Althouse: "Since when has even a blog as interesting as the The Volokh Conspiracy trumped, for a law-school audience, a chair at a major law school and all the speaker’s academic publications?"

February 23, 2010

"Since when has even a blog as interesting as the The Volokh Conspiracy trumped, for a law-school audience, a chair at a major law school and all the speaker’s academic publications?"

Joe Bottum asks, looking at a poster that identifies Eugene Volokh as "Founder of The Volokh Conspiracy blog and Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA."

In the marketplace of ideas, the currency is page views.

34 comments:

Mick said...: Volokh is a "Constitutional" lawyer, but doesn't know what a Natural Born Citizen is (Born in the US to 2 Citizen Parents)? Neither do the other Russians on the Volokh conspiracy staff. Is it out of self interest? An inflated sense of ego and entitlement that says they should be eligible, so they "disagree" with the "unfairness" of Vattel's Natural Law of citizenship? Eligibility for POTUS is not a right, and Natural born Citizen is a security requirement. I find that these supposed "Constitutional Lawyers" torture the document's logic to the point it is unrecognizable. "Volokh Conspiracy" is a very overrated blog.; 2/23/10, 8:26 AM
tom faranda said...: Ann when did you start reading First things? A great journal - just celebrated it's 20th anniversary.; 2/23/10, 8:56 AM
Wince said...: I am, I said

I am, I said
To no one there
And no one heard at all
Not even the chair; 2/23/10, 9:45 AM
Flight-ER-Doc said...: @Mick: WTF?

Where is the support for your position? A Natural-Born Citizen is a person born in the United States of America, or it's territories.; 2/23/10, 9:54 AM
KA said...: I suspect that "mick" is a commenter recently banned at Volokh who, p/o, has been reappearing under various names, so I wouldn't take it seriously or feed the trolls.; 2/23/10, 10:06 AM
From Inwood said...: Prof A

Gives new meaning to "Publish or Perish"!

The guys on Volokh, Glenn R, & you (suck up) do the legal profession a better service than Law Reviews (I was on mine) or the ABA Journal. And especially the always loony Leftist "law reporters" for the MSM (The Greenhouse effect).

And their writings are not just random outbursts written in Walter Winchell staccato, dots & dashes style.

And, non-lawyer commenters on your blog have given me great insights & even when I disagree with them have forced me to concentrate my mind & think through more rigorously & more broadly matters which lawyers would restrict to “the law”, which, as they, the lawyers, would have it, can only be interpreted by our priestly caste.

And Volokh & blogs like yours have removed matters like the Yoo/Bybee (Boo Hiss) not-torture memos from the Inside Baseball approach, resulting in a reversal of what was to be a disgraceful, disgusting, banana-republic-punish-the-former-leaders kangaroo court, leading to their disbarment & the eventual trial of Bush/Chaney/Rumsfeld.

And let’s hear it for blogs like TaxProf Law Blog

For Joe B: the purpose of Volokh Blog, is not just a dry presentation for specialized lawyers, but for a scholarly look at matters legal for intelligent persons like him with no particular legal background or skills. A great art. Without them & the lawyer authors who write for First Things, Nat Rev, Commentary, etc., we're left with a non-practicing lawyer Linda G who will tell us that a SCOTUS Justice saying that she feels that Affirmative Action should go on for, say, 25 years more, represents a great intellectual Constitutional approach.

First Things is a great publication. It contains more commonsense than most law review articles, etc. which I’ve read. I miss The Rev Neuhaus every day. Joe Bottum is a great writer and thinker. He is also a snob here.

And, I’m sorry to inform you, I turn to its Gateway Pundit & The Anchoress blogs as often as I do yours.☺; 2/23/10, 10:23 AM
Unknown said...: Flight-ER-Doc: I might ask of you that same question you asked of Mick.

A Natural-Born Citizen as a person born in the United States of America, or it's territories or having at least one parent being a United States Citizen.; 2/23/10, 10:31 AM
From Inwood said...: Flight Doc

Birther alert: Ignore 'em.

BTW, you're only partially right. you've covered the jus soli but not the jus sanguinis.

End of this discussion for me.; 2/23/10, 10:32 AM
From Inwood said...: Um, make that "Cheney"; 2/23/10, 10:45 AM
Unknown said...: There is also the case of natural born citizens born abroad. This covers myself (Okinawa) as well as John McCain (Panama). I have a letter from the State Department, without which my birth certificate does not establish citizenship.; 2/23/10, 10:52 AM
Andy Johnson said...: This opens the question; "Who is the law for?" Is the Law for The People or for the Practitioners-?

Given the lawsuit lottery of risk vs reward it would seem that The Law exists for The Practitioners and not The People... Only lawyers may become judges, Most members of Congress are Lawyers, most Cabinet Officers and Members of the Executive Czar-O-cracy are lawyers... It would appear that we, The People stand little chance of understanding and Obeying The Laws enacted by Our representatives...

Do we really need 2,000 pages of finely crafted legal wisdom for each and every bill that passes-?

Do we Really Need several specialized and expensive Tax Lawyers to tel us how much to pay each year-?

Making The Law readable, understandable and enforceable to The People serves a greater Public Purpose than applause lines and another line on a resume...; 2/23/10, 11:07 AM
Exordium said...: This is an interesting precedent. The blogosphere makes a lot of sense -- whoever has more views, is right. Its not about actually being right, but having a lot of hits. Got it.; 2/23/10, 11:07 AM
Mick said...: Jeff said...
There is also the case of natural born citizens born abroad. This covers myself (Okinawa) as well as John McCain (Panama). I have a letter from the State Department, without which my birth certificate does not establish citizenship.

There is no such thing as a Natural Born Citizen born abroad. Resolution 511, which said McCain was a Natural Born Citizen, has no force in law. Natural Born Citizens have NEVER been defined by the Supreme Court as a "US Citizen by birth". It is a term of art from Natural Law that identifies those that have no allegiance to any foreign power at birth. It is the unity of blood and soil. The term Natural Born Citizen never appears in the 14 Amendment. The Venus (1814), Minor v. Happersett (1873) and Perkins v. Elg (1939) are all SCOTUS cases that directly attribute Natural Born Citizenship as Vattel did, Born in the US to 2 US Citizen parents.; 2/23/10, 11:11 AM
Mick said...: Flight-ER-Doc said...
"@Mick: WTF?

Where is the support for your position? A Natural-Born Citizen is a person born in the United States of America, or it's territories."

Just gave it above,
1)Vattel's Law of Nations
2)The Venus (1814)
3)Minor v. Happersett (1873)
4)Perkins v. Elg (1939)
5)Comments by John Bingham, writer of the 14 Amendment during Congressional hearings.; 2/23/10, 11:16 AM
Mick said...: KA said...
"I suspect that "mick" is a commenter recently banned at Volokh who, p/o, has been reappearing under various names, so I wouldn't take it seriously or feed the trolls."

I was banned? didn't even know... I never used any other names by the way. Surprisingly, despite the fact that Mr. Volokh has a 206 IQ and is a Constitutional Scholar he still doesn't know that Natural Born Citizen is the requirement to be POTUS, or that the 14A never says Natural Born,

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article930964.ece
The significant quote by Volokh here is,
"Eugene Volokh, a constitutional law scholar at the University of California at Los Angeles, said the standard is set by the 14th Amendment, which says anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen. It makes no differentiation for "natural born citizen."
Does he not know that A2S1C5 cleary delineates Natural Born Citizen and Citizen, or that the writer of the 14A, John Bingham, defined Natural Born Citizen just as Vattel did, i.e. born in the US, and not subject to the jurisdiction of any foreign power, i.e. born in the US of 2 Citizen parents?
Obama himself admits that his citizenship was "governed" by Britain here under "Factcheck":

http://www.fightthesmears.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

Obama was a dual Citizen with Britain at birth, and later of Kenya, as such he is not a Natural Born Citizen.

How can a Natural Born Citizen's citizenship be "governed" by Britain?; 2/23/10, 11:28 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: “In the marketplace of ideas, the currency is page views.”

Bullshit. It's gatekeepers - who gets seen by Glenn Reynolds, good or bad, is more important than what anyone says - whether they're right or wrong, smart or stupid. (For instance, more hookers on The Daily Beast get positive exposure for their views on Tiger Woods, through Instapundit, than anyone who might have a more constructive, moral, ethical, or yes, even "enlightening", comment.) That bias is as bad as any newspaper's, telling us what they want, or what they think we want, rather than what we need or (in my particular case) can actually relate to. it's all about the gatekeepers now:

Ideas don't matter - being in the clique does - it's just a case of New Media groupthink at work and nothing more.; 2/23/10, 11:33 AM
Joe said...: A Natural-Born Citizen is a person who wasn't delivered by by c-section.

A further argument could be made that the child must be born with its mother receiving medication! Or the doctor using forceps.

(Among my children, only my youngest was truly natural-born.)

This going to a real problem going forward.; 2/23/10, 11:34 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: BTW, I kinda referenced this the other day,...; 2/23/10, 11:36 AM
Mick said...: KA said...
"I suspect that "mick" is a commenter recently banned at Volokh who, p/o, has been reappearing under various names, so I wouldn't take it seriously or feed the trolls."

I wasn't banned there, just posted some more.

http://volokh.com/2010/02/21/ignorance-is-not-stupidity-round-xvii/comment-page-1/#comment-758523; 2/23/10, 12:27 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Go Eugene. He was the guy, maybe a decade ago, who got me into blogging. Knew him from some computer law conferences back in Austin (he would speak, I would just go slumming with the speakers down on E. 6th street afterwords). He had a .sig on his posts in, I believe, the Cyberia-L listserve group, and a link in that to Volokh.com. I followed that back, and learned about blogging.

Extremely bright guy, as are most of his Conspirators. While he teaches Con Law, I think his really deep expertise is in the 1st and 2nd Amdts. I have probably learned more 1st Amdt. stuff from him there than anywhere else over the years. And, a lot of his 2nd Amdt. research was really foundational for Heller, like going through the Constitutions of the 50 states on the Right to Bear Arms, much of which helped to show that it was an individual, not collective, right. Indeed, the blog is one of the best places for both 1st and 2nd Amdt. discussions out there. Also, EV first brought be around to favor civil unions (as he was moving from there to SSM), and I am now reconsidering my opposition to SSM.

So, from my point of view, I think citing his blog first, before his endowed chair, is fitting. I think he reaches many more people through the former, as compared to the later.; 2/23/10, 12:50 PM
LonewackoDotCom said...: Here's the comment I left at the link (slightly edited). I'll be adding them to this long list of borderline fascists when I get around to it:

------------
Yes, but can you trust what you read there? That's highly questionable since they've disabled fact-checking with their habit of deleting comments and banning users (like me recently, someone who'd been commenting there since 2002). If someone at their site makes a false claim about some obscure subject about which you know nothing, how do you know that a comment pointing out how they're wrong hasn't been deleted? You're going to need to fact-check every single statement they make there because you can't trust them not to have deleted comments pointing out how they got something wrong.

For instance, let's say someone at volokh.com posts "H.R. 123 says X is Y", and someone who's an expert on H.R. 123 comes along and leaves a comment pointing out how that's wrong, and the comment is then deleted for one specious reason or other. You won't know about that, and if you trust what you read there you'll be getting bad, unreliable information. You'll never know whether a comment pointing out what they say has been deleted, so nothing you read there can be trusted.

In my case, my thoughtcrime was taking O. Kerr to task for deleting an earlier comment, and I did that on two of their meta-discussions about commenting policies. IOW: I was banned for discussing their commenting policies on threads about their commenting policies. Eventually I'll get around to posting about that, stay tuned.; 2/23/10, 4:13 PM
LonewackoDotCom said...: P.S. Here are two comments I left there; all those I left under 24AheadDotCom have been deleted:

-------------------------
volokh.com/2010/01/26/one-sting-too-many/
I came to this site hoping to find them pointing out that the affidavit doesn't say anything about "bugging" or "wiretapping", it only claims they were trying to "interfere" with the phone system. It's unfortunate that I'm the first to point that out.

If they were trying to "bug" the office, wouldn't that be in the affidavit and wouldn't the DOJ mention that in their release?

Maybe this site could take a belated look at that issue.

In any case, if anyone wants to do things in a perfectly legitimate and highly effective way that will raise the level of debate in the U.S., help promote this plan.

----------------------
volokh.com/2010/01/28/an-exchange-on-comment-moderating/
Orin Kerr is falsely giving the impression that he only deletes "uncivil" comments. Now, see this: volokh.com/posts/1233874107.shtml

All Kerr did was post a cheap, sub-Leno joke about an Obama appointee. I posted a comment about how that appointee wasn't right for the job, linking to this page or one of the posts on that page.

Which is his right. So, if you want cheap jokes that not even the worse stand-up in the U.S. would dare utter, come to this site. If you want to find out why an appointee isn't qualified you should look elsewhere.; 2/23/10, 4:19 PM
tom_in_georgia said...: Maybe off topic but please forgive me....regarding "natural born", how do you treat births at American military bases and airfields in foreign countries? Or embassy and consulate births in over 100 countries? How is that American soil?

I think that those who want to make an issue of natural born really have some other agenda.

Just asking.

Not a lawyer, in fact, I can barely read and write.; 2/23/10, 5:22 PM
Mick said...: tom_in_georgia said...
"Maybe off topic but please forgive me....regarding "natural born", how do you treat births at American military bases and airfields in foreign countries? Or embassy and consulate births in over 100 countries? How is that American soil?

I think that those who want to make an issue of natural born really have some other agenda.

Just asking.

Not a lawyer, in fact, I can barely read and write."

Right, it's all just racist to follow the USC ???? Anyway, the definition of Natural Born Citizen is born in the US to US Citizen Parents (plural, unless the mother is single). The first Naturalization Act of 1790 tried to extend the definition to the children of military parents born abroad. However that was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which took out the words Natural Born. The question of those born in a US embassy, I believe, would not qualify.
Resolution 511 was a sham done by a Congress that had tried to change the qualification for years (because supposedly it is unfair or anti immigrant), and has no force in law. McCain, born in Colon, Panama, is certainly not a NBC. What it did was conceal the real issue, which was the fact that Obama's father was never a Citizen, and since Obama was born a dual citizen he is not a Natural Born Citizen. This bunch of RATS on both sides of the aisle gave us 2 unqualified candidates for POTUS.
Is it so hard to understand the logic of the unification of blood and soil to assure the highest possibility of allegiance and attachment? Does Obama display true allegiance and attachment?; 2/23/10, 5:45 PM
Skeptical said...: Maybe it's not so much that blogs have gotten to be so much more impressive, but that having a chair at a major law school has gotten to be that much less impressive.; 2/23/10, 5:54 PM
Mick said...: Skeptical said...
"Maybe it's not so much that blogs have gotten to be so much more impressive, but that having a chair at a major law school has gotten to be that much less impressive."

Amen brother! This Professor Volokh, a supposed constitutional scholar, thinks that any baby dropped on our shores by an illegal alien is eligible to be POTUS.; 2/23/10, 6:18 PM
RAH said...: The legal definition of natural born citizen is interesting. Most people think wrongly or not that if a child is born of an American citizen then that child is an American citizen and eligible to be a candidate for President.

However the qualification says natural born and that could disqualified any citizen not born in the United States. That a would have disqualified both McCain and Obama but not Palin or Hilary; 2/23/10, 6:44 PM
RAH said...: However since the issue was not decided before the election no one has the political fortitude to declare the election invalid because both candidates are disqualified.

The courts do not want to do that so they will get rid of any suit on grounds if they can.

The real question is who can decide a qualification, Congress, FEC or SCOTUS? This has to be decided before an election. I don't think Congress is qualified since they have passed so many laws that violate the Constitution. Courts generally accept and change of law if done by Congress.

This really should be decided before another election.; 2/23/10, 6:49 PM
RAH said...: However since the issue was not decided before the election no one has the political fortitude to declare the election invalid because both candidates are disqualified.

The courts do not want to do that so they will get rid of any suit on grounds if they can.

The real question is who can decide a qualification, Congress, FEC or SCOTUS? This has to be decided before an election. I don't think Congress is qualified since they have passed so many laws that violate the Constitution. Courts generally accept and change of law if done by Congress.

This really should be decided before another election.; 2/23/10, 6:49 PM
LonewackoDotCom said...: Regarding Mick's first comment:

1. He still has no clue about how to achieve what he wants. He needs an authoritative determination, which is only going to be obtained with the help of either a S.C. case or the MSM. Those on his side don't have the brains (or the money to buy the brains) to get the first. The second is more easily obtainable but, instead of using the leverage available to him - that the MSM has lied about the facts of the cert matter - those like Mick want to give the MSM a pass on that. Mick doesn't even understand what my objection is, he's that far out of it.

2. If I had to hazard a guess, those at volokh.com are simply careerists. Several years ago they were part of the group that discussed CA's Lt. Gov. belonging to an extremist group. They haven't done anything like that since, concentrating instead on useless word-of-the-day type junk. I'd use a more colloquial word for them, but that's a little too street. Some of them are from Russia, but they don't have the fight the power spirit in any way.; 2/23/10, 6:51 PM
Mick said...: LoneWacko seems to think it's OK that there is an ineleigible man in the White House. Of course the MSM has lied, they have propped him up all the way. Do I alone have the ability to reach the SCOTUS? No. But I will do all I can to educate the public. Volokh and Althouse have much larger platforms, but somehow, even as lawyers, they don't seem to care about the Constitution, or they are afraid of the Alinsky tactics of humiation that would be sure to follow. I think Volokh has a more personal reason. He was married in the last 5years to a woman named Periera, whom he met through online dating services. Perhaps she wasn't a citizen when his children were born. I find his reaction and denial a lot in those cases. Maybe he thinks that since he is so smart that even he (born in Ukraine) should be eligible. A lot of people think the requirement is unfair or an antiquated relic. Not true. If that's the case then it is discriminatory of 34 year olds also. It is a Security requirement to assure the highest possibility of allegiance and attachment. Has Obama shown Allegiance and attachment to country? It's not only about him, it' what comes next. You? You just run some little nonsense blog.; 2/24/10, 7:23 AM
Mick said...: Lynn said,

"The real question is who can decide a qualification, Congress, FEC or SCOTUS? This has to be decided before an election. I don't think Congress is qualified since they have passed so many laws that violate the Constitution. Courts generally accept and change of law if done by Congress"

Resolution 511, paving the way for Mccain to run as a Natural Born Citizen, proves that the question was asked before the election. They said that he was eligible because his parents were US Citizens. Well he's not because he was born in Colon, Panama (Naturalization act of 1795). And if he was eligible because his parents were citizens, what about Obama? They all knew that
his father was Kenyan, why didn't they investigate him?
The secretaries of states have the ability to Vet the candidates that appear on their state ballot. Calero, the Socialist Party candidate (born in Nicaraugua) was kept off the ballot in 8 states, by the SOSs. so it is obvious that the political parties shoved them out of the way in order to run 2 ineligible candidates and try to change by precedent what they couldn't change by legislative act over the last 10 years. It is a disgrace and an outrage that they gave the public 2 ineligible candidates. It's Treason, yet Volokh, with his huge platform and credentials as a constitutional scholar sits idly by. Disgusting.; 2/24/10, 7:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Does anyone else here think that the idea of Lonewacko and Mick arguing about who better has a "clue about how to achieve what he wants" (cough, attention, cough) is absolutely hilarious?

- Lyssa; 2/24/10, 7:41 AM
Mick said...: lyssalovelyredhead said...
"Does anyone else here think that the idea of Lonewacko and Mick arguing about who better has a "clue about how to achieve what he wants" (cough, attention, cough) is absolutely hilarious?

- Lyssa"

Another one that doesn't care about the trampling of the USC. And that's why it's allowed to happen.; 2/24/10, 8:43 AM