From Oyez: Torcaso v. Watkins

I had a recent discussion about this case. 

It prevents states from requiring a belief in a deity on order to hold public office. 

An example of limited government.

- Click here for the case. 

From Lawfare: The Military and Elections, Part II: Deploy First, Litigate Later

A continuation of the previsous post.

- Click here for the article.

As we discussed in our companion piece, a longstanding legal regime protects against use of the military in connection with elections. As an overarching matter, the military’s authority to operate domestically is circumscribed; constitutional and statutory law both establish distinct roles for civilian law enforcement and members of the armed forces. Additional legislation, codified in law and preserved uninterrupted since the mid-19th century, specifically insulates elections from military interference.

This seems like good news for those who fear military involvement in the 2026 election and beyond. But zooming out, the picture blurs. While it’s true that numerous laws restrict use of the military domestically and for elections in particular, other laws affirmatively permit domestic deployments under certain, sometimes ill-defined, circumstances. Still other legal authorities at least arguably permit the use of the military, even if they don’t do so explicitly.

Democrats in Congress seem to fear the existing rules aren’t enough: Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee reportedly attempted last month to amend the National Defense Authorization Act to bar the use of any funds to deploy federal troops to seize ballots, voting rolls, voting machines, or other election materials—and to require Congress to be notified of any federal troop deployment to polling places. Republicans on the committee blocked the measure. In mid-June, a group of Democratic senators also introduced a bill to modify § 592 to require a Joint Resolution before the President could invoke the “armed enemies” exception. It has not come up for a vote.

The power to involve the military in U.S. elections could conceivably come from two places: statute and the Constitution. Statutory sources include the Insurrection Act (an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act) and National Guard authorities under Title 32 and Title 10. Constitutional theories include the “protective power” and the Article II power to respond to attacks on the United States. An expansive reading of any of these might support an argument that the laws restricting use of the military, including those specific to elections, can be overcome by relying on these permissive authorities.

Such expansive readings are dubious. Sounder analysis would likely conclude that the military generally cannot be used in elections. But our purpose here is to outline what authorities might be cited in support of such deployments, not to evaluate whether those claims would prevail in court. After all, that’s how it would play out on the ground: A president could deploy troops for elections on the basis of a weak legal theory, the deployments would be challenged as unlawful, parties would litigate, and—likely months later—a court would adjudicate. But in the meantime, the deployment already happened.

Many commentators worry that a president might invoke the Insurrection Act to sidestep other statutory limits. That’s a reasonable concern. But the Insurrection Act is not the only mechanism for a president to deploy the military at or near a polling site in a manner at least arguably consistent with the law. And it may not be the most likely option for a president eager to use the troops. That’s particularly true because the interaction of these legal regimes—one permitting the president’s use of the military, the other restricting it—remains largely untested. A president with a propensity for pushing the limits of executive authority, including with respect to domestic deployments specifically, might be tempted to capitalize on the uncertainty by sending in the troops first and letting legal challenges follow.

. . . 

- Click here for a summary from ChatGPT. 

Central Thesis

The article's central argument is:

The greatest danger is not that the law clearly authorizes military involvement in elections, but that uncertain legal authorities could be exploited before courts have time to intervene.

Even if a court eventually ruled a deployment unlawful, elections occur on a single day. Litigation would almost certainly take weeks or months.

From Lawfare: The Military and Elections, Part I: The Legal Wall

What are the president's constitutional powers regarding elections? 

What are the limits?  

- Click here for the article.

Just this year, President Trump said he regrets that he did not order the National Guard to seize voting machines after the 2020 elections. Steve Bannon urged Trump to “call up the 82nd and 101st Airborne” in 2026 to “get around every poll” and make sure that only citizens are voting. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, when asked whether he would refuse an order to deploy troops to polling places during the midterms, avoided answering—and falsely claimed that troops were deployed to polling places in 15 states under Joe Biden.

Critics are alarmed. They see these statements as harbingers of attempts to interfere with the midterm elections in November. “He’ll just claim that there’s some problem with an election—and then he’s got troops on the ground that can take control,” said Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker. “Let’s be clear,” said Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), “we know Trump is laying the groundwork and planning to send troops to polling places to intimidate Americans and interfere in our elections.”

Whether these fears are justified is not just a question of politics—it’s also a question of law. Does the president actually have the legal authority to use the military in connection with the elections?

Yes, there are limitations on using the military for elections, both because there are specific laws protecting elections from military interference and because there are broader (but still uncomfortably vague) legal restrictions on domestic deployments of the military. But the laws have exceptions, and the president’s Article II powers can serve as the basis for claims of inherent authority. That means that evaluating the threat of military interference in elections requires analyzing an intricate patchwork of statutes and constitutional powers—whose interaction is mostly untested.

This article describes the relevant limitations on the president’s use of the military for elections. In a companion article, we discuss the authorities the president may cite in support of his efforts to deploy troops notwithstanding those limitations. The pull and push between these restrictions and the powers the administration may insist it has to overcome them is where the uncertainty lies.

. . . 

- Click here for a summary from ChatGPT.

Main Argument

The authors make five central points:

- Federal law strongly disfavors military involvement in elections.
- Several statutes specifically prohibit troops from interfering with voting or election administration.
-  The Constitution does not expressly forbid domestic military deployments.
-  Presidents possess significant constitutional and statutory authority over the armed forces.
-  Because these authorities have rarely been tested in court during election-related disputes, legal uncertainty remains.

What is "filibustering?"

Note: Not the current legislative use of the word, the 19th Century land acquisition - piracy- use of it. 

In the 19th century, "filibustering" referred to unsanctioned, private military expeditions launched from the U.S. to invade foreign territories, primarily in Latin America and the Caribbean. Adventurers aimed to seize control of land and annex it to the United States, often driven by the ideology of Manifest Destiny and a desire to expand slave-holding territory. 

These unofficial conquests were technically illegal under U.S. Neutrality Laws but were often wildly popular with the American public. 

Famous Filibuster Expeditions

William Walker in Nicaragua (1855–1857): The most infamous filibuster, William Walker, used a private mercenary army to take advantage of political instability in Nicaragua. He briefly seized power, declared himself president in 1856, and legalized slavery before a coalition of Central American armies forced his surrender. 

William Walker in Mexico (1853–1854): Before his Nicaraguan campaigns, Walker attempted to invade the Mexican states of Baja California and Sonora. He proclaimed the "Republic of Lower California" but failed due to lack of supplies and stiff resistance from Mexican forces. 

Narciso López in Cuba (1849–1851): Supported by wealthy Southern slaveholders, a Venezuelan-born adventurer named Narciso López led several armed expeditions to Cuba. His goal was to overthrow Spanish rule and annex Cuba to the U.S. as a slave state. The campaigns ultimately failed, and López was executed by firing squad in Havana in 1851. 

Motivations and Consequences

Expansion of Slavery: Many filibusters originated in the American South and aimed to conquer new agrarian lands where they could establish new slave states. 

Geopolitical Tension: These freelance invasions severely strained U.S. diplomatic relations with Great Britain, Spain, and several Latin American countries, which viewed filibusters as acts of state-sanctioned piracy. 

While the term "filibuster" originates from the Spanish filibustero (meaning pirate) and was tied to these land invasions in the 1850s, the political use of the word today refers to delaying tactics used in the U.S. Senate to block legislation.

From Wikipedia: Treaty of Tordesillas

The treaty signed by Portugal and Spain dividing up the new world - the entire world it seems - between the two. 

Other European powers would challenge them of course, including England. Indogenous populations also pushed back though less successfully.

- Click here for entry.

The Treaty of Tordesillas, signed in Tordesillas, Spain, on 7 June 1494, and ratified in Setúbal, Portugal, divided the newly discovered lands outside Europe between the Kingdom of Portugal and the Crown of Castile, along a meridian 370 leagues (1,281 mi; 2,062 km) west of the Cape Verde islands, off the west coast of Africa. That line of demarcation was about halfway between Cape Verde (already Portuguese) and the islands visited by Christopher Columbus on his first voyage (claimed for Castile and León), thought then to be Cipangu and Antillia, but in fact Cuba and Hispaniola; the treaty itself does not mention Cipangu or Antillia.

The lands to the east would belong to Portugal and the lands to the west to Castile, modifying an earlier bull by Pope Alexander VI. The treaty was created on 7 June 1494, then ratified by Spain on 2 July 1494, by Portugal on 5 September 1494, and by Pope Julius II on 24 January 1506. The other side of the world was divided a few decades later by the Treaty of Zaragoza, signed on 22 April 1529, which specified the antimeridian to the line of demarcation specified in the Treaty of Tordesillas. Portugal and Spain largely respected the treaties, while the Indigenous peoples of the Americas did not acknowledge them.

Dear ChatGPT: What impact did the Treaty of Tordesillas have on european settlement of the new world? 

Overall Historical Significance

The Treaty of Tordesillas was one of the most consequential diplomatic agreements in world history because it:

- Prevented immediate conflict between Spain and Portugal over overseas expansion.
- Enabled Spain and Portugal to build the first global colonial empires.
- Led to the Portuguese colonization of Brazil.
- Concentrated Spanish settlement across most of the Americas.
- Accelerated Catholic missionary activity in the New World.
- Established patterns of language, religion, and law that continue to shape the Western Hemisphere.
- Prompted England, France, and the Netherlands to develop alternative legal justifications for overseas colonization, laying the groundwork for later competition and the eventual settlement of much of North America.

1000 word essay topic for Summer 2 students

Explain a decision from the recent Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court has recently wrapped up its October 2025 term. It issued decisions on 67 cases. For general information about the term click here, and here. For info on the court and its procedures click here.

I want you to explain one of them to me.

Below you will see a list of those deemed most important. You will be assigned one. I want you to read though the decision - to the best of your ability - and explain the facts of the case, the constititional issue involved, and the reasoning behind the decision as well as the reasoning against it, if the exists.

Plenty of resources exist. Use them.

Here are two I find useful:

-ScotusBlog.
-Oyez.

Wikipedia pages are also acceptable. You are also free to use ChatGPT. Just be sure to submit your own work as the final product.

Here is a full list of the cases they heard

These are the ones I want you to select from:

Abouammo v. United States.
Barrett v. United States.
Berk v. Choy.
Blanche v. Lau.
Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections.
Case v. Montana.
Chatrie v. United States.
Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana.
Chiles v. Salazar.
Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment.
Ellingburg v. United States.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. (Cuba).
Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.
Fernandez v. United States.
First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin.
Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock.
Hamm v. Smith.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.
Hunter v. United States.
Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections.
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.
Little v. Hecox.
Louisiana v. Callais.
Monsanto Company v. Durnell.
Mullin v. Doe.
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission.
Noem v. Al Otro Lado.
Pitchford v. Cain.
Pung v. Isabella County.
Salazar v. Paramount Global.
Trump v. Barbara.
Trump v. Cook.
Trump v. Slaughter.
United States Postal Service v. Konan.
United States v. Hemani.
Villarreal v. Texas.
Watson v. Republican National Committee.
West Virginia v. B.P.J.
Wolford v. Lopez.

For the final submission:

Aside from the word length please:

1 - use at least three references
2 - use whatever format works best for you
3 - use a language that at least approximates English

Note that you may write as much as you want.