Michael Smith

Wrapping up a writing vortex, but hoping to eventually spend some time continuing Isabel Wilkerson's "The Warmth of Other Suns"

Thanks, but not gonna happen: bsky.app/profile/msmi...

They gave me a break by rejecting my submissions. After last month's travel schedule, I'm not complaining.

My wife is out of town, so naturally I'm spending a second late night at the law school giving my latest article idea total control of my functions until it is finally written.

Tech Company: At long last, we have created the Justice Machine from classic law review article Don't Create The Justice Machine

Time Travel cries out for attention

DC Court of Appeals decides the district’s ban on high capacity magazines violates the Second Amendment 👇

Unless it's titled "Rediscovering the Court Packing Controversy," 25K words (add 10K more in editing), and actually at least two articles, don't bother.

"An Originalist Critique of Fetal Personhood" w Chip Carter is officially online (& forthcoming in U. Penn. L. Rev.)! papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers..... We scour 19th cen. dictionaries & the context in which the 14A was ratified to discover the original public & legal meaning of "person" in 1868.

Nachman Gutowski presenting "Disclosing the Machine" in the majestic Bell Courtroom

OU AI Summit!

Three panel comic. Panel 1: the set of that modern internet dating show with the balloons (not sure what it’s called but I’m seeing clips constantly). The host stands in front of a lineup of woman holding red balloons. She says to the eligible bachelor out of frame, “tell these ladies about yourself.” Panel 2: the eligible bachelor is a moose. He says, “so basically I’m a moose.” Panel 3: all but one woman pops their balloon, signaling their disinterest.

It me. I'm happy to announce that my article "Systems of Law: Foundations" will be published in the Boston University Law Review. I divided the SSRN draft into 3 articles. But the core of the posted article will be in the first piece in my planned trilogy. I'll post a new draft in the coming weeks.

In the first line of his opinion for the Court in United States v. Skrmetti, Chief Justice Roberts writes that the issue in the case is “whether a Tennessee law banning certain medical care for transgender minors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” That opening acknowledgment that the Tennessee law singles out transgender minors makes perfect sense given that the law only prohibits medical care when it has the purpose of “[e]nabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex.” In other words, as Justice Sotomayor puts it in her dissent, the law targets the very “definition” of being transgender. Yet, notwithstanding the Chief Justice’s seeming acknowledgment of this obvious point at the outset of his majority opinion in Skrmetti, he ends up concluding in a brief section towards the end of his opinion that the law “does not classify on the basis of transgender status.” The whiplash-inducing progression of the majority opinion in Skrmetti is reflective of a larger trend of credulity-straining decisions in constitutional cases dealing with the interests of LGBTQ people. In a trilogy of recent cases—303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, Mahmoud v. Taylor, and Skrmetti—the Court has issued opinions that are difficult to imagine being written in similar ways had the interests of LGBTQ people been replaced by those of other minority groups. In 303 Creative, the Court held for the very first time that a

New Draft Essay:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

I did, sorry

[✨Save time with an AI Summary of this reply]

Garth Marenghi interview: "All I do is I sit down at the typewriter and start hitting the keys. Getting them in the right order, now that's the trick."

Or:

For those who've asked for insight into my writing process:

When I'm writing, this article is a close approximation of what's happening in my head. Drafting involves selecting the few sentences that aren't batshit and cutting out 90 percent of the indulgent nonsense.

While I could send you anecdotal starting points from my wacky days of practice submissions, the yearly turnover of editors makes me think that pinning down policies--inclusive or exclusive--might not be possible.

If you feel the need to write articles using AI, please find another job. Your students and colleagues deserve a lot better.

Seems to me that whether AI is "good" at writing is not the most important question, at least for scholars and creatives. The real question, I think, is what endeavors are people willing to hand over? Maybe the AI will be a better writer than I am. I don't care. I'm not willing to let go of the pen.

It's been a mixed bag, though the overall time it's taken for most of my pieces is longer than it usually is. I'm cautious to say there's been a shift. The worst cycle I've ever experienced always seems to be the one I'm going through at the time.

bsky.app/profile/msmi...

pls delete, not supposed to be public yet

Oh yes!!! Inspiring stuff

Now live, with ample time for the Court to consider it before argument in Trump v. Barbara: bsky.app/profile/msmi...

Perhaps the title for the sequel

The piece is, sadly, too lengthy for submission to the Touro Law Review (though I have other ideas and nearly six months to work with).

Should it be this submission cycle's "Spite Essay?" (That is, the piece I sent to journals if they reject all of my other submissions)

I now post it in the spirit the Touro Law Review's recent call for submissions (thefacultylounge.org/2026/03/call...), to procrastinate from grading, to test the limits of SSRN's publication standards (in the vein of scholars like @jerryedwards.bsky.social and @yeargain.bsky.social), and for fun.

I initially wrote the piece to experiment with how seriously Google's AI podcast monstrosity would take content that is plainly and pervasively false. Turns out, with a rigorous paragraph insisting that the article is based on entirely new, unpublished material, you can convince them of anything.

Democracy Manifest: A Theory of Constitutional Change 9 Pages Posted: Michael L. Smith University of Oklahoma - College of Law Date Written: March 05, 2026 Abstract This Article rethinks, reimagines, and reinvigorates debates over the nature of constitutional law, American history, and reality itself. Despite the best efforts of certain of my colleagues, the Article fills a gap in the literature-indeed, multiple gaps, voids, chasms, and more. Surfacing undertheorized provisions, this Article envisions a reinvigorated Constitution of otherworldly enlightenment, unprecedented positive rights, and revolutionary change. It is a Constitution that is, truly, Democracy Manifest. Keywords: constitutional law, aliens, a meal, a succulent Chinese meal, democracy, originalism, positive rights, squirrels, revolution, squirrel revolution, "The Preambler", living constitutionalism, Second Amendment, Fiftieth Amendment, Article Twenty, Clavicular, law

The semester and submission season drag on. Travel and new preps fray my sanity. Midterm grading moves me to ever more creative procrastination outlets.

With that context, enjoy this fake article I wrote back in 2024--now posted for the first time!

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

I assume we can, as long as we tag organizers like @rodgerdcitron.bsky.social

I think I might submit the fake crim pro exam