A new thread on originalism myths: “The Indecisions of 178…

2/ The mythic "Decisions of 1789" is that a House majority endorsed the unitary theory of implied presidential powers.
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

3/ The 1st error: Thomas Hartley.
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

4/ Here is what Prakash claims about Hartley (TOP).

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?

5/ Hartley was in fact a leading congressionalist rallying votes against the presidentialist theory:
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."

6/ Prakash’s assumption is the unitary interpretation has a monopoly on principle.
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.

7/ Hartley’s speech is here, clearly indicating his opposition to the interpretation that the constitution “vest[ed]” removal power in the president. He is asking *others* who are “not fully convinced” to join his “no” vote.
Then he explicitly invoked “legislative authority.”

8/ This is Prakash, "New Light," p. 1054.
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:

9/ Prakash's 2d set of misreadings were his effort to count Lambert Cadwalader as a presidentialist.
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

10/ Prakash's 3d and 4th set of misreadings relate to John Laurance -- and James Madison himself.
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

11/ Laurance & Madison had a view of presidential removal so thin and functional, rather than formalist, that BOTH explicitly endorsed congressional conditions, rejecting the modern ahistorical unitary theory of "indefeasible" presidential power.
https://t.co/ulKeHTdE0m

12/ Madison, Federalist No. 39:
"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.

13/ Prakash tried to argue that the “congressionalist” bloc was actually mixed and open to presidentialism…
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

14/ Prakash misread a letter by Rep. Peter Muhlenberg.
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

15/ Compare Prakash vs. what Muhlenberg actually wrote:
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:

16/ Prakash also misread William Smith, claiming his referral to a "Presidents right of removal from office as Chief Majistrate w/o the consent of advice of the senate" was presidentialist, but it also applied to a congressional delegation of the right: https://t.co/7ioCpdv4eo

17/ Prakash’s misreading or exaggeration of a VP John Adams letter. Adams was describing his own vote, which was already clear. Prakash was using Adams to claim the letter was evidence of the broader understanding of Congress’s vote.
https://t.co/agIYtUqZaf

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:

You May Also Like

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:

You May Also Like

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: