Search for: "Seth Barrett Tillman"
Results 301 - 320
of 347
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Mar 2022, 9:41 pm
During President Trump's second impeachment trial, Seth Barrett Tillman and I wrote that elected officials, including the President, retained their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 2:16 pm
Trump prioritized this argument in his briefs to the Court, drawing primarily on the scholarship of Seth Barrett Tillman and his co-author, Josh Blackman. [read post]
16 Jun 2023, 2:02 pm
My colleague Seth Barrett Tillman addressed this argument in September. [read post]
1 Jul 2020, 11:09 am
Seth Barrett Tillman wrote about this issue a decade ago in a paper, fittingly titled, "The Puzzle of Hamilton's Federalist No. 77. [read post]
19 Nov 2023, 3:46 am
But Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman made a fair historical and textual case that elected officials were not “officers,” and that included the president and vice president. [read post]
3 Apr 2024, 10:08 am
Hawaii was cited in the following article: Seth Barrett Tillman, What Court (If Any) Decided Ex Parte Merryman? [read post]
19 Apr 2019, 9:31 am
(Seth Barrett Tillman notes that the clause is framed in the passive voice; the president does not execute, but supervises those who execute.) [read post]
4 Jan 2024, 12:50 pm
Worley] [This post is co-authored with Seth Barrett Tillman] Recently, James Heilpern and Michael T. [read post]
3 Mar 2024, 12:24 pm
[This post, which is co-authored with Professor Seth Barrett Tillman, continues from the first installment.] [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 2:03 pm
At the time, Seth Barrett Tillman and I wrote a lengthy post explaining why the Plaintiffs lacked an equitable cause of action to challenge ultra vires action. [read post]
4 Nov 2019, 4:02 am
[Resolutions to approve the acceptance of foreign gifts and emoluments must be presented to the President] [This post is co-authored with Professor Seth Barrett Tillman] The Foreign Emoluments Clause provides that "[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 7:09 am
Graber, Their Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 and Ours, Just Security (Feb. 16, 2021) James Wagstaffe, Time to Reconsider the 14th Amendment for Trump’s Role in the Insurrection, Just Security (Feb. 11, 2021) Media and Other Resources … [read post]
11 Sep 2023, 10:24 pm
[A Response to William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen ] Seth Barrett Tillman and I wrote a new draft article, titled Sweeping and Forcing the President into Section 3: A Response to William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen. [read post]
31 Oct 2021, 11:17 am
Seth Barrett Tillman and I have described the basis for equitable jurisdiction in Young in very similar terms: In Young, the government was regulating the railroad company. [read post]
3 Jan 2009, 12:48 pm
But Cf. the various works of Seth Barrett Tillman, who argues in a number of articles that a full Congress now could delegate to a post-attack Congress the power to enact legislation through only one house (the Senate, reconstituted via appointments) in the interim. ** There is an open question of constitutional quorums here. [read post]
1 Aug 2023, 8:22 pm
" Seth Barrett Tillman and I wrote in early 2020 that even if Trump were convicted of violating this statute, he could not be disqualified from serving a second term as President. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 11:37 am
" Seth Barrett Tillman and I are the primary proponents of the former argument, and Kurt Lash is the primary proponent of the latter argument. [read post]
5 Mar 2024, 1:51 pm
[This post is co-authored with Professor Seth Barrett Tillman.] [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 4:12 pm
At the time, Seth Barrett Tillman and I acknowledged the easy case: the President receiving a "suitcase full of money" in exchange for performing some official act would amount to bribery. [read post]
8 Jan 2021, 12:57 am
[If Trump’s speech is protected by the First Amendment, then incitement cannot be grounds for impeachment. ] [This post was co-authored by Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman] Over the past four years, we have defended many of President Trump's actions as a constitutional matter, while criticizing those actions as a policy matter. [read post]
