Jack Rakove
@jrakove.bsky.social
Native Cook County Democrat, Cubs fan, and long-time historian of the American Revolution and Constitution
Reposted by Jack Rakove
With his ultimatum that Ukraine surrender to Russia, Trump finally wins a prize:
The Neville Chamberlain award for betraying peace, freedom, and justice.
The Neville Chamberlain award for betraying peace, freedom, and justice.
November 21, 2025 at 11:49 PM
With his ultimatum that Ukraine surrender to Russia, Trump finally wins a prize:
The Neville Chamberlain award for betraying peace, freedom, and justice.
The Neville Chamberlain award for betraying peace, freedom, and justice.
Well worth a read for its ironclad reasoning, no matter how much its conclusions will depress you.
www.motherjones.com/politics/202...
www.motherjones.com/politics/202...
This is all John Roberts’ fault
Trump owes his corrupt and abusive reign to one man.
www.motherjones.com
November 22, 2025 at 5:03 PM
Well worth a read for its ironclad reasoning, no matter how much its conclusions will depress you.
www.motherjones.com/politics/202...
www.motherjones.com/politics/202...
Having just watched the final episode of Ken Burns' series on the American Revolution reach its platitudinous conclusions, it did seem to me that there was one curious omission. It never asks the question, what was it that made the Revolution revolutionary? Who knows?
November 22, 2025 at 5:42 AM
Having just watched the final episode of Ken Burns' series on the American Revolution reach its platitudinous conclusions, it did seem to me that there was one curious omission. It never asks the question, what was it that made the Revolution revolutionary? Who knows?
Whatever one thinks of Mamdani--and I do not think that local chapters of Hamas are about to start drilling in Central Park--he has already proven that he is quite a political strategist, so I would not second-guess him (at least yet).
And at this point, nothing could ever legitimize Trump.
And at this point, nothing could ever legitimize Trump.
The Trump - Mamdani meeting obviously makes Trump look silly. But I confess to feeling unease that Mamdani took the meeting at all. Isn’t it a bit legitimizing? I’m torn on this, so I’m genuinely curious what people think.
November 21, 2025 at 9:51 PM
Whatever one thinks of Mamdani--and I do not think that local chapters of Hamas are about to start drilling in Central Park--he has already proven that he is quite a political strategist, so I would not second-guess him (at least yet).
And at this point, nothing could ever legitimize Trump.
And at this point, nothing could ever legitimize Trump.
After watching an episode of Slow Horses tonight, I said, let's see what's up with Ken Burns' Revolution. All I can say is, whatever possessed him to think that the best way to get Americans to think seriously about the legacy of the Revolution is to review the history of the Revolutionary War?
November 21, 2025 at 4:56 AM
After watching an episode of Slow Horses tonight, I said, let's see what's up with Ken Burns' Revolution. All I can say is, whatever possessed him to think that the best way to get Americans to think seriously about the legacy of the Revolution is to review the history of the Revolutionary War?
If anything positive develops, let us know. It all seems quite boring and slow moving to me. Might do an episode of Slow Horses instead. Or maybe Fauda.
Preparing for the American Revolution: Episode 5.
Looking for greater balance, more energy this evening. #HATM
Looking for greater balance, more energy this evening. #HATM
November 21, 2025 at 1:03 AM
If anything positive develops, let us know. It all seems quite boring and slow moving to me. Might do an episode of Slow Horses instead. Or maybe Fauda.
And then there's the great summary judgment about any tidy separation of powers in Madison's Federalist 37:
"Questions daily occur in the course of practice, which prove the obscurity which reins in these subjects, and which puzzle the greatest adepts in political science."
"Questions daily occur in the course of practice, which prove the obscurity which reins in these subjects, and which puzzle the greatest adepts in political science."
Richard Neustadt famously stated that we don't actually have separation of powers; we have "separate institutions sharing powers". Very different practical implications.
i think the vision of rigid separation of powers and no independent agencies articulated here is unserious and unworkable. these are just slogans untethered from either the history or reality of american governance.
November 20, 2025 at 3:58 PM
And then there's the great summary judgment about any tidy separation of powers in Madison's Federalist 37:
"Questions daily occur in the course of practice, which prove the obscurity which reins in these subjects, and which puzzle the greatest adepts in political science."
"Questions daily occur in the course of practice, which prove the obscurity which reins in these subjects, and which puzzle the greatest adepts in political science."
Reposted by Jack Rakove
The Eric Schickler essay in Larry Bartel's symposium on "What Trump Has Taught Us About Political Science" is one of the most insightful pieces I've read in 2025.
US institutions turned out to be weak, and we have to rethink conventional wisdom.
open access: academic.oup.com/psq/advance-...
US institutions turned out to be weak, and we have to rethink conventional wisdom.
open access: academic.oup.com/psq/advance-...
November 19, 2025 at 8:08 PM
The Eric Schickler essay in Larry Bartel's symposium on "What Trump Has Taught Us About Political Science" is one of the most insightful pieces I've read in 2025.
US institutions turned out to be weak, and we have to rethink conventional wisdom.
open access: academic.oup.com/psq/advance-...
US institutions turned out to be weak, and we have to rethink conventional wisdom.
open access: academic.oup.com/psq/advance-...
Watching episode 2 of the Burns saga reminded me of Benjamin Rush's remark from 1786-87: "Nothing is more common than to confound the terms of the American revolution with those of the late American war. The American war is over: but this is far from being the case with the American revolution."
November 18, 2025 at 4:36 PM
Watching episode 2 of the Burns saga reminded me of Benjamin Rush's remark from 1786-87: "Nothing is more common than to confound the terms of the American revolution with those of the late American war. The American war is over: but this is far from being the case with the American revolution."
Make that two!
Congrats, Grace!!
November 18, 2025 at 3:35 PM
Make that two!
Really? I watched the first two hours last night and am not sure I can take any more. Nice to see colleagues on air (even my mentor, no longer with us, got a few seconds), but the content is so thin it just did not seem very energetic or informative.
The vast body of research that Ken Burns relied upon to make his new documentary on the American Revolution would be practically impossible to be produced today, what with the defunding of humanistic scholarship, the collapse of stable academic jobs, the attack on public history & academic freedom.🗃️
November 18, 2025 at 12:07 AM
Really? I watched the first two hours last night and am not sure I can take any more. Nice to see colleagues on air (even my mentor, no longer with us, got a few seconds), but the content is so thin it just did not seem very energetic or informative.
Could be another case of the malady known as SHEAR Madness.
I am often cast as a legal historian when I really think of myself as a politics guy.
But the better way to think of it is, it's not what kind of history you think you're practicing, but rather what kind of problems are you trying to solve.
I am often cast as a legal historian when I really think of myself as a politics guy.
But the better way to think of it is, it's not what kind of history you think you're practicing, but rather what kind of problems are you trying to solve.
November 16, 2025 at 12:25 AM
Could be another case of the malady known as SHEAR Madness.
I am often cast as a legal historian when I really think of myself as a politics guy.
But the better way to think of it is, it's not what kind of history you think you're practicing, but rather what kind of problems are you trying to solve.
I am often cast as a legal historian when I really think of myself as a politics guy.
But the better way to think of it is, it's not what kind of history you think you're practicing, but rather what kind of problems are you trying to solve.
As a stray comment, and something I chose not to write about in the essay, it seems strange to discuss liquidation in the era of Dobbs v. Marsh and when SCOTUS is willfully intent on liquidating (in the Stalinist sense) the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. But what do I know?
Shabbat shalom.
Shabbat shalom.
Great exchange on Madisonian liquidation between @jrakove.bsky.social and @williambaude.bsky.social here.
Rakove: jach.law.wisc.edu/madisonian-l...
Baude: jach.law.wisc.edu/liquidation-...
Rakove: jach.law.wisc.edu/madisonian-l...
Baude: jach.law.wisc.edu/liquidation-...
Madisonian Liquidation Unliquidated
by Jack Rakove
William Baude’s provocative essay on “Constitutional Liquidation,” published five years ago, is the best treatment of the subject. Whether the liquidation of constitutional indeterminac...
jach.law.wisc.edu
November 15, 2025 at 1:33 AM
As a stray comment, and something I chose not to write about in the essay, it seems strange to discuss liquidation in the era of Dobbs v. Marsh and when SCOTUS is willfully intent on liquidating (in the Stalinist sense) the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. But what do I know?
Shabbat shalom.
Shabbat shalom.
My thoughts on the ostensible problem of constitutional liquidation, in conversation with a companion piece by Will Baude, who happily teaches at my literal birthplace, the University of Chicago.
repository.law.wisc.edu/s/uwlaw/medi...
For Will's essay, see
jach.law.wisc.edu/liquidation-...
repository.law.wisc.edu/s/uwlaw/medi...
For Will's essay, see
jach.law.wisc.edu/liquidation-...
November 14, 2025 at 9:13 PM
My thoughts on the ostensible problem of constitutional liquidation, in conversation with a companion piece by Will Baude, who happily teaches at my literal birthplace, the University of Chicago.
repository.law.wisc.edu/s/uwlaw/medi...
For Will's essay, see
jach.law.wisc.edu/liquidation-...
repository.law.wisc.edu/s/uwlaw/medi...
For Will's essay, see
jach.law.wisc.edu/liquidation-...
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
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."
The sandwich came apart and "kind of exploded" on his chest upon impact, he says.
"I could smell the onions and mustard."
November 4, 2025 at 5:24 PM
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
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
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.
November 1, 2025 at 4:14 AM
Of course 2016 is the only one that really matters.
Reposted by Jack Rakove
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
October 29, 2025 at 1:39 PM
consider this part one of what will be an ongoing series making the case for an imperial congress (gift link)
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.
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.
October 25, 2025 at 4:25 AM
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."
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.
October 23, 2025 at 11:53 AM
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.
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.
October 21, 2025 at 4:24 PM
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.
Basic thesis: when crisis becomes endemic, as it now is, that means it is actually amounting to systemic failure, which is now the subject needing explanation.
October 18, 2025 at 12:10 AM
Basic thesis: when crisis becomes endemic, as it now is, that means it is actually amounting to systemic failure, which is now the subject needing explanation.
With a little better planning, it could have gone from Democracy to De**c***a*y" to complete meltdown.
An emotional minute as the word Democracy melts away in front of the US Capitol Building.
October 16, 2025 at 12:08 PM
With a little better planning, it could have gone from Democracy to De**c***a*y" to complete meltdown.
This is a model not only for academics but for anyone who wants to ask how universities and colleges should be acting as their fundamental autonomy is endangered.
tomginsburg.substack.com/p/on-the-com...
tomginsburg.substack.com/p/on-the-com...
October 16, 2025 at 4:23 AM
This is a model not only for academics but for anyone who wants to ask how universities and colleges should be acting as their fundamental autonomy is endangered.
tomginsburg.substack.com/p/on-the-com...
tomginsburg.substack.com/p/on-the-com...
Instead of memorandum, it would be better to say fiat, ukase, or diktat.
And instead of saying "expanding his administration's authority," it would be better to say "usurping the venerable authority of Congress" to control the budget.
And instead of saying "expanding his administration's authority," it would be better to say "usurping the venerable authority of Congress" to control the budget.
President Trump on Wednesday signed a memorandum expanding his administration’s authority to repurpose unspent federal funds to pay members of the military during the government shutdown, escalating his challenge to the authority of Congress on spending matters.
Trump Signs Memo Expanding His Authority to Spend Federal Money
The president gave Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wide authority to repurpose funds to pay members of the military without approval from Congress, which has the sole constitutional authority to decide federal spending.
nyti.ms
October 16, 2025 at 4:17 AM
Instead of memorandum, it would be better to say fiat, ukase, or diktat.
And instead of saying "expanding his administration's authority," it would be better to say "usurping the venerable authority of Congress" to control the budget.
And instead of saying "expanding his administration's authority," it would be better to say "usurping the venerable authority of Congress" to control the budget.
A simpler way to put it is that while the executive branch conducts relations with foreign governments, the foreign policy of the US in respect to commerce tariffs, and foreign aid is determined by Congress acting legislatively. It's not done by presidential diktat, fiat, or ukase.
This is a ridiculously broad understanding of the President's foreign affairs powers -- that the Executive Branch experiences "harms to [its] conduct of foreign affairs" when it is must spend foreign aid money appropriated in a bill signed by the President. Whither Congress's power of the purse?
September 28, 2025 at 7:39 AM
A simpler way to put it is that while the executive branch conducts relations with foreign governments, the foreign policy of the US in respect to commerce tariffs, and foreign aid is determined by Congress acting legislatively. It's not done by presidential diktat, fiat, or ukase.