SCOTUS: Trump vs Cook and "INM" meaning

I listened to the oral argument in "Trump v Cook", the attempted firing of a member of the governing council of the US Federal Reserve Board.  I kept hearing a reference to the initials "IMN".  One of the frustrating things, but an understandable one, of trying to follow an oral argument: the use of "inside baseball" shorthand often used by the Justices and the lawyers. 

I had to look it up:

In the legal context of the 2026 Supreme Court case Trump v. Cook, the acronym INM refers to the removal standard of Inefficiency, Neglect of duty, or Malfeasance in office. 

This standard is a central point of debate in the case, which centers on President Trump’s attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. 

The crux of the case centers on the meaning of two words: "for cause".

Statutory Requirement “for cause”:
The Federal Reserve Act permits removal of a governor only “for cause,” but it does not define what “for cause” means. The parties dispute whether that standard includes things such as inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, or whether conduct unrelated to official duties can qualify. (source HERE)

Capaciousness: A word I cannot live up to...

Since retiring from teaching, I have become a student of the Supreme Court.  I am receiving a fairly comprehensive education in many respects.

I have to look up the definition of words not generally used in everyday conversations. As such, I have to look up "capacious" every time I hear/read it, which is quite often in the language of the Supreme Court.  

Given one of the general uses of the term, I get the irony of having to look it up every time:

"High Capacity: Emphasizes the ability to contain or retain more than average, rather than just having a large area"

The core consumer and elasticity: A visual representation of "Thinking at the Margin"

The brief presentation above illustrates the concept of "relative elasticity," which is often implicit in articles describing specific economic conditions.  The excerpt below, which caught my eye, is from this article on the struggles  the fast food chain "Jack in the Box" is facing. 

"While Jack in the Box has its fans, it’s fair to say the chain lacks enough of a dedicated audience to keep it successful during difficult financial periods.  Jack in the Box draws casual, occasional (sometimes inebriated) diners, especially in social or late-night contexts. That audience exists, but it’s too small and intermittent to drive lasting success...."

 "Dedicated audience" suggests consumers who prefer Jack in the Box fare regardless of other choices in the fast food category.  Their demand is relatively inelastic.  

This core consumer is vital to the financial success of any business.  The goal is to enlarge this core to capture consumers who are not as dedicated----relatively MORE ELASTIC in their demand.

I think the above short presentation I made vividly illustartes the concept.  Helps me visualize the economic concept of ELASTICITY.

Wondering what the "Tariff Case" (Learning Resources vs Trump) is all about? Can sum it up in one word...

"regulate". Yup, that's about it.  What is the meaning of "regulate" in the context of the IEEP, Article 1 taxing authority (Section 8 enumerated power) and Article 2 Presidential power to conduct foreign policy. 

The image below is the relevant part of the "IEEP.  The definition of "regulate" and whether it includes the authority for the President to levy tariffs (read that "a tax") is at the heart of a major part of the issue.  

Learning Resources says the IEEP does not use the word/concept "Tariff", so there is no authority to do so. Their claim is that the IEEP was an attempt to limit Presidential power in this area.

The Trump Administration says the word "regulate" implies explicitly the authority to levy tariffs, given that the other prescriptive verbs that follow regulate don't specifically say "quotas," but they, historically, have been used to impose such quotas on foreign goods.

I look forward to attending this oral argument next week at the US Supreme Court! 

Say Hello to my fellow 65 year olds. You are going to see a lot of us for the next 30 years...

While the graphic below is physically hard to read (it seems they could have made the differences a little more stark), the lesson it teaches is clear:  Demographics are and will be, for a long time, a large driver of the Federal Budget (Social Security/Medicare, etc.) 

I turned 65 this year, so you can see I am at the forefront of the "gray tsunami" that will continue to build and crest over the next 30 years.  This will have a continued impact on the Federal Budget and social policy for at least another generation.

From The Congressional Budget Office, "The Long-Term Budget Outlook: 2025 to 2055"

The share of the population age 65 or older is projected to increase over the coming decades, continuing a long-standing trend (see Figure 3-2). From 2015 to 2024, that share rose from 14.4 percent to 17.9 percent, driven mainly by the aging of members of the large baby boom generation that was born between 1946 and 1964. The percentage of the population age 65 or older continues to increase in CBO’s projections, rising from 18.3 percent in 2025 to 21.2 percent in 2035 and 23.4 percent in 2055.

I won the lottery! Well, not THAT one. but The Supreme Court seat lottery.

I was just notified that I "won" a guaranteed seat (through the Supreme Court pilot program to allocate public seats) to observe the oral argument in the case of "Learning Resources vs Trump" on Wednesday, November 5.  The soon-to-be famous/infamous "tariff case".  

I have been to Washington, DC, before, but not to the Supreme Court to even visit.

This is a "bucket list" item for me, so I am happy to have the chance to witness the discussion on an important case.

As with many cases that have political and economic impact, I suspect they scheduled this one as the only one that day because it will be a lengthy oral argument.

I guess I will get my "lottery payment", and then some, in history and drama.

Here is the cert petition from Learning Resources

Here is the response to the cert petition from the Government (Trump's position)

  

Birthright Citizenship: Reaching back into legal history. Blackstone edition...

This recent scholarship on the issue of Birthright Citizenship is worth a read if you are interested in the topic.  It errs (with historical evidence) on the side that Birthright Citizenship is a thing and is both explicit/implied (both can be true) in the 14th Amendment.

Source:  Divided Argument

Without Domicile or Allegiance: Gypsies and Birthright Citizenship, by Gerard Magliocca: “This Essay argues that the invocations of gypsies (or Roma) during the debates on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment drew on Blackstone’s discussion of them in his Commentaries and means that legal immigration status, domicile, and allegiance are not requirements for birth citizenship in the United States.” Another important entry in defense of the (correct) conventional wisdom on birthright citizenship.

Even the Supreme Court wrestles with "Lie vs Lay"

Supreme Court issues revisions of opinions when there are mistakes in spelling, grammar, or other relatively minor errors in construction.  Given the number ot times these opinions are passed around to each Justice (and their clerks), I am surprised any serious mistakes are not caught and corrected.

Pictured below (page 10 of the document), is one we can all feel--- the difference between "Lay vs Lie".  This correction is in the case of "Trump vs CASA," the recent birthright/injunction case.

English teachers, if you find this, enjoy!  :)

The Declaration of Independence: More on the significance of "necessity" in the document

The Declaration of Independence is one of my favorite documents.  In the course of learning about it, I have discovered that individual words and phrases were carefully selected to convey the meaning intended.  Words that, if one did not know the historical meaning and context, would not mean very much.

I came across a pamphlet written in 1648, during the English Civil War (1640-1651). I can't verify that Thomas Jefferson read this particular pamphlet, but the two phrases below are remarkably similar in wording and meaning.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,"---From the Declaration

This is from the Pamphlet "The Mournful Cries of Many Thousand Poor Tradesmen (Anonymous)

"O Parliament men, and soldiers! Necessity dissolves all laws and government, and Hunger will break through stone walls, tender mothers will sooner devour you, than the fruit of their own womb, and hunger regards no swords nor cannons. It may be some great oppressors intends tumults that they may escape in a crowd, but your food may then be wanting as well as ours, and your arms will be hard diet. O hark, hark at our doors how our children cry Bread, bread, bread, and we now with bleeding hearts, cry, once more to you, pity, pity, an oppressed enslaved people: carry our cries in the large petition to the Parliament, and tell them if they be still deaf the tears of the oppressed will wash away the foundations of their houses. Amen, Amen so be it."

Notice the similarities? King George III would be very familiar with this language when he first read the Declaration!  Jefferson channeled the writings of  John Locke, Baron de Montesquieu, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, among others.  Why not this one too?

Here is another post I did on the importance of the word "necessity" in the Declaration.

Bookmark: "Levels of Scrutiny" that laws can be subject to

Below is from FINDLAW.  Edits/Highlighthing are mine

What Are The Levels of Scrutiny?

When the constitutionality of a law is challenged, both state and federal courts will commonly apply one of three levels of judicial scrutiny from the spectrum of scrutiny:

• Strict scrutiny
• Intermediate scrutiny
• Rational basis review

The level of scrutiny that's applied determines how a court will go about analyzing a law and its effects. It also determines which party -- the challenger or the government -- has the burden of proof. Although these tests aren't exactly set in stone, there is a basic framework for the most common levels of scrutiny applied to challenged laws.

Strict Scrutiny

This is the highest level of scrutiny applied by courts to government actions or laws. The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that legislation or government actions that discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, religion, and alienage must pass this level of scrutiny to survive a challenge that the policy violates constitutional equal protection. This high level of scrutiny is also applied whenever a "fundamental right" is being threatened by a law, like the right to marriage.

Strict scrutiny requires the government to prove that:

• There is a compelling state interest behind the challenged policy, and
• The law or regulation is narrowly tailored to achieve its result.

Intermediate Scrutiny

The next level of judicial focus on challenged laws is less demanding than strict scrutiny. In order for a law to pass intermediate scrutiny, it must:

• Serve an important government objective, and
• Be substantially related to achieving the objective.

This test was first accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976 to be used whenever a law discriminates based on gender or sex. Some federal appellate courts and state supreme courts have also applied this level of scrutiny to cases involving sexual orientation. As with strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny also places the burden of proof on the government.

Rational Basis Review

This is the lowest level of scrutiny applied to challenged laws, and it has historically required very little for a law to pass as constitutional. Under the rational basis test, the person challenging the law (not the government) must prove either:

• The government has no legitimate interest in the law or policy; or
• There is no reasonable, rational link between that interest and the challenged law.

Courts using this test are highly deferential to the government and will often deem a law to have a rational basis as long as that law had any conceivable, rational basis -- even if the government never provided one. This test typically applies to all laws or regulations which are challenged as irrational or arbitrary as well as discrimination based on age, disability, wealth, or felony status.

The Spectrum of Scrutiny

There are many levels of scrutiny, called the spectrum, but the main three levels have been outlined here. The spectrum of scrutiny ranges from Rational Basis Review being the most relaxed on one side and Strict Scrutiny being very intense on the other end. These levels of scrutiny can and will continue to change as courts apply them in the future.

14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship. Source of Original Debate in the Senate (May 30, 1866)

 If you are interested in the primary source of the debate/discussion on birthright citizenship, below is that source. Starts in the center of the page under "Reconstruction" and goes on for several pages.

Many of the quotes you have seen are for and against the proposition.   The May 30th session of the US Senate seems to be the session that has prompted the most attention in the debate.  Context matters!

Note:  Sen Howard is the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.  

If you read the next 10 pages or so, you will get the gist of the substance of the debate

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30867/m1/12/

Happy Fathers Day....or is it?

On any given day, I grade myself on a sliding scale from Harry Chapin's "Cat's in the Cradle" to Dan Fogelberg's "Leader of the Band."  

I hope I am in the Fogleberg Quartile more than the Chapin, but as long as I am above the Median, I guess I am ok.  :)

14th Amendment debate Smackdown 1866 style.

Been trying to understand the original 14th Amendment Citizenship debate from a primary source (Congressional Globe).  Came across this exchange in the 39th Congresss (May of 1866) during the debate as to the extent Southern insurrectionistswould be prevented from holding office (Section 3 of the 14th Amendment).

I assume tensions are running high. Senator Trumbull (Republican from Illinois) takes Senator Doolittle (Democrat from Wisconsin) to task. Doolittle does not like it .

I sense Trumbull's retort (statement in Red, explanation highligted in Blue) to Doolittle has some resonance today.

Link to this debate HERE

What is "Treason"? No, it's not at all "I know it when I see it"...

Treason is a word that has been used too loosely lately.  

Here is what the Constitution says about it:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."

This article, "On Treason and Traitors," explains the historical meaning AND intent of the concept in language even I can understand.

The following is basically the bottom line (bold/underlined emphasis is mine) from the article:

""No American charged with treason has been convicted for conduct related to anything other than direct support of an enemy at war with the United States (for example, the Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War, the Japanese Empire and Nazi Germany in World War II). Thus, if the U.S. is not in an armed conflict with another belligerent party, it is factually and legally impossible to be guilty of treason. As Larson points out in this blog post about alleged collusion between Trump and Russia in his first term, “working with foreign countries to harm the United States is not part of the definition.”

Crimes, but Not Treason

In conclusion, the following acts are often the basis for claims of treason; they might be unlawful (violations of some other statute, like espionage) but are not “treasonous,” and the perpetrators are not “traitors” no matter how disloyal they may seem to the public or to the president:

• Careless leaking of classified, top-secret, war plans onto the internet or an unsecured messaging app (this is a possible crime, but not treason);
• A lawfully initiated investigation into a political leader’s “official” actions (this does not qualify as any crime);
• Being “un-American" (this is not definable, much less a crime);
• Expressing sympathy, or donating time and money, to the victims of an ally’s war effort (this is a form of protected speech); or
• Undermining American economic interests for the sake of another nation out of incompetence (not a crime) or corruption (possibly a crime, but not treason).

14th Amendment, Section 1: "Birthright Citizenship". Duelling Senators

 I have read a lot about the controversy around "Birthright Citizenship".  Folks for and against it use quotes from the 1866 debates in Congress (House and Senate) to support their position.  Seems you can find both sides in the debate.

Below are screenshots of the actual record of the debate in the Senate just before the vote to approve the language of the 14th Amendment.  This document can be found HERE.  The debate I am interested in starts on page 2890 of the document.

If you have read anything on the issue, as you read these 3 pages, you will recognize various quotes that have been used extensively to support positions regarding birthright citizenship.

In the middle of the first page you will see "Reconstruction".  Senator Howard introduces the amendment and gives brief commentary. There you will find a famous/infamous quote I see used very often.

After Howard's comments, you will find Senator Cowan's comments.  He unabashedly takes the side of limiting the scope of birthright citizenship.  You will find several quotes from him that have made it into contemporary criticism of birthright citizenship.

After Cowan, you will find Senator Conness takes the wider view of birthright citizenship.  He unabashedly takes the view that children born "of all parentage whatever" are citizens of the United States.

BOTTOMLINE: This is the official record of the debate. Best one read from the PRIMARY source rather than cherry-picked quotes to justifiy a particular point of view.