Read on Twitter
1. When I read this tweet from Pence’s daughter, sent during the coup attempt on January 6, which includes the excerpt about Pence’s deliberations about the history of his role under the constitution right until the last minute, I’m stunned. The history mattered. If Pence https://twitter.com/charlipence/status/1346961047706624001
2. Had refused to open some electoral votes, it could have been remedied in various ways, but would have meant much more chaos. The possibility was real that Pence might have been persuaded to play the role Trump wanted due to the novel scholarship of Bruce Ackerman at Yale LS
3. Compare Ackerman’s words in a September oped with Trump’s tweet on January 5. Absolutely chilling. https://timothynoah.substack.com/p/more-on-this-jefferson-nonsense
4. So I wondered whether the article that I wrote, that was both methodical and short, complete with images of the primary sources, that was published on January 5 in
5. The Washington Monthly, @monthly a widely-read, long-standing, insider magazine that is well regarded— might have influenced Pence’s own ability to have courage at the last, as it blew any claim about a constitutional precedent for VP ability to choose electors — to bits.
7. All of this is to say that history matters. And while as a scholar I’m perfectly happy to agree that the founders had failures of both design and intent, failures that needed to be fixed—or still need to be fixed—I’m not keen on inventing new failures that need to be fixed
8. Especially new failures that might open opportunities for autocrats. Original intent and practice have relevance for how we understand our constitution and our legal system today. It’s scary, but they have to, unless we throw out the entire creaky structure. It is thus
9. It is thus all the more important for scholars to do this work responsibly, with care about the contemporary consequences of innovative theories, as Ackerman’s was in 2004, and became increasingly in his statements through 2020.
10. I would say this even more strongly about the entire new theory of the unitary executive, one which gives the president the powers of a king, one forwarded by some Con Law scholars but now increasingly echoed by the Supreme Court, in decisions like Seila Law this summer.
11. Seila Law gave the President pretty much unlimited authority to fire anyone in the executive branch, regardless of congressional limitations. This was an innovative decision based on novel claims about founders’ original intent. Those claims too distort the history.
12. And such unlimited authority to fire also contributed to the fiasco that was January 6, because the president’s puppets —new civilian appointees to DOD—had control over the national guard and other security forces.
13. As scholars, we should be true to our sources, as much as we can. If those really do lead us to conclude that centuries of precedent and historical interpretation are incorrect, then of course we should say it. And I’m all for considered reform of what’s broken.
14. Historian’s exposure of abuses and biases is so important to be able to fix them, to provide context and understanding of consequences. So I end with a plea: please support history education k-12, college & university, everywhere. Teaching our next generation to interpret
15. To think, to understand—giving them context and knowledge about the past— helps them — helps all of us as citizens (not just VP’s) make sense of our present, and helps us make informed choices in our contested democracy.
