The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Tillman in the Times: "A Legal Outsider, an Offbeat Theory and the Fate of the 2024 Election"
"When the Supreme Court considers whether Donald J. Trump is barred from appearing on Colorado’s ballot, a professor’s scholarship, long relegated to the fringes, will take center stage."
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Trump v. Anderson. Both Seth Barrett Tillman and I will be attending. Today, the New York Times published a profile of Seth, and his important work that has led us to this moment. The article is titled, "A Legal Outsider, an Offbeat Theory and the Fate of the 2024 Election."
Here is the introduction:
In the world of American legal scholarship, Seth Barrett Tillman is an outsider in more ways than one. An associate professor at a university in Ireland, he has put forward unusual interpretations of the meaning of the U.S. Constitution that for years have largely gone ignored — if not outright dismissed as crackpot.
But at 60, Professor Tillman is enjoying some level of vindication. When the U.S. Supreme Court considers on Thursday whether former President Donald J. Trump is barred from Colorado's primary ballot, a seemingly counterintuitive theory that Professor Tillman has championed for more than 15 years will take center stage and could shape the presidential election.
The Constitution uses various terms to refer to government officers or offices. The conventional view is that they all share the same meaning. But by his account, each is distinct — and that, crucially for the case before the court, the particular phrase "officer of the United States" refers only to appointed positions, not the presidency.
If a majority of the court accepts Professor Tillman's rationale, then Mr. Trump would be allowed to appear on the ballot. At issue is the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, which bars people from holding office if they participated in an insurrection after having sworn to uphold the Constitution as an "officer of the United States."
Professor Tillman, heavily bearded with black-rimmed glasses and a bookish demeanor, flew to the United States this week to watch the arguments. With Josh Blackman, who teaches at South Texas College of Law Houston, Professor Tillman submitted a friend-of-the-court brief and asked to participate in arguments, but the court declined.
The article quotes, among others, Akhil Amar, Mike Luttig, and Will Baude. I think Charlie Savage of the Times really captured Seth's essence. It has been the honor of a lifetime to work so closely with Seth. I've learned more from him than anyone else.
We'll see what tomorrow brings.
Update: Seth's article made it to the top, left-hand column of the Drudge Report.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The mainstream media, once again, falling for the, "If I comment prolifically and everywhere, and say 'yes' to every media inquiry, they will assume that I'm an expert with something noteworthy to say" trick.
"Expert with something noteworthy to say" is an oxymoron.
"Expert" comes from the Greek "X" for unknown, and "spurt" for a little drip under pressure.
+1
Simon -- is that like calling a riot an insurrection so many times that people believe you?
The New York Times should stop falling for right-wing propaganda.
Eh, I think the argument has enough prominence that it’s worth covering, and if you read the actual NYT article, it’s pretty unsparing on its weaknesses and lack of mainstream acceptance. Prof. Blackman no doubt skipped over much of it in his rush to update his CV.
I’m certainly not cynical in any way, but if I *were* cynical, I’d say that if the Times gives coverage to a dissenting viewpoint, it’s to inoculate the readers against that viewpoint. If they can’t suppress the dissenting idea, they have to face the reality that their readers might encounter it and have need of talking points against it. Thus the Times will regretfully note the existence of the alternate viewpoint, in order to help the readers resist it.
(In this particular situation, though, I agree with the Times about the President being an officer.)
In short, anything the NYT does is wrong. Whether it covers a debate or not, you have a ready excuse to indulge your content-free paranoia. And all this mental gymnastics is because the paper does cover news you don't want to hear. Well, you're probably more happy with Fox News infotainment anyway....
I don’t watch Fox, I mainly learn of the hot topics of the day based on what one side or the other complain about here.
I presume that *you* watch Fox, since you seem informed about what’s broadcast there.
(In any case, as I noted, I'm *not* cynical, so I know that the Times covers all issues on a strictly impartial basis.)
Relying on the Volokh Conspiracy for your news -- while disdaining America's strongest newsgatherers -- seems a sad and strange way to live.
You post news here, don’t you? Are you a weak newsgatherer?
In any case, I wouldn’t really call it living to obsess on issues where I have minimal control - which doesn't stop me from doing it - but now you want me to extend this time-wasting habit into other outlets.
If you are reading the Volokh Conspiracy -- a disaffected, white, male, fringe, downscale right-wing blog with shoddy publication standards -- instead of The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other elements of our strongest reporting sources, the only things you can do for society are to get out of the way and die off.
Everyone is mortal.
Or are you suggesting that more people would mourn your death than would mourn mine? Citation needed.
And it’s too bad that you disrespect yourself so much as a news aggregator.
Nevertheless, I appreciate your offer to pay to get me subscriptions to the Post and Times. Just send the money by PayPal to upyours@kissmyass.com
"...the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false."
/Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807, Works 10:417--18
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs29.html
(The whole letter is worth reading)
An important difference is that my preferences will live on as America continues to improve while your shit-rate conservative thinking dies off, little by little, as every individual clinger takes those stale, ugly, bigoted views to the grave and is replaced by a better, more diverse, younger American who rejects conservative opinions.
Your line dies with you, clingers.
You know what’s “a sad and strange way to live”? Going on the Internet and wishing death on people for real or imagined political differences.
I expect that your replacement, whether (s)he shares your politics or not, will be younger, prettier, and a whole lot nicer than you.
You are mistaken.
I describe replacement involving clingers dying off in the normal course.
Better Americans have been defeating conservatives in the culture war for more than a half-century . . . we can wait for additional progress to develop at a natural pace.
The important point is that right-wingers have lost the culture war and that their stale, bigoted, superstitious thinking will not influence American progress.
You get a full erection – I almost said a “visible” erection, but that wouldn’t apply in your case – thinking about the deaths of people who differ from you in politics. Again, a sad and strange way to live.
Maybe the Colorado Superior court decision had something to do with it.
Getting your theory adopted in a major court decision will, as Josh said, take something off the wall and put it on the wall.
It also helps that there are several Supreme Court decisions like US v Smith (1888) that say the same thing.
Josh needs a haircut!!!
Which one?
Post-pandemic, unkemptness is the new chic style that all of the cool kids are wearing.
Combing one's hair has gone away as much as working in person or walmart being open 24 hours. It's just the new reality.
It is odd to me that this case would even hinge on "officer" usage.
I would think the bigger constitutional issue would be that the Supreme Court of Colorado has essentially rejected Trump as POTAS.
From the ruling:
“A majority of the court holds that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,”
If Trump were to win the primary (almost certainly) and then win in the general election (at the very least a plausible outcome), then we could have the Colorado Supreme Court essentially mandating that the state of Colorado deny him as POTAS.
Seems like having a state denying the validity of a duly elected president would be the potential crisis that needs to be addressed and fixed by SCOTUS.
What's POTAS? Searching about it, I get a lot of hits about potassium.
All of that seems premature. The act of denying that some person or other is actually president has been happening for years. Colorado hasn't done that, and is unlikely to do that. But if they do, it won't change who's actually president anymore than has happened because of all of the current denialism. Denying that the president is the president is a loser's game. It may seem like it could be a crisis, but really it is just silliness. The type of stuff that one might see on a "reality" television episode.
What’s POTAS?
I assume it's "POTAto of the united States."
Yum.
What’s the problem? Under our consititution, our presidents are selected by a college of electors appointed and instructed as directed by state legislatures. State law – what state legislatures direct – is interpreted by state courts.
So what in the world is the problem if a state court interprets a state statute passed by the state legislayure as saying its appointed electors have to be instructed not to vote for someone the state deems an insurrectionist?
Why is there a problem? It’s just the state legislature’s constitutional power to direct how the state’s electors get appointed and to issue them whatever instructions it wants at work.
States ELECT the president. They say who’s duly elected and what being duly elected means. Saying a state can’t deny the validity of ab elected president is like saying a majority of voters can’t deny the validity of an appointed member of Congress.
I mean, everybody agrees state legislatures can just appoint their state’s electors themselves without involving ordinary citizens in the decision in any way. Since it’s clear they can make the complete decision themselves, why in the world can’t they make a mere part of the decision themselves, letting their citizens have a say, but a partial one subject to some rules they set, like no insurrectionists?
States ELECT the president. They say who’s duly elected and what being duly elected means. Saying a state can’t deny the validity of ab elected president is like saying a majority of voters can’t deny the validity of an appointed member of Congress.
The states determine *collectively* who is duly elected and what duly elected means. An individual state has no such authority.
Saying a state can’t deny the validity of ab elected president is like saying a majority of voters can’t deny the validity of an appointed member of Congress.
It's actually nothing like that.
States can direct their electoral votes any way they want. A state refusing to give someone the state’s electoral votes is not “denying” his “validity.” That’s true no matter which actor within the state does the refusing. The Colorado secretary of state or state Supreme Court not putting Trump on the ballot in the first place is no different, so far as the rest of the country is concerned, from putting him on the ballot but having the voters vote for someone else. Or having the state legislature completely bypass the voters, take matters into their own hands, and direct the state’s electors to vote for Biden.
Remember that A14S3 does not say that an insurrectionist cannot be elected. I says that the insurrectionist cannot serve.
If CO wanted to vote for a person who cannot serve then they have chosen to throw their votes to the wind.
we could have the Colorado Supreme Court essentially mandating that the state of Colorado deny him as POTAS.
Well, no. The CO SC's ruling has no bearing on anything other than Trump's eligibility to be on that state's ballot. That court has no ability to rule on who is/isn't POTUS.
Cranks gonna crank
Given the prominence of the 'officer or not an officer' argument in Trump's opening and reply brief; one would presume that they would also lead with that argument at oral argument. It was also the argument that won Trump the case in the district court.
I am not convinced by the argument but my opinion doesn't mean squat. I am hopeful that the oral argument and the questions posed by the sup ct justices to Trump's counsel on this issue shed some light on where they are at with the legal argument.
Only time will tell.
" It was also the argument that won Trump the case in the district court. "
I don't think that really counts for anything, or at least anything positive. The district court didn't actually want Trump to win, they just wanted somebody else to catch the blame for him losing.
So they hammered as hard as they could on every reason they thought he was guilty, and then made a minor gesture towards Section 3 not applying, too bad. To tee things up for the state supreme court overturning them on that minor point.
I think your theory has been pretty thoroughly refuted in a different thread.
Remember, Brett doesn't believe in mind-reading.
Go fuck yourself Brett.
The majority of people in this country aren't dipshits looking to achieve a specific outcome and then justify it later like you do.
I think the brief had to deal with it front and center, after all the Question posed by the court was 'Did the Colorado Supreme Court err when in its decision banning Trump from the ballot?' Since that is a core part of the CO Supreme Court decision and the crux of the Superior Court decision the COSC reversed it needed to be prominent in Trump's merits brief.
I can’t decide if Tillman is dragging down Trump, or Trump is dragging down Tillman.
We might see in a few short hours, and the answer might be both are standing tall.
And no matter what the result, this controversy has been great for Tillman's academic ranking and career.
He might wake up tomorrow as a man that is no longer an adult virgin!
And here I thought one's US legal career couldn't be at a lower point than at a US law school no one had ever heard of.
Read the Times article. The misfit couldn't find a job in American academia and it doesn't look like that is going to change. Mired at some no-name Irish school, this "constitutional scholar" can't even get hired by South Texas College of Law Houston.
He has no academic ranking or career.
"The Constitution uses various terms to refer to government officers or offices. The conventional view is that they all share the same meaning. But by his account, each is distinct — and that, crucially for the case before the court, the particular phrase "officer of the United States" refers only to appointed positions, not the presidency."
Somebody cracked that Trump reads the Constitution like he reads the tax code, not to understand and obey it, but looking for anything that he might be able to make into a loophole.
I don’t think he’s ever read it at all.
Somebody cracked that Trump reads the Constitution like he reads the tax code, not to understand and obey it, but looking for anything that he might be able to make into a loophole.
You mean, like every POTUS ever?
Thought experiment. The case is affirmed, Colorado keeps Trump off the ballot, but other states don't. (Other than Maine, AFAIK the attempts to keep him off the ballot have been rejected.) He then wins the general without Colorado and Maine. (He lost Colorado in 2016, and only got one of three Maine electoral votes in 2016.) Trump is sworn in as president.
Can Colorado then determine to act as though he is not president? Ignore his executive acts, and laws he signs? Or is the declaration by the Senate that he is the winner pre-empt any Colorado determination?
The Electoral College has been gamed since the beginning—South Carolina chose to characterize the 1860 election as illegitimate.
And Colorado, in the end, would be about as successful as South Carolina was. One hopes they'd figure that out before troops got involved.
IANAL but I don't see why CO would be able to ignore his election and inauguration.
Um, no, and yes, respectively? If the federal government says that Trump is the president, then the supremacy clause requires Colorado to recognize it.
Good luck on that reflected glory, Prof.
If you're in charge of security at the Supreme Court tomorrow, are you going to let either of those guys into the building?
They should be as entitled as anyone to stand in line for a chance at a seat (duration or three-minute). Or maybe one of the clinger justices allocated some friends-and-family passes to a couple of down-on-their-luck fellow culture war casualties.
Why not?
Who are two adult men that have never been laid?
"Charlie Savage of the Times really captured Seth's essence." Contra Gen. Jack D. Ripper to women, who denied them his essence. https://youtu.be/z3wgC9m_VBk?si=yeaiYqYtYVuUdQPw
Someone claimed a few months ago, I vaguely recall, that Blackman was part of a family (beyond having parents).
Okay, this post served the purpose of informing those who have been living in a cave, in the uncharted Amazon, that Josh Blackman is entirely solipsistic, and also letting us know what Seth Barrett Tillman looks like.
At least Seth looks like an eccentric.
I've learned more from him than anyone else.
Lol. I wonder what Randy Barnett thinks about that.