Search for: "Will Baude"
Results 21 - 40
of 1,337
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Feb 2024, 4:00 am
After conservative and Federalist Society Law Professors Will Baude and Michael Paulsen wrote their 126-page opus arguing that Donald Trump is disqualified under Section 3, I wrote on this blog that their article reflected much of what is wrong with constitutional law. [read post]
11 Feb 2024, 9:58 am
Indeed, Baude and Paulsen have pivoted, and suggest that Congress may indeed be a "backstop" on January 6, 2025. [read post]
10 Feb 2024, 10:01 pm
" The post Blackman & Baude & Paulsen at San Diego Originalism Works-in-Progress Conference appeared first on Reason.com. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 3:48 pm
[The states do not need Section 3 to impose qualifications on state-created positions. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 1:28 pm
Professor Baude and Professor Paulson criticized Griffin's Case very sharply. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 11:37 am
[Justice Jackson explained that an ambiguous text should be interpreted in favor of expanding democracy. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 9:20 am
[Justice Gorsuch demonstrates that he is the Court's most careful, consistent textualist.] [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 2:41 pm
Two scholars who are not here are William Baude of the University of Chicago law school and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 9:36 am
[A reply to Prof. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 7:47 pm
Debate on Section 3—Josh Blackman & Will Baude, Chicago Federalist Society Chapter (1/17/24). [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 6:25 pm
See also Baude/Paulsen at pp. 11-16; Cawthorn v. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 2:35 pm
In this post, I’ll examine the final two “off-ramp” arguments that Donald Trump offers the Court—arguments that would have the Court reverse the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court without adjudicating whether the Constitution precludes Trump from serving as President. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 2:02 pm
In this post, I’ll examine the final two “off-ramp” arguments that Donald Trump offers the Court—arguments that would have the Court reverse the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court without adjudicating whether the Constitution precludes Trump from serving as President. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 7:42 am
The article quotes, among others, Akhil Amar, Mike Luttig, and Will Baude. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 4:42 pm
McConnell (Stanford), one of the leading American originalist scholars: I most often agree with my good friends and casebook co-authors Will Baude and Michael Paulsen on matters of constitutional interpretation. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 3:36 pm
If you’re interested, good places to start are Part II-C of the Baude/Paulsen article, and Part I-E of Kim Roosevelt’s amicus brief. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 7:17 am
, with William Baude (Ep. 129) [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 7:10 am
Here’s the Tuesday morning read: “Disenfranchisement and Chaos”: The Supreme Court Hears Pivotal Case on Whether Trump Is Eligible to Run for President (Andy Kroll, ProPublica) Donald Trump urges Supreme Court to keep him on ballot in final pitch before arguments (John Fritze, CNN) The Use and Misuse of Section Three’s “Legislative History:” Part I (Will Baude And Michael Paulsen, The Volokh Conspiracy) Shadow of Bush v. [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 7:25 am
Will Baude Responds to Objections to his Section Three Article with Michael Stokes Paulsen qbaron Mon, 02/05/2024 - 09:25 Read more about Will Baude Responds to Objections to his Section Three Article with Michael Stokes Paulsen The Volokh Conspiracy Will Baude Michael Paulsen Fighting the Meaning of Section Three [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 5:05 am
Under Baude and Paulsen's view, Section 3 would already have automatically barred such individuals from office. [read post]
