@raphus.bsky.social
Not especially intelligent though.
February 12, 2026 at 7:54 AM
Not especially intelligent though.
I think there’s a lot to be said for the older conception that some people are Like That and we benefit from keeping an eye out for when they slip up and reveal themselves.
February 12, 2026 at 7:02 AM
I think there’s a lot to be said for the older conception that some people are Like That and we benefit from keeping an eye out for when they slip up and reveal themselves.
This distinction has basically been entirely lost in the modern day and “felony” now mostly means “crime with a serious penalty”, which for appropriate balancing of incentives reasons has to include some things that don’t necessarily correspond to the older conception.
February 12, 2026 at 6:57 AM
This distinction has basically been entirely lost in the modern day and “felony” now mostly means “crime with a serious penalty”, which for appropriate balancing of incentives reasons has to include some things that don’t necessarily correspond to the older conception.
This is sort of where we get the misdemeanor/felony distinction from. Some meh things are crimes and normal people can screw up, so the thinking goes, but some crimes reveal that Something Is Wrong With You™️, and get you labeled for future reference as a “felon” (from Old French “evildoer”).
February 12, 2026 at 6:57 AM
This is sort of where we get the misdemeanor/felony distinction from. Some meh things are crimes and normal people can screw up, so the thinking goes, but some crimes reveal that Something Is Wrong With You™️, and get you labeled for future reference as a “felon” (from Old French “evildoer”).
Depends a lot on the emoji.
February 12, 2026 at 6:25 AM
Depends a lot on the emoji.
Given the efficient market hypothesis, I would expect it to fairly rapidly return to equilibrium.
February 12, 2026 at 6:05 AM
Given the efficient market hypothesis, I would expect it to fairly rapidly return to equilibrium.
Is this meaningfully distinct from just ending after 30 days and not including the renewal clause? Congress can still affirmatively renew by passing a law renewing it. I suppose it differs in that the “new law” approach could be vetoed, but presumably the president won’t since they want it renewed.
February 12, 2026 at 5:32 AM
Is this meaningfully distinct from just ending after 30 days and not including the renewal clause? Congress can still affirmatively renew by passing a law renewing it. I suppose it differs in that the “new law” approach could be vetoed, but presumably the president won’t since they want it renewed.
By what other principle does the 16th amendment allow Congress to apply a tax to only a subset of incomes?
February 12, 2026 at 5:16 AM
By what other principle does the 16th amendment allow Congress to apply a tax to only a subset of incomes?
Consider “approves” as a state. Compare “the president can XYZ provided the parliamentarian is at least 6 feet tall”. The lack of formal power is the point. Since they aren’t a congressperson, they aren’t covered by the Ineligibility Clause, so they are saved from this edge case.
February 12, 2026 at 5:08 AM
Consider “approves” as a state. Compare “the president can XYZ provided the parliamentarian is at least 6 feet tall”. The lack of formal power is the point. Since they aren’t a congressperson, they aren’t covered by the Ineligibility Clause, so they are saved from this edge case.
An unconditional grant of power *is* a conditional grant of power, plus a second conditional grant of power (for the inverse condition).
February 12, 2026 at 5:02 AM
An unconditional grant of power *is* a conditional grant of power, plus a second conditional grant of power (for the inverse condition).
A piece of legislation is atomic, so the line item veto is not a lesser power. A person who regards it as a lesser power is mistaken. Whereas Congress authors and so can divide legislation, granting a power available on Tuesdays and/or days that aren’t Tuesday.
February 12, 2026 at 5:00 AM
A piece of legislation is atomic, so the line item veto is not a lesser power. A person who regards it as a lesser power is mistaken. Whereas Congress authors and so can divide legislation, granting a power available on Tuesdays and/or days that aren’t Tuesday.
The argument for this is principally mathematical. The power to “A | B” encompasses the power to A and the power to B. As “X” is equivalent to “∀Y: (X & Y) | (X & ¬Y)”, the power to grant a power entails the power to grant that power constrained by any constraint.
February 12, 2026 at 3:39 AM
The argument for this is principally mathematical. The power to “A | B” encompasses the power to A and the power to B. As “X” is equivalent to “∀Y: (X & Y) | (X & ¬Y)”, the power to grant a power entails the power to grant that power constrained by any constraint.
I’m not sure I really buy it, because if they assign a role to Congress in its official capacity then it’s not another role. But assuming the argument does hold I suppose they would have to do one degree of indirection by granting the approval power to e.g. the parliamentarian.
February 12, 2026 at 3:27 AM
I’m not sure I really buy it, because if they assign a role to Congress in its official capacity then it’s not another role. But assuming the argument does hold I suppose they would have to do one degree of indirection by granting the approval power to e.g. the parliamentarian.
I think I can sort of buy the idea that the approval of Congress is the unique condition Congress can’t impose on the exercise of a grant of power.
February 12, 2026 at 12:21 AM
I think I can sort of buy the idea that the approval of Congress is the unique condition Congress can’t impose on the exercise of a grant of power.
Do you mean the Veto power or are you thinking of something else?
February 11, 2026 at 11:53 PM
Do you mean the Veto power or are you thinking of something else?
It can’t be a separation of powers concern because the President was never entitled to those powers to begin with.
February 11, 2026 at 11:48 PM
It can’t be a separation of powers concern because the President was never entitled to those powers to begin with.
There’s no need to go inventing limitations on the ability of Congress to limit grants of power to the executive.
February 11, 2026 at 11:48 PM
There’s no need to go inventing limitations on the ability of Congress to limit grants of power to the executive.
Only on the full moon, only if the national debt is exactly $25B, only if Congress approves, only if the undergraduate student body at UCLA approves, only if the President of France approves, etc.
February 11, 2026 at 11:47 PM
Only on the full moon, only if the national debt is exactly $25B, only if Congress approves, only if the undergraduate student body at UCLA approves, only if the President of France approves, etc.
The greater power encompasses the lesser power. Congress doesn’t have to grant the executive any power at all, so it follows that Congress can limit grants of power with any conditions whatsoever they choose to attach. If the President doesn’t like it they can just not exercise the power.
February 11, 2026 at 11:47 PM
The greater power encompasses the lesser power. Congress doesn’t have to grant the executive any power at all, so it follows that Congress can limit grants of power with any conditions whatsoever they choose to attach. If the President doesn’t like it they can just not exercise the power.
The whole exercise veers into linguistic prescriptivism, which has been regarded for decades as essentially pointless and contrary to the nature of language use.
February 9, 2026 at 5:49 PM
The whole exercise veers into linguistic prescriptivism, which has been regarded for decades as essentially pointless and contrary to the nature of language use.
Since there is a lack of expectation that active duty military personnel will necessarily have “homes” while they are certainly expected to be housed somewhere. (Except possibly in the field, though even there we speak of “housing” troops.)
February 9, 2026 at 5:44 PM
Since there is a lack of expectation that active duty military personnel will necessarily have “homes” while they are certainly expected to be housed somewhere. (Except possibly in the field, though even there we speak of “housing” troops.)
“Unhoused”, having a more technical flavor, hones in a bit more on the specific lack of housing than “homeless”, but that’s mostly just tradition of using “the homeless” as a general group. Soldiers assigned to a base but not yet assigned housing there are “unhoused” but I would not say “homeless”.
February 9, 2026 at 5:41 PM
“Unhoused”, having a more technical flavor, hones in a bit more on the specific lack of housing than “homeless”, but that’s mostly just tradition of using “the homeless” as a general group. Soldiers assigned to a base but not yet assigned housing there are “unhoused” but I would not say “homeless”.
Though writing more to a new disk that you ever have before goes beyond the bounds of your empirical knowledge, so this is already covered.
February 9, 2026 at 5:10 PM
Though writing more to a new disk that you ever have before goes beyond the bounds of your empirical knowledge, so this is already covered.