only antidemocrats win when democratic government is decapitated during a crisis.

Constitutions should be designed to help democracy better defend itself against internal antidemocrats.

Whatever we think about McCarthy (I won’t shed any tears for him), his ouster paralyzes the US House until a successor is chosen - and US Congress has 40 days to avert a government shutdown (among its other problems)

In Weimar’s closing days, antidemocratic parties formed a “negative majority”. They used the vote of no confidence to cripple the government and delegitimate democracy in the eyes of ordinary voters

Weimar jurists warned about extremists’ use of the vote of no confidence to decapitate a gov’t and worsen a crisis.

Their theories later led to the Art. 67 “positive vote of no confidence” in the German Basic Law: a no confidence vote passes only if a successor is also elected