But only 16 of 53 (30%) fit that bill.
Trying to find more votes, Prakash miscategorized many members or sources.
My paper here:
https://t.co/ulKeHTdE0m
A new thread on originalism myths:
“The Indecisions of 1789: An Originalism Cautionary Tale” documents another series of misuses of sources by originalist unitary executive theorists.
The Roberts Court relied on this myth to expand presidential power:
But only 16 of 53 (30%) fit that bill.
Trying to find more votes, Prakash miscategorized many members or sources.
My paper here:
https://t.co/ulKeHTdE0m
Prakash in "A New Light on the Decision of 1789," cited by Justice Thomas, claims Hartley was part of an "enigmatic" bloc of members that *could* have favored the unitary theory.
But he clearly was not a presidentialist:
https://t.co/E8u0EA3ST8
Compare that to the original Hartley letters that Prakash cited (bottom L to Coxe; bottom R to Yeates).
Prakash seems to assume that only presidentialism could be a "principle."
Why can't the other side have principles?
In the pivotal debate June 22d, Hartley advised that persons "not fully convinced that the power of removal [was] vested by the constitution in the president” should vote “no."
Congressionalists and non-unitary interpretations also have principles. This is a telling error to assume the unitary theory is driven by “principle” but other views are not.
This is ideological.
Then he explicitly invoked “legislative authority.”
The gymnastics of trying to turn a leading critic of Prakash's pet theory on the key day into a supporter by utterly misreading his later letters.
Note the number of errors and misleading statements on one page:
Cadwalader voted against BOTH of Madison's proposals. But Prakash misreads one of his letters to try to claim him anyway:
https://t.co/G4OkvBh3y8
Laurance's bottom line for voting against Madison:
"because he thought the legislature had the power to establish offices on what terms they pleased."
https://t.co/piING2NR0Q
https://t.co/ulKeHTdE0m
"Judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behavior. The tenure of the ministerial offices generally, will be a subject of legal regulation..."
"Ministerial offices" included department heads. See Marbury.
But he relied on the *wrong* congressmen, Fisher Ames & John Vining.
His argument backfires, suggesting his bloc was strategic, not unitary:
https://t.co/zetrcEWHQP
Muhlenberg described a presidential camp vs. a congressional camp clearly enough, but Prakash ignored context and over-read the word "confusion" to confuse or blur the 2 camps:
https://t.co/liZH4386Yr
Prakash (left) says both camps were presidentialist, divided on how clear or implicit to make the text.
M's letter (right) is clearly distinguishing a congressional (yellow) vs. a presidentialist (orange) camp:
https://t.co/agIYtUqZaf
You May Also Like
“We don’t negotiate salaries” is a negotiation tactic.
Always. No, your company is not an exception.
A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.
Listen to Aditya
And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.
I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.
You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.
Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]
Always. No, your company is not an exception.
A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.
Listen to Aditya
"we don't negotiate salaries" really means "we'd prefer to negotiate massive signing bonuses and equity grants, but we'll negotiate salary if you REALLY insist" https://t.co/80k7nWAMoK
— Aditya Mukerjee, the Otterrific \U0001f3f3\ufe0f\u200d\U0001f308 (@chimeracoder) December 4, 2018
And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.
I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.
You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.
Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]
