tap tap tap this still on

[jemcanada2]

Welcome back, Mike!!!!

[MN-Skeptic]

So many of us remember when you started law school.

Welcome back!

[June bug]

Hey, Mikey!!!

Aloha nui loa!! 🏝

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

So many of us remember when you started law school.

Welcome back!

Some of us even remember you from before the Obama and McCain (take 2) birthers!

[Luke]

9pm EDT: Mike is on (with Powerpoint!!) and as funny and informative as ever:

[poplove]

[Sam the Centipede]

My memory is wobbly … I can't remember which members of the Fogbar are Mike's ma and pa?

WHATTT?!?!?

You can't all be Mike's proud parents!

Perhaps Jesus was onto something with his tales of in Luke chapter 15.

[Dr. Ken]

Is there an archive of the discussion Mike? I totally missed it.

[Sam the Centipede]

Is there an archive of the discussion Mike? I totally missed it.

bob probably memorized it!

[realist]

Is there an archive of the discussion Mike? I totally missed it.

bob probably memorized it!

[MikeDunford]

Is there an archive of the discussion Mike? I totally missed it.

twitch.tv/questauthority - the last month or two of streams are there as video on demand.

[realist]

Is there an archive of the discussion Mike? I totally missed it.

Try this:

[Dr. Ken]

Is there an archive of the discussion Mike? I totally missed it.

Try this:

In regards to the Washington library checkout of Vattel. Look what else he checked out.
https://cityreaders.nysoclib.org/Detail/objects/1551

Why should we not give that just as much attention than Vattel using birther logic?
https://cityreaders.nysoclib.org/Detail/entities/1288

[bob]

Is there an archive of the discussion Mike? I totally missed it.

bob probably memorized it!

I actually missed it.

I'll try to catch the archive. I mean, I'm guessing Mike D. covered the ground we all know. But Mike D.'s flair will make it entertaining nonetheless.

Too also: Listening to an expert break down complex topics into manageable bites serves as a good example of how to be good at that skill.


But, hey, if I can make a request:

Have Stern on ... and discuss Cruz's eligibility.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

I’m late to the “Mike is back” party.

MIKE IS BACK!!!!!!

To answer Sam’s question about Mike’s parentage: We are a “commune-ity”. Nobody knows!

[bob]

I finally watched!

Mike D. sneakily discussed Project 2025. Which is actually the biggest application of this #birther nonsense.

The "KAmALToe IS iNeliGiBLe!!1!" crowd is going nowhere. (I doubt a lawyer will sign onto an eligibility lawsuit.)

But Mike does a fairly deep dive into Eastman's (yes, that Eastman) flawed reading of the 14th Amendment. Discusses the congressional debate about the 14th Amendment and everything.

Mike D.'s big takeaway is that, three months ago, he believed SCOTUS would bounce this 9-0. Now he believes it would be 7-2.

Mike D.'s nightmare scenario for how SCOTUS might rule on the merits is a ruling by a sympathetic federal judge in Texas, who grants a preliminary injunction against Harris' appearing on the Texas ballot. And then the 5th intentionally sits on the stay pending appeal.

And, then (for the masochists), a Taitz war story!

BONUS: Mike D. spilling the Lakin tea!!!


My nits:

* The "Law of Nations is cited in the U.S. Constitution!" argument predates Harris. (IIRC, Kerchner occasionally made it.)
* Those without authorization to be in the United States are "removed" (even though everyone understands what "deported" means).
* State courts are more generous than federal courts in allowing eligibility challenges.

[northland10]

My nits:
* The "Law of Nations is cited in the U.S. Constitution!" argument predates Harris. (IIRC, Kerchner occasionally made it.)

Birthers loved to say "Law of Nations" in the Constitution meant Vattel's book was law, or the one chapter even though, if we were to not see it as a term of art, "Offenses Against the Law of Nations" which is the larger phrases, just happens to be the title of a chapter in Blackstone's Commentaries, "Of Offenses Against the Law of Nations."

One would think that Blackstone may have been more in their mind of the committees since section three was about making laws to punish crimes, including "offenses against the law of nations," which Blackstone discusses, and it has everything to do with international law, not domestic electoral law.

And isn't owning weapons a violation of Vattel's Laws, if they were laws and not just musings by a European writer?

Pointed that out usually involved changing the subject or something about Franklin saying something nice about Vattel in a letter.