Agreed. This is a very important piece, not only for what it explains about just war theory, but also for what it says about the jus ad bellum.
Oh, and by the way, the Iran War is obviously unconstitutional, too.
Oh, I know. Just wondering what this thread was about. (Everything before this post has been deleted.)
To what is this referring?
I agree that until Myers, courts (properly) deferred to Congress w/r/t to possible constitutional constraints on structuring the USG (but cf. Marbury). You wrote, however: "For most of American history federal courts *did not entertain* SOP challenges to federal statutes." Where?
Can't read it. The plan is for whom to do what?
I think I must have missed that part of U.S. history. Which cases do you have in mind?
You know you’ve made it when … they let you rent out the Palace of Versailles to shoot the first video from your hotly anticipated third album.
#dropdead
Concur.
Much more later about what might be the most unprofessional and embarrassing opinion OLC has written in recent years (yes, worse even than the Venezuela opinion, even if the stakes aren't quite as great). For now, Chris Fonzone's analysis is a must-read.
www.justsecurity.org/136242/presi...
Much more later about what might well be the most unprofessional and embarrassing opinion OLC has written in recent years (yes, worse even than the Venezuela opinion, even if the stakes aren't quite as great). For now, suffice it to flag that Chris Fonzone's analysis is a must-read.
end of days
That post puts me in mind of "The present now will later be past. The order is rapidly fading. And the first one now will later be last. For the times they are 'a-changing." Written at a time, btw, when all the rage was about the (first Catholic) President's relationship to the Vatican.
That's heartland necessary and proper legislation--a regulation on the permissible places where a product may be created in order to help carry into execution a permissible tax on the product. Judge Jones rejects that argument at pp. 17-20, but I can't make heads or tails of her reasoning there.
I don't understand this decision. Congress imposed a tax on distilled spirits. Everyone agrees it's constitutional. And then, 158 years ago, it prohibited distilling them at home so that the government could more easily assess and collect the constitutional tax, i.e., to prevent tax evasion. [1]
What explains why St. Louis has such a rich and thriving coffee culture (Sump, Comet, Coffeestamp, Blueprint, and many more) as compared to, say, D.C.?
In any event, the D.C. Circuit will hear oral argument on the merits on May 19. Meanwhile, DOJ has appealed the ND Cal. P.I. to the Ninth Circuit, where (as of the current schedule) oral argument won't occur until June at the earliest. [11]
Second, and more importantly, Anthropic isn’t seeking a judicial order requiring DOD to use its products! A stay of the 4713 determination, therefore, couldn’t have any effects on whether DOD does so. Ergo, the alleged harm to the Government doesn’t exist. Is this right? What am I missing? [10]
Best I can tell, however, that’s simply wrong, for two reasons. First, DOD has chosen to continue using Anthropic’s A.I. for a six-month period, even after the supply-chain-risk determination. [9]
So what’s the harm to the Government that purportedly outweighs these Anthropic financial losses? According to the D.C. Circuit motions panel, a stay would require DOD “to prolong its use of Anthropic’s AI technology” after determining that that technology is harmful or inadequate. [8]
(I’m not aware of anything in the record about whether & to what extent the ND Cal. P.I. has affected those other companies’ refusals, i.e., about whether Anthropic is continuing to suffer financial losses by virtue of the 4713 determination even in light of the P.I.) [7]
As for Anthropic's harms, the panel correctly noted that it has “documented some potentially significant financial losses.” In particular, Anthropic alleges that some other Government contractors have stopped using its products because of the Hegseth determinations. [6]
Instead, it denied Anthropic’s stay motion based upon its assessment that a stay would harm DOD more than the harms Anthropic is suffering because of the 4713 determination. [5] storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Two weeks into the ND Cal. P.I., the motions panel in the separate D.C. Circuit case did *not* make any assessment of the merits of Anthropic’s claim that Hegseth’s 4713 supply-chain-risk determination was unlawful. [4]
Because of that P.I., on April 2 DOD instructed its personnel *not* to refuse to award prime or subcontracts to Anthropic or to direct vendors not to use Anthropic technology. [3] storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
On March 26, a district court in the ND Cal. Issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting DOD from enforcing another Hegseth supply-chain-risk determination under a different statute. [2] storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Perhaps I’m alone, but I’m confused by Wednesday’s order of a D.C. Circuit panel (Henderson, Katsas and Rao) denying Anthropic’s motion for a stay of Pete Hegseth’s March 3 “supply-chain risk” determination w/r/t its A.I. products. Can anyone shed light? [1]
@alanrozenshtein.com
@justsecurity.org
In any event, the D.C. Circuit will hear oral argument on the merits on May 19. Meanwhile, DOJ has appealed the ND Cal. P.I. to the Ninth Circuit, where (as of the current schedule) oral argument won't occur until June at the earliest. [11]
Second, and more importantly, Anthropic isn’t seeking a judicial order requiring DOD to use its products! A stay of the 4713 determination, therefore, couldn’t have any effects on whether DOD does so.
Ergo, the alleged harm to the Government doesn’t exist.
Is this right? What am I missing? [10]
Best I can tell, however, that’s simply wrong, for two reasons.
First, DOD has chosen to continue using Anthropic’s A.I. for a six-month period, even after the supply-chain-risk determination. [9]