Will Bode

I mean, he can tell them what to do, but to the 101st Airborne, he's just one more elite person in a big white building in D.C. telling them what to do. So there's still the puzzle of why does the 101st Airborne care either what the president says or what the Supreme Court says?

I mean, he can tell them what to do, but to the 101st Airborne, he's just one more elite person in a big white building in D.C. telling them what to do. So there's still the puzzle of why does the 101st Airborne care either what the president says or what the Supreme Court says?

And maybe the reason that the president doesn't just tell the 101st Airborne to invade the Supreme Court is because he thinks they wouldn't listen to him either. And maybe part of the constraint here goes down at some deeper level about what is the rule that all the actual people with guns sort of accept and are taught.

And maybe the reason that the president doesn't just tell the 101st Airborne to invade the Supreme Court is because he thinks they wouldn't listen to him either. And maybe part of the constraint here goes down at some deeper level about what is the rule that all the actual people with guns sort of accept and are taught.

And then maybe part of the answer is that they all go to West Point or officer training school where they read the actual Constitution and told to believe in things like the separation of powers and that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. And they get the naive story.

And then maybe part of the answer is that they all go to West Point or officer training school where they read the actual Constitution and told to believe in things like the separation of powers and that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. And they get the naive story.

And because all the people who actually have guns are taking oath to the Constitution in a really naive way and given the really naive picture of constitutional law, they're ultimately following the kind of the naive rule of recognition. And I guess in international law, you call that the constructivist legitimation story or something.

And because all the people who actually have guns are taking oath to the Constitution in a really naive way and given the really naive picture of constitutional law, they're ultimately following the kind of the naive rule of recognition. And I guess in international law, you call that the constructivist legitimation story or something.

We'd say we've created this fake fairy tale about the separation of powers that a lot of people like to believe in for normative rule of law reasons. And we've successfully taught all the people that. who we trust with guns to believe in this fairy tale. But that seems like what's doing a lot of the work, just when I look around at the world. Is that wrong?

We'd say we've created this fake fairy tale about the separation of powers that a lot of people like to believe in for normative rule of law reasons. And we've successfully taught all the people that. who we trust with guns to believe in this fairy tale. But that seems like what's doing a lot of the work, just when I look around at the world. Is that wrong?

Yeah. And then wouldn't it be, I guess, if you think about this, I'm thinking, okay, I've got a 300 million person coordination game in a really complicated and fractious polarized country. And how are we going to make that work? And, you know, at first that sounds like a really deep challenge.

Yeah. And then wouldn't it be, I guess, if you think about this, I'm thinking, okay, I've got a 300 million person coordination game in a really complicated and fractious polarized country. And how are we going to make that work? And, you know, at first that sounds like a really deep challenge.

And then I say, but there's this one funny coincidence, which is that there is this like one piece of paper with like 5,000 words about how to plan the government that everybody already carries around in their pockets and everybody already like knows about and, you know, learn somewhere in AP government class. And so we do have that.

And then I say, but there's this one funny coincidence, which is that there is this like one piece of paper with like 5,000 words about how to plan the government that everybody already carries around in their pockets and everybody already like knows about and, you know, learn somewhere in AP government class. And so we do have that.

And then it seems like almost every game theorist would say, well, that sure sounds like your shelling point, doesn't it? Hard to imagine coordinating around anything else and hard to imagine why you'd want to coordinate around anything else unless you tell me this document is like totally nuts. And so doesn't game theory kind of naturally lead us to positivist constitutional textualism?

And then it seems like almost every game theorist would say, well, that sure sounds like your shelling point, doesn't it? Hard to imagine coordinating around anything else and hard to imagine why you'd want to coordinate around anything else unless you tell me this document is like totally nuts. And so doesn't game theory kind of naturally lead us to positivist constitutional textualism?

It may be. It may be. It may be I'm the worst possible target audience for this book because I'm already half believe it, but then I'm prepared to take it in a sort of evil direction, as Daryl suggested. Because the other kind of coordination, you can have coordination on written texts, like the Constitution, and then you can have coordination around

It may be. It may be. It may be I'm the worst possible target audience for this book because I'm already half believe it, but then I'm prepared to take it in a sort of evil direction, as Daryl suggested. Because the other kind of coordination, you can have coordination on written texts, like the Constitution, and then you can have coordination around

you know, common law, unwritten rules and sets of adjudicators and systems that don't want those rules. And so the other great game theory project we once had was the general law, the unwritten law that judges and lawyers in every system in America sort of accepted as their unwritten law.

you know, common law, unwritten rules and sets of adjudicators and systems that don't want those rules. And so the other great game theory project we once had was the general law, the unwritten law that judges and lawyers in every system in America sort of accepted as their unwritten law.