IMF Poll Shows Real Demand For Crypto Payment Solutions

Authored by Iliya Zaki via Hackernoon.com,

On April 10th, IMF launched a tweet poll asking “How do you think you will be paying for lunch in 5 years?”. The choices include cash, cryptocurrency, a mobile phone, and bank card. The choice of Cryptocurrency received 56% of the 37,000 votes and the next choice was via mobile phone with 27%. Therefore, could IMF’s poll serve as a clue to what lies in the future: Mass Adoption of Cryptocurrencies? The potential of Crypto Payments being the main method of payments is very real.

Merchants Accepting Crypto Payments Are Increasing

Kaspersky’s money report 2018 survey found 13% of people have used crypto payments. The study collected responses from more than 12,000 consumers in 22 different countries. There is an increasing number of businesses offering cryptocurrency as a payment method. Businesses include retailers and food outlets that accept crypto payments. Vitaly Mzokov, Head of Verification, Growth Center at Kaspersky Lab said:

“Despite a fall in cryptocurrency prices, there is still a strong desire for digital transactions amongst consumers. Our consumer research has found that 13% of people have used cryptocurrency as a payment method, which was surprising to see.”

The image above is from Coinmap and it shows that there are more than 14,600 establishments that are accepting Crypto Payments.

Strong Case For Crypto Payments

Mobile contactless payments such as Apple Pay, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay is on the rise. According to Statista, the number of NFC (near field communications) mobile payment users more than tripled from 53.9 million to 166 million from 2015 to 2018. Adoption for NFC mobile payment took a while but in just 6 years, we have gone from having just 5 million users in 2012 to 166 million. With 27% of the voters choosing mobile phone, the numbers above do make sense. Remember our article about crypto wallets in Samsung Galaxy S10? Samsung is the first mover in the space and there is a high likelihood that others will follow. Therefore, we can assume that phone companies are laying out a strong foundation that can launch crypto payment adoption.

Facebook and WhatsApp

In another article, we discuss a possible involvement from WhatsApp with Crypto paymentswith third-party crypto wallet developers, Wuabit. Whatsapp has 1.5 billion users in 109 countries. The most popular countries include India, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, and many other countries. They can become a major force in driving crypto adoption due to the sheer number of users and reputation in developing countries.

Wuabit is set to launch the public beta test this month. According to their Medium articles, Wuabit targets WhatsApp as the first instant messaging platform because of its popularity worldwide. Soon, they will work on integrating Facebook messenger, Telegram, WeChat, and Viber. Wuabit also plans on extending the service to other popular Crypto projects such as Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Ethereum. Thus, making WhatsApp a real payment solution in the future.

Coinbase

Coinbase launched a new payments service for users to “send money internationally for free.” Can we assume Coinbase is also building the infrastructure to Crypto payments? Furthermore, the San Francisco-based cryptocurrency exchange is launching a Visa card in the UK that will let users pay with Bitcoin, Ethereum and Litecoin.

“Coinbase Card supports all crypto assets available to buy and sell on the Coinbase platform, meaning they can pay for a meal with bitcoin, or use ethereum to fund their train ticket home,” Zeeshan Feroz, the head of Coinbase’s UK arm, said in a blog post.

Crypto Payments Ready to Develop in Latin America

Crypto adoption in Latin America has reached an all-time high with 8,000 transactions logged since the start of 2019. While much of the world is still battling its way through a long crypto winter, South American traders appear committed to the cryptocurrency cause. Digital tokens are seen as the most effective way out of economic and political turmoil. The Venezuelan financial crisis and international sanctions have resulted in citizens abandoning the bolivar in favor of other currencies. However, it seems that rather than turn to foreign currencies, thousands are instead choosing cryptocurrencies. CoinDance stats also show trading has shot up in neighboring Columbia since the start of the year.

Meanwhile, in Argentina, CoinDance’s LocalBitcoin data reveals that trading volumes have hit 2019 high. With a volume of over 8.5 million, it is the second highest weekly trading volume ever. As per an Argentinean cryptocurrency expert speaking to news outlet La Verda, some 20,000 people in the country currently own cryptocurrencies. If true, this means that a relatively small group of citizens are doing the majority of the country’s trading. Can Latin America benefit from a new monetary system that integrates Crypto payments seamlessly?

The popularity of Cryptocurrencies in Latin America presents an opportunity to build crypto payment solutions. Therefore, the environment is ripe for visionaries to develop a new monetary system.

There is, in fact, a project seeking to build a blockchain-based monetary system that can no doubt challenge the traditional system.

Introducing MoneyFi

The MoneyFi platform is a communication channel for cross border currency remittances based on digital assets trading. Users will be able to remit money via the MoneyFi App that uses its native cryptocurrency token “Nemoo” for settlement. The App is integrated into an existing infrastructure consisting of a global ATM processing network that will facilitate newly developed fiat-crypto hybrid ATMs. MoneyFi is a venture subsidiary structured as Special Purpose Vehicle under the Odyssey Group headquartered in Miami (USA).

The Odyssey Group, founded by Sebastian Ponceliz 2014 in the United States, is a retail banking support organization active in the US, Argentina, Spain, and Italy. The company provides Vending Machines (1,000+ deployed) and traditional ATMs (1000+ deployed) with their proprietary Octagon Network, a transaction processing platform that manages its ATM network. Odyssey has recently acquired an Argentinian Bank and a Credit Card Manufacturer to expand its operations.

MoneyFi seeks to address not only the growing demand for better remittance systems but the need to have a stable crypto payment solution in Latin America. It seems that they are targeting the entire payment ecosystem that includes merchants, consumers, and banks.

At the moment, there aren’t much information regarding the project that can be found. However, as time progresses, the company behind the project will divulge more information.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2IT1QAH Tyler Durden

MSNBC Calls Out “Green” Mayor de Blasio For Daily SUV Trips To The Gym

“Do as I say, not as I do” seems to be the mantra at city hall these days.

Like many liberals, Mayor Bill de Blasio wants to propose solutions that sound great on paper, but when it comes to making actual, personal sacrifices to stand by them – well, that’s where he draws the line.

De Blasio, who the NY Post reported in 2017 is driven over 10 miles to the gym daily in an SUV, was recently again grilled about his travel habits and how they stand at odds with his carbon neutral propositions for the city. And you know it was bad because the none other than liberal hub MSNBC honed in on de Blasio’s hypocrisy. 

MSNBC political analyst Jonathan Lemire asked DeBlasio: “What sort of environmentally responsible example are you setting there, taking this drive in a car as opposed to going to someplace nearby?”

De Blasio responded: “Let’s make clear, this is just a part of my life. I come from that neighborhood in Brooklyn. That’s my home. I go there on a regular basis to stay connected to where I come from and not be in a bubble that I think for a lot of politicians is a huge problem.”

“I want to be someone who sees the world through the prism of the neighborhood I come from in Brooklyn and remembers where I came from and all the people who have been part of the life here. I don’t want to be someone who is seeing the world through the prism of Gracie Mansion. So, you know, I just feel very comfortable. This is what I’m going to do,” the mayor said back in 2017.

“I think this has been really painted in an unfair light,” he also said in 2017. 

De Blasio led an effort to sue major oil producers in 2018 for global warming even as the city’s auto fleet has expanded from 25,855 in 2013 to 31,159 in 2019.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2vhh7n0 Tyler Durden

Hecklers Thrown Out Of Wells Fargo Shareholder Meeting For Repeatedly Interrupting Interim CEO

Wells Fargo interim CEO Allen Parker has barely been in the C-suite a month, and he’s already being forced to confront the lingering resentment over the bank’s many consumer abuses – from opening fraudulent accounts on behalf of millions of customers to improperly repossessing the cars of service members – face to face.

According to CNN, dozens of activist shareholders were forcibly removed from Wells’ annual shareholder meeting on Tuesday after they refused to stop heckling Parker, who intimated that the bank could switch to a ‘virtual’ format – as other companies have – for future meetings if shareholders ignored his pleas for quiet.

Wells

One unidentified woman screamed that Wells Fargo “could not be trusted”, while Bruce Marks, an activist investor with a history of disrupting shareholder meetings, demanded that the Wells’ board be “held accountable.”

All the while, Parker calmly pleaded with them not to speak out of turn.

“I’m going to have to ask you to leave the meeting if you cannot allow me to finish and continue in a respectful manner,” Parker said.

“One of the wonderful things about shareholder democracy in our country is that we have meetings like this.”

Perhaps the most memorable disruption came from a marine who recounted how the bank improperly repossessed his car in the middle of the night, leaving him and his pregnant wife without a car. When she went into labor, they had to turn to the police for a ride to the hospital.

During the regular question-and-answer period, former Marine Robert Martin criticized Wells Fargo for repossessing his vehicle in the middle of the night. Wells Fargo was been fined multiple times for wrongfully repossessing hundreds of servicemembers’ vehicles.

Martin said the incident left him and his pregnant life without a car when she had a medical emergency. The couple needed to be driven to the hospital by a police officer. Wells Fargo, Martin said, sent him a check for $10,000.

“My anguish was more than $10,000,” Martin told the board.

According to Bloomberg, another shareholder attacked the Wells board as a bunch of “frauds.” Others blasted Wells executives as “criminals” and demanded that Parker turn the company around.

Approached by CNN about the CEO hiring process, Betsy Duke, Wells Fargo’s chairwoman, refused to offer any details but insisted that the job was a “desirable” one.

“The role of CEO of Wells Fargo should attract the top talent in banking,” Duke said.

Somewhere, Tim Sloan is secretly thankful that Elizabeth Warren suggested he resign. And Parker is probably secretly thankful that Warren Buffett recommended the bank pick an outsider for its next CEO, particularly as Wells stock continues to lag behind the other big American banks.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2ViRYHj Tyler Durden

2Y Auction Prices On The Screws As Yield Rebounds From 1 Year Low

After last month’s unexpectedly strong 2Y auction which saw a surge in foreign central bank demand, the just concluded sale of $40 billion in 2Y paper was less exciting, even if it did have its moments.

The high yield of 2.355% rebounded from March’s 2.273%, which was the lowest since February 2018, and also printed “on the screws” with the When Issued, confirming solid demand at auction time.

The bid to cover dipped modestly from 2.60% last month to 2.51% and just below the 2.55% six auction average.

The internals were likewise weaker than last month, as the Indirects dropped from 56.0% in March to 47.7% in April, which however was right on top of the six auction average; and as Directs rose modestly from 13.3% to 15.8%, above the 14.6% average, Dealers were left with 36.5%, a sizable increase from the 30.7% last month.

Overall it was a mediocre auction, which may indicate that bond traders are just as clueless about the future trajectory of the short-end as the Fed itself.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2ZvbUG8 Tyler Durden

Social Security Earned A Pitiful 2.8% On Your Money Last Year

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

Hot off the presses: The Board of Trustees for the Social Security and Medicare programs in the United States just released their annual report a few hours ago.

And if you want to read all of its gory detail, check it out for yourself here.

Both of these programs are massively and terminally underfunded. And not by a little bit.

The Board of Trustees itself calculates Social Security’s long-term shortfall at a mind boggling $43+ TRILLION.

Simply put, the trust funds don’t have enough money to keep the programs going, at least under the current promises.

They admit right at the beginning of their report that, starting 2020, Social Security’s cost will exceed the money it earns in from interest and taxes.

That’s not some far out date decades into the future. That’s next year. And every year after that.

By 2034, just 15 years from now, Social Security’s primary trust fund will be fully depleted. And one of Medicare’s trust funds will run out of money in 2026.

In case you’re wondering, by the way, the Board of Trustees consists of the United States Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services, etc.

This isn’t a bunch of conspiracy theorists. They’re some of the top executives in government.

So I’m not exaggerating in the slightest when I say this is a complete disaster. Millions of people depend on Social Security for their livelihood… people who have been promised for their entire working lives that the program would be solvent.

When the funds run out of money, countless people’s lives will be turned upside down.

You’d think this would be considered some kind of national emergency… that politicians would be doing everything they can to fix this.

But hardly a word is uttered about it. 15 years is far enough out that most of these people don’t expect to be in office anymore… so it will be someone else’s problem to deal with.

Not to mention, their options are extremely limited.

On one hand, they could try to actually generate more investment income for the program. To me this is an obvious choice.

Right now the Social Security trust funds have $2.9 trillion in assets. Yet they only earned a pitiful $83 billion in investment income last year, a return of roughly 2.8%.

That’s barely enough to keep up with inflation.

Seriously– is this the best these people can do? 2.8%? The United States is home to some of the most brilliant investment minds in history who could easily double that investment return.

This is what other countries do– Japan, Singapore, Norway, etc. Fund mangers for public pensions have the discretion to invest in assets all over the world in an effort to derive higher returns.

But that’s not going to happen in the Land of the Free.

It’s actually ILLEGAL for Social Security to invest in anything EXCEPT for US government debt. I’m serious. Social Security’s ONLY assets are Treasury Bonds, and under current federal law, that’s all it will ever be.

Thing is- the US government really needs that money. They’re already $22 trillion in debt and going deeper into debt each year.

They can’t afford to allow Social Security to invest in anything else other than US debt. They’re already over-reliant on Social Security as a lender, and allowing the trust funds to invest in anything else would be financial suicide.

So that option is off the table… leading to option #2: Cutting benefits.

And you can absolutely count on that happening. The Trustees themselves even say this– that after the fund is fully depleted in 2034, they will have to make deep cuts to the monthly benefit.

Again– tens of millions of people are depending on that money. Tens of millions more will be depending on it when they retire in the future.

Slashing benefits is going to have a massive impact on their lives.

The last option is to raise taxes. And just like cutting benefits, you can count on this happening.

Just wait for the Bolsheviks to rise to power. They have a limitless agenda and no qualms about jacking tax rates up to 70% or more.

I really don’t want to sound alarmist. But there are obvious realities here that any rational person should take very seriously.

At some point, most of us probably expect to retire. And retirement will take very careful consideration  in full view of all the facts.

These are facts… and it’s important to start planning with these basic truths in mind: the longer you have until retirement, the less likely that you’ll ever see a penny in benefits.

And to continue learning how to ensure you thrive no matter what happens next in the world, I encourage you to download our free Perfect Plan B Guide.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2vhNgeb Tyler Durden

Jussie Smollett’s Lawyers Sued By Osundario Brothers For Defamation

Two brothers who say Jussie Smollett paid them $3,500 to stage a hate-crime hoax are suing the Empire actor’s lawyers, Mark Geragos and Tina Glandian, for defamation – claiming that the attorney lied to the media to make it appear that Ola and Abel Osundario were guilty of a real, homophobic and racist attack

According to TMZ, the brothers filed the case in Chicago federal court, claiming that Smollett “used his clout as a wealthy actor to influence [the brothers] who were in a subordinate relationship to him and were aspiring to ‘make it.'”

The suit says when Tina Glandian went on ‘GMA,’ “Today” and the Reasonable Doubt podcast after the charges against Jussie were dismissed, she told a string of lies … including the brothers wore whiteface during the attack and the brothers were involved in an illegal Nigerian steroid trafficking ring. -TMZ

Additionally, the lawsuit claims that Glandian falsely claims one of the brothers “engaged in fornication with Mr. Smollett.” 

Attorney Mark Geragos

Also according to the filing, Smollett’s other attorney Mark Geragos “repeatedly indicated that plaintiffs conspired to criminally attack Mr. Smollett, and by doing so, implied plaintiffs committed perjury” to the Grand Jury, while conspiring to make false statements to the Chicago police department. 

The suit doubles down and says the brothers never knew Jussie would go to the cops … rather, he was staging the “attack” for social media.

The brothers say as a result of the alleged defamation they suffered extreme emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety, damages to their reputation, and damages to current and prospective business relations.

As we reported, Ola and Abel have had a tough time finding work, both as actors and personal trainers, in the wake of the scandal. -TMZ

A long-time high profile lawyer, Geragos has most recently made headlines after having been named by the Wall Street Journal as an unindicted co-conspirator with disgraced attorney Michael Avenatti, who was arrested as part of an extortion plot to bilk $20 million out of Nike. 

Geragos also represents Seagrams heiress Clare Bronfman, who pleaded guilty last week in the NXIVM sex-cult case.  

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2GvgtaR Tyler Durden

Delaware Government Refusing to Allow “Illegal Pete’s” as Corporate Name

Illegal Pete’s is a Colorado-based Mexican restaurant chain; starting several years ago, the name has drawn controversy because some view it as an insulting reference to illegal aliens. (The restaurant owners disagree, and say the name was chosen “to convey the unique, countercultural atmosphere [the founder] wanted to foster” and was an homage to the founder’s father, who was “a bit of a good-natured hell-raiser.”)

The owners of Illegal Pete’s wanted to make it a Delaware limited liability company, but the Delaware Secretary of State’s office rejected the application, allegedly on the grounds that the name “has a negative connotation,” and that

Title 8 [of the Delaware Code] permits this office to reject a filing if the use of a corporate name by a corporation “might cause harm to the interests of the public or the State as determined by the Division of Corporations in the Department of State”. As it stands, the document will be rejected unless a modification is made to the name of the corporation in the certificate of conversation [sic] and in its certificate of incorporation.

Yesterday, Illegal Pete’s sued the Secretary of State, arguing that the denial was unjustified by statute—which on its face applies only to names containing the word “bank”—and violates the Due Process Clause and the First Amendment.

And indeed, given the Supreme Court’s decision in the Slants case (Matal v. Tam), the denial does violate the First Amendment. Matal holds that the government can’t deny trademark registration to allegedly racially offensive marks. It follows that the government likewise can’t deny certificates of incorporation (or LLC status) to business names that allegedly offensively refer to illegal aliens (or, for that matter, to marks that seem to praise illegal conduct, if that’s the Secretary of State’s objection).

The case reminds me of Kalman v. Cortes (E.D. Pa. 2010), which struck down a Pennsylvania ban on corporate names that contain “[w]ords that constitute blasphemy, profane cursing or swearing or that profane the Lord’s name” (applied in that case to the name “I Choose Hell Productions”). But following Matal, the matter is even clearer.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2vgECMT
via IFTTT

Delaware Government Refusing to Allow “Illegal Pete’s” as Corporate Name

Illegal Pete’s is a Colorado-based Mexican restaurant chain; starting several years ago, the name has drawn controversy because some view it as an insulting reference to illegal aliens. (The restaurant owners disagree, and say the name was chosen “to convey the unique, countercultural atmosphere [the founder] wanted to foster” and was an homage to the founder’s father, who was “a bit of a good-natured hell-raiser.”)

The owners of Illegal Pete’s wanted to make it a Delaware limited liability company, but the Delaware Secretary of State’s office rejected the application, allegedly on the grounds that the name “has a negative connotation,” and that

Title 8 [of the Delaware Code] permits this office to reject a filing if the use of a corporate name by a corporation “might cause harm to the interests of the public or the State as determined by the Division of Corporations in the Department of State”. As it stands, the document will be rejected unless a modification is made to the name of the corporation in the certificate of conversation [sic] and in its certificate of incorporation.

Yesterday, Illegal Pete’s sued the Secretary of State, arguing that the denial was unjustified by statute—which on its face applies only to names containing the word “bank”—and violates the Due Process Clause and the First Amendment.

And indeed, given the Supreme Court’s decision in the Slants case (Matal v. Tam), the denial does violate the First Amendment. Matal holds that the government can’t deny trademark registration to allegedly racially offensive marks. It follows that the government likewise can’t deny certificates of incorporation (or LLC status) to business names that allegedly offensively refer to illegal aliens (or, for that matter, to marks that seem to praise illegal conduct, if that’s the Secretary of State’s objection).

The case reminds me of Kalman v. Cortes (E.D. Pa. 2010), which struck down a Pennsylvania ban on corporate names that contain “[w]ords that constitute blasphemy, profane cursing or swearing or that profane the Lord’s name” (applied in that case to the name “I Choose Hell Productions”). But following Matal, the matter is even clearer.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2vgECMT
via IFTTT

Power Grid Failure In NY Causes Panic, Highlights The Importance Of Prepping

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

A recent power grid failure in New York caused panic and even stoked the fear of an alien invasion.  With so many dependent on the electrical power grid, it is important to be prepared for the worst.

Even president Donald Trump has taken it upon himself to sign an executive order declaring an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) could be “debilitating” to the United States’ power grid.  Far too many Americans won’t know what to do when the inevitable finally happens. And things will get dire should we have to live without power for more than one week.

“It is the policy of the United States to prepare for the effects of EMPs through targeted approaches that coordinate whole-of-government activities and encourage private-sector engagement,” said the executive order released by the White House.

A congressional report warned that an EMP attack on the East Coast would kill 90 percent of those in the area over the course of ONE year due to the lack of food, money, fuel, electricity, and medical care.

The infrastructure is crumbling, and while the government claims they intend to secure the power grid, most of us know much better.  The best the rest of us can do is make sure we are armed with knowledge and the survivalist mentality.

Americans, largely, have put their survival in the hands of the government, but if you’re reading this, you probably want to become more self-sufficient. And beginning by preparing for a lengthy power grid failure (regardless of whether it was an EMP attack or an infrastructure failure) is a great start and an excellent first step when fueling your “prepper’s mindset.”

Start by storing extra water.  If you have a well, you are already a giant leap ahead of those who do not, however, you will need to figure out a way to retrieve water without power. If you don’t have a well, you should begin by making sure you have enough water for at least 6 weeks. Each person will need about 7 ½ gallons of water per day! That seems daunting, but it includes drinking, cooking, washing clothing, and personal hygiene.

Next, store some food.  Find a safe place you can hide away bulk non-perishable food items. If the grid fails, grocery stores will cease being stocked with food and will eventually run out completely.  Can vegetables to store or buy extra canned goods when you go to the grocery store.

The last step for now, is to find a cool dark place to HIDE your food and water.  Yes, it should be hidden. Consider keeping your stock of supplies a secret too; the fewer who know, the fewer who pose a threat to your supplies if a grid failure stretches past the week mark.  People get desperate when they are hungry, and you may need to defend your food or water if too many others know what you’ve got and where you store it.

Keep a survivalist mentality and rely on yourself. Prepping for a grid failure is one of the best ways to ensure the health and safety of your family in a worst-case scenario.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2IASIBx Tyler Durden

Grounding Originalism Published

My frequent co-author (and now co-blogger) Steve Sachs and I have a new article out in the Northwestern Law Review, in a symposium issue devoted to “Originalism 3.0.” Our contribution, “Grounding Originalism,” tries to provide philosophical grounding for our approach to originalism, one which emphasizes that originalism is a theory of law, under which our law is the Founders’ law, plus all lawful changes enacted since then.

The piece responds in part to criticisms raised by Richard Primus, Mark Greenberg, Mikołaj Barczentewicz, and Charles Barzun, among others (and Eric Segall is publishing a response here). Here is the abstract of our piece:

How should we interpret the Constitution? The “positive turn” in legal scholarship treats constitutional interpretation, like the interpretation of statutes or contracts, as governed by legal rules grounded in actual practice. In our legal system, that practice requires a certain form of originalism: our system’s official story is that we follow the law of the Founding, plus all lawful changes made since.

Or so we’ve argued. Yet this answer produces its own set of questions. How can practice solve our problems, when there are so many theories of law, each giving practice a different role? Why look to an official story, when on-the-ground practice may be confused or divided—or may even make the story ring false? And why take originalism as the official story, when so many scholars and judges seem to reject it?

This Essay offers a response to each. To the extent that legal systems are features of particular societies, a useful theory will have to pay attention to actual social practice, including the aspects of legal practice we describe. This positive focus really can resolve a great many contentious legal disputes, as shared legal premises lead to conclusions that might surprise us or that ultimately establish one side in a dispute as correct. The most serious challenge to our view is the empirical one: whether originalism is or isn’t the official story of our law. Stripped of their jurisprudential confusion, though, the best competing accounts of our law seem to have far less supporting evidence than our own account. Focusing on social practice as it stands today turns out to direct our attention to the Founders and to the changes over time that their law has recognized.

Because this piece is the latest in a line of five or six pieces that Steve and/or I have written advancing this theory, it doesn’t provide all of the arguments or evidence for our view. But we do provide (p. 1491) what I hope is a helpful summary of how past and present law relate:

  • As a theoretical matter, positivists like us figure out today’s law based on today’s social facts.
  • As a contingent, empirical matter, today’s social facts happen to incorporate the Founders’ law by reference.
  • As a historical, legal matter, the Founders’ law allowed for various kinds of changes, including both formal enactments and the incorporation by reference of various kinds of customary law

As well as (p. 1477-78) another hopefully helpful summary of the evidence we’ve amassed in previous pieces that we think supports our view:

  1. We treat the Constitution as a legal text, originally enacted in the late eighteenth century.
  2. This constitutional text regulates the selection of legal officials, even when such regulations are unpopular or contrary to tradition.
  3. Actors in our legal system don’t acknowledge, and indeed reject, any official legal breaks or discontinuities from the Founding.
  4. We rely on technical domesticating doctrines, themselves rooted in preexisting law, to blunt the practical force of novel originalist arguments.
  5. Original meaning sometimes explicitly prevails over policy arguments in constitutional adjudication, but the reverse doesn’t seem to be true.
  6. Our treatment of precedent makes sense if original sources determine the Constitution’s content but not if precedent does.
  7. More generally, there are no clear repudiations of originalism as our law in the current canon of Supreme Court cases, even in situations where the Justices must have been sorely tempted.

As always, if this provokes further productive criticisms or a counter-argument about theory better describes our law, we’d love to see it! Meanwhile, Steve and I are at work on two more pieces aimed at more specialist literatures, one in history and one in philosophy, which I’ll look forward to sharing here later this year.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2ISngOG
via IFTTT