I think the opposition between constitutional and extra-constitutional conceptions of power is artificial. Most of the most audacious things contemplated or attempted by the Trump administration like ending birthright citizenship or trying to overturn the election had
-
-
Yes but they’re a good example of a presidency running amok, and evading settled law. Whereas, say, a president making use of powers to appoint judges under Article III, or the requirement of a 2/3 vote in the senate to convict a president are broadly understood to be legal.
-
And so I think we have to make a distinction between superficially legal maneuvers, and those that are understood to be legal by broad swathes of the country, legal scholars, and decades/centuries of jurisprudence
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.