"Public Historian"
Still sitting with that idea. It fits with my concept of the two parties being two sides of the same f***ing coin. A perspective that is not spinning at every toss of the coin seems important.
EverydayJane
@bohonana.bsky.social
9.5K followers 8K following 2.8K posts
It is no longer about WHAT happened. It's about WHY did it happen? The broken rules are laying on the floor like last night’s confetti! Creator of @diyA25.bsky.social youtube.com/@qwillycitizenintrainin…
![SOVEREIGN POWER CONSTITUTIONALISM Curtis A. Bradley* [University of Chicago Law Review, forthcoming 2025] The constitutional text seems to be missing a host of governmental powers that we take for granted, including powers relating to immigration, Indian affairs, acquisition of territory and resources, and the regulation and protection of U.S. citizens abroad. The Supreme Court suggested an explanation for these and other missing powers in its famous 1936 decision, United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation. Upon becoming a nation, the Court contended, the United States automatically acquired powers “equal to the right and power of the other members of the international family”—powers that inhered in the government “as necessary concomitants of nationality.” Although the Curtiss-Wright decision has been heavily criticized, this Article shows that the “concomitants of nationality” idea reflects an important and longstanding feature of U.S. constitutional law. As will be shown, many areas of constitutional law rest on a presumption that the nation acquired the full complement of sovereign powers allocated to nations under international law, and this has been the case throughout much of U.S. history. This presumption has been manifested at times through broad interpretations of the constitutional text, but on other occasions it has been manifested through invocations of inherent authority that are more structural in character. Importantly, and contrary to what many critics of Curtiss-Wright assume, the sovereign power presumption does not require either a rejection of constitutional constraints or a preference for presidential over congressional authority.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:f4d76fjna5nxqsy2fu6cgmp3/bafkreigv22brb3bvcyr5dham77feqv6lq5aqie2pfqfbghhnta5inoczv4)
