Thanks, Nathaniel!
I'm looking forward to your important amicus with @narosenblum.bsky.social !

Thanks! Corrected.

@jdmortenson.bsky.social @andreascoseriakatz.bsky.social @levmenand.bsky.social @janemanners.bsky.social @jgienapp.bsky.social @narosenblum.bsky.social @dahlialithwick.bsky.social @beaubaumann.bsky.social @nwdonahue.bsky.social @patsobkowski.com @kewhittington.bsky.social @rickhills.bsky.social

I didn't clerk for Thomas or Scalia, or for that matter, any SCOTUS Justice.
And frankly, the way things are going, I sincerely appreciate this essay. I know many people won't think of it as courageous, but I've seen enough in the law school world to know that it is.

I think too many originalists cherry-pick from the First Congress, ignore overwhelming contrary evidence, and assume the First Congress is reliable evidence of original meaning.
@kexelchabot and I are both primarily fact-checkers who cautiously see some value from this evidence.

Here’s the song- just the intro echoed the Police. 2/
open.spotify.com/track/53iuhJ...

Sorry, this is the correct link to the Trump v. Cook amicus brief the SCOTUS site:
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...

SCOTUS link to amicus brief (Trump v. Cook) here:
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...

Offices can be both property and have sureties. It was not either/or.
The transition was so gradual, no one has identified when or even if offices are no longer protected as a form of property.

Marshall says Marbury is unremovable three times.
In 1803.
Why?
Because protected offices were still property, as I have explained in many places and publications, building on Manners and Menand,