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.

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?

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.)

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?

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?

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).