Post

The law review editors may well make me remove or tone down this bit, so here’s a sneak preview of my incredibly tedious and angry but I guess necessary explanation of why the 14th Amendment doesn’t contain an “explicit reference” to a statute it never mentions

Paul Gowder@gowder.io

At various points in this book he also claims that the 14th amendment has "explicit reference" to the naturalization acts. (e.g. page 10). Perhaps he is illiterate? He reads the text to not confer citizenship on children (when it has an explicit birth criterion) but to have a nonexistent reference.

19/10/26, 9:19 pm12 reposts65 likes

Paul Gowder

@gowder.io

Tempted to add something really inflammatory in there (“show me on the doll where the 14th Amendment touched you?”) just to give the editors something to insist that I remove without hurting the rest hah

Tom Carter

@thcarter123.bsky.social

verdict.justia.com/2026/10/21/t...

verdict.justia.comTheocracy Is on the Ballot, Part II: The Catholic NationalistsIn the second installment of a two-part column, University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton discusses the Catholic Nationalists who have joined the push for theocracy in the United States,....

Dell C. "DC" Toedt III

@dctoedt.bsky.social

> something to insist that I remove without hurting the rest In a draft contract that's something I tell my students is a "Combat Barbie clause" — a distractor. diamondlanerules.org#nl-combat-ba... (my course materials).

diamondlanerules.orgContract Diamond Lanes

Paul Gowder

@gowder.io

Hah, I love this!