This is a maddeningly unspecific argument, and much depends on how one defines "the imperial presidency." Presidents do not have the authority to make law by executive fiat. But all three branches have implied authority that flows from their explicitly granted authority.https://twitter.com/nicholas_bagley/status/1135560268749115392 …
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
Go read the underlying scholarship that the piece is based on. You'll see that
@jdmortenson's argument is plenty specific about what the executive power does -- and doesn't -- imply.2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @nicholas_bagley @jdmortenson
I've been reading scholarship & debates on this stuff for years, I was hoping for an article that actually delivered the concrete argument it promised. What is and is not part of properly-understood Article II authority - as with Article I - is often a quite specific question.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @nicholas_bagley
Have I got the piece for you! https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3328945 …
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jdmortenson @nicholas_bagley
Happy to dive into it. My criticism of the Atlantic piece for inadequately explaining it stands, however.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @nicholas_bagley
I’m puzzled by the idea that this is unclear. But I also understand that it’s hard to back down on Twitter. Would be interested in any reactions on the work itself; you’d be one of the first conservatives to offer substantive comments in almost a year of circulating the draft.pic.twitter.com/gin8mWUVxV
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
My typical complaint is with the oversimplified framing of executive power issues. I'm sincere that I was disappointed that the article gave me nothing concrete to agree or disagree with. But will review the article when I get a chance.
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.