home.social

#mla — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #mla, aggregated by home.social.

  1. 2026 #PAMLA Conference (Pacific Ancient and Modern Language Association) is in-person November 12–15 at the Hyatt Regency Seattle. Taking papers through May 25. #cfp #academicsky #Englishcfp #humanities #academicsky #MLA pamla.ballastacademic.com/Home/CFP The 2027 conference will be fully virtual.

    PAMLA CFP

  2. 2026 #PAMLA Conference (Pacific Ancient and Modern Language Association) is in-person November 12–15 at the Hyatt Regency Seattle. Taking papers through May 25. #cfp #academicsky #Englishcfp #humanities #academicsky #MLA pamla.ballastacademic.com/Home/CFP The 2027 conference will be fully virtual.

    PAMLA CFP

  3. 2026 #PAMLA Conference (Pacific Ancient and Modern Language Association) is in-person November 12–15 at the Hyatt Regency Seattle. Taking papers through May 25. #cfp #academicsky #Englishcfp #humanities #academicsky #MLA pamla.ballastacademic.com/Home/CFP The 2027 conference will be fully virtual.

    PAMLA CFP

  4. 2026 #PAMLA Conference (Pacific Ancient and Modern Language Association) is in-person November 12–15 at the Hyatt Regency Seattle. Taking papers through May 25. #cfp #academicsky #Englishcfp #humanities #academicsky #MLA pamla.ballastacademic.com/Home/CFP The 2027 conference will be fully virtual.

    PAMLA CFP

  5. 2026 #PAMLA Conference (Pacific Ancient and Modern Language Association) is in-person November 12–15 at the Hyatt Regency Seattle. Taking papers through May 25. #cfp #academicsky #Englishcfp #humanities #academicsky #MLA pamla.ballastacademic.com/Home/CFP The 2027 conference will be fully virtual.

    PAMLA CFP

  6. Despite zero import tariffs imposed by the #Philippines, #Australia was only able to sell 651 tons of lamb last year, valued at A$8.7M (P381.06M). This was an increase of 32% from 493 tons in 2015, as per data from the Meat & Livestock Australia. #food #dining #MLA

    Australia bets on chef-led campaign to boost lamb consumption in PHL | Ma. Stella F. Arnaldo
    businessmirror.com.ph/2026/05/

  7. A federal judge just overturned the Trump admin termination of 1,400+ research grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities (#NEH).

    The grants were terminated by #DOGE in April 2025, and amounted to more than $100 million.

    * See the judge's ruling.
    historians.org/wp-content/uplo

    * Also see the statement by the American Council of Learned Societies (#ACLS), American Historical Association (#AHA), and Modern Language Association (#MLA).
    historians.org/news/federal-ju

    #DefendResearch #Funding #Humanities #Trump #TrumpVResearch #USLaw #USPol #USPolitics

  8. A federal judge just overturned the Trump admin termination of 1,400+ research grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities (#NEH).

    The grants were terminated by #DOGE in April 2025, and amounted to more than $100 million.

    * See the judge's ruling.
    historians.org/wp-content/uplo

    * Also see the statement by the American Council of Learned Societies (#ACLS), American Historical Association (#AHA), and Modern Language Association (#MLA).
    historians.org/news/federal-ju

    #DefendResearch #Funding #Humanities #Trump #TrumpVResearch #USLaw #USPol #USPolitics

  9. A video of JD(U) MLA Anant Singh smoking inside Patna’s IGIMS hospital goes viral, sparking criticism and raising questions over lawmaker conduct. Opposition leaders slam the legislator for breaking rules while admitted to the hospital. english.mathrubhumi.com/news/i #JDU #MLA #AnantSingh #Patna #hospital

  10. Aviation weather for Malta International airport in Valletta area (Malta) is “LMML 300945Z 28004KT 9999 -RA FEW028 BKN045 15/12 Q1019 NOSIG” : See what it means on bigorre.org/aero/meteo/lmml/en #maltainternationalairport #airport #valletta #malta #lmml #mla #metar #aviation #aviationweather #avgeek vl

  11. Autopens, Executive Orders, and the Rule of Law – A DWD Special Report

    Autopen DWD Report, WP AI image 2025.

    Autopens, Executive Orders, and the Rule of Law

    What really happens when one president tries to erase another’s signature?

    Donald Trump has announced that he is cancelling all executive orders and “anything else” from the Biden administration that were signed using an autopen, claiming those documents are invalid and even hinting at perjury charges if Joe Biden says he personally authorized them. The move has thrilled some supporters and outraged critics, but beneath the rhetoric is a basic question of law:

    • Are autopen-signed executive orders legally valid?
    • Can a sitting president simply declare them void?

    On both counts, the short answer from mainstream legal analysis is: autopens are lawful, and Trump’s blanket cancellation theory is on very thin ice.

    Editor’s Note: The analysis here is by Perplexity Plus, and my review and edits. Here’s a sample article that announces Trump’s actions. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cancels-biden-orders-signed-autopen –there are several. So let’s deep dive a bit…

    Screenshot of CBS News Web page, November 28, 2025.

    What Trump Is Claiming

    In recent statements and social posts, Trump has argued that a huge share of Biden’s executive actions were signed not by Biden’s own hand but by an autopen—essentially a mechanical signature device—and that these are therefore “null and void.” He has suggested that aides, not Biden, made the decisions and that if Biden now claims personal involvement he could face perjury charges.

    That claim rests on two big leaps:

    1. That the physical act of handwriting the signature is required for legality;
    2. That using an autopen inherently proves the president wasn’t really the decision-maker.

    Both propositions collide head-on with modern practice and with existing legal opinions from the Justice Department.

    What Is an Autopen and Why Has It Been Used?

    An autopen is a device that reproduces a person’s signature with real ink. It is not new, and it is not unique to Biden. Presidents from at least George W. Bush onward have authorized autopen signatures on official correspondence, and Barack Obama famously used an autopen to sign a Patriot Act extension while traveling abroad, based on prior legal clearance from the Department of Justice.

    The core idea is simple: the decision must be the president’s; the ink stroke can be delegated to a machine, as long as it is done under his direction.

    Are Autopen-Signed Orders Legal?

    Yes. The key legal backdrop is a 2005 opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). In that memo, OLC concluded that the president may “sign” a bill within the meaning of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution by directing a subordinate to affix his signature—explicitly including use of an autopen—so long as the president has made the underlying decision and authorized the signature.

    That logic carries over to executive orders and other presidential instruments. The law cares about:

    • Who made the decision? — The president cannot delegate the actual decision to approve or disapprove.
    • How is that decision manifested? — The physical act of writing the name can be delegated or mechanized.

    In other words, an autopen signature authorized by the president is treated as the president’s signature. The courts, Congress, and multiple administrations have proceeded on that assumption for nearly two decades. If Trump were to argue that autopen use is categorically invalid, he would be challenging not only Biden’s practice, but settled executive-branch legal interpretation and a bipartisan history of use—including his own administration’s reliance on mechanical signing for lower-stakes documents.

    Can a President Revoke a Predecessor’s Executive Orders?

    Here Trump’s position is on firmer, but still limited, ground. As a general rule, any sitting president may:

    • Amend,
    • Rescind, or
    • Replace

    executive orders issued by a prior administration, so long as he stays within constitutional and statutory limits. Executive orders are internal directives for the executive branch; they are not statutes and do not bind a successor president forever. That’s why one administration can undo or rewrite the regulatory priorities of another.

    So, yes: Trump can revoke Biden-era executive orders as a matter of policy choice. We’ve already seen him move to roll back or rewrite specific Biden orders. Future litigation will focus on what he does in the substance of those revocations, not the mere fact that he did them.

    What is novel—and shaky—is his attempt to tie the legality of those orders to the method of signature and to retroactively declare large swaths of them void because they were signed by autopen.

    The Problem with Retroactive “Autopen” Invalidation

    Trump’s announced approach tries to do something different from the normal policy-based revocation of executive orders. Instead of saying “I disagree with these policies and am replacing them,” he suggests:

    These orders were never valid in the first place, because they were signed with an autopen, so I am cancelling them as illegal and potentially criminal.

    That creates several rule-of-law problems:

    1. It contradicts existing legal guidance. OLC’s 2005 opinion and subsequent practices assume autopen signatures are valid when authorized by the president. Calling them inherently “forged” would require either repudiating that legal framework or proving that Biden never authorized the decisions.
    2. It is retroactive. For years, agencies, states, and private parties have relied on those Biden orders as valid. Retroactively invalidating them on a technicality invites chaos in programs, contracts, and rights that grew up under those orders.
    3. It is categorical, not case-by-case. Instead of alleging specific instances of fraud (“this particular order was not actually authorized by Biden”), the rhetoric paints nearly all autopen-signed actions as suspect. Courts usually prefer tailored remedies, not sweeping retrospective erasures.
    4. It looks politically targeted. The move singles out one predecessor, on a theory that—if truly accepted—would raise questions about other administrations’ autopen practices as well. The selectivity underscores the political, rather than legal, impulse.

    How Would Courts Look at This?

    If lawsuits follow—and they almost certainly would—courts are unlikely to start by deciding whether they like Biden or Trump. They will ask:

    • Was the original executive order within the president’s lawful authority?
    • Did the president (Biden) actually approve the action?
    • Is the current president (Trump) acting within his authority in revoking or refusing to recognize the order?

    On the first two questions, the existence of a longstanding OLC opinion and decades of executive practice with autopens will weigh heavily in favor of validity. On the third question, courts generally accept that presidents can revoke prior executive orders—but not that they can rewrite history to say those orders never legally existed if they were properly authorized at the time.

    The Supreme Court has also shown institutional concern for stability in government operations. Even justices skeptical of “administrative overreach” have not shown much appetite for retroactively vaporizing large categories of past acts based on novel procedural theories. Doing so here could destabilize not only Biden-era orders but potentially any action signed via autopen going forward.

    What About Pardons and Other Acts?

    Trump and some allies have also gestured at Biden’s clemency decisions, suggesting that pardons or commutations bearing an autopen signature might be revisited. Here the law is even clearer:

    • Once a valid presidential pardon is issued, it is generally understood to be final and irrevocable.
    • The method of signature does not change the constitutional nature of the clemency power, so long as the decision was the president’s.

    In practice, that means attempts to claw back already-granted pardons on an autopen theory would face extremely stiff resistance in court. Even legal scholars sympathetic to a strong executive are wary of letting a later president un-pardon people based on how the document was signed.

    Politics, “Enemies,” and the Rule of Law

    From a political perspective, the autopen narrative functions as another tool in a larger project: casting a predecessor as illegitimate or incapacitated and suggesting that their official acts are suspect on that basis. The language of “forgery,” “perjury,” and “null and void” is aimed less at administrative lawyers and more at a political audience already primed to see Biden as unfit.

    From a rule-of-law perspective, that is precisely why the theory is dangerous. If every change of administration brought not only policy reversals but retroactive attacks on the very validity of the prior president’s signature, the stability of executive governance would be at risk. Agencies, states, businesses, and ordinary citizens would never know which actions are safe to rely on.

    Healthy democratic accountability means we absolutely can argue over policies and revoke prior orders through lawful channels. But turning autograph style into a weapon against a former president’s entire record is a different move—and one that courts, if asked, may well decline to endorse.

    Key Takeaways

    • Autopens are legally recognized tools for presidential signatures, as long as the president makes and authorizes the underlying decision.
    • Any sitting president can revoke prior executive orders as a policy matter, but cannot simply declare them historically void due to autopen use.
    • Retroactively invalidating large categories of actions would create legal chaos and undercut reliance interests across government and society.
    • Courts are likely to view broad “autopen invalidation” moves as politically motivated and legally weak, compared to ordinary, case-specific challenges.
    • The real story is less about pens and more about power: who gets to define which presidential acts “count” when the political winds shift.

    Editor’s Note

    This essay is researched and sourced, with commentary and analysis, not legal advice. It reflects the public record on autopens, executive orders, and presidential practice as of late 2025, along with mainstream interpretations from constitutional scholars and legal observers, and the analysis and edits by the authors. –DrWeb & Perplexity

    Sources & Further Reading (MLA 9)

    Tags: 2005 OLC Opinion, 2025, Autopens, Bibliography, Cancelling Biden's autopen Orders, CBS News, Courts Predictions, DOJ, Donald Trump, DWD Special Report, Executive Orders, History, How Signed, Legal, MLA, Modern Practice, Opinion, Pardons, Perplexity, Perplexity Plus, Political Enemies, Politics, Resistance, Revocation, Rule of Law, Trump, Trump Administration, United States

    #2005OlcOpinion #2025 #autopens #bibliography #cancellingBidensAutopenOrders #cbsNews #courtsPredictions #doj #donaldTrump #dwdSpecialReport #executiveOrders #history #howSigned #legal #mla #modernPractice #opinion #pardons #perplexity #perplexityPlus #politicalEnemies #politics #resistance #revocation #ruleOfLaw #trump #trumpAdministration #unitedStates

  12. A Karnataka Congress MLA said D K Shivakumar is “200 per cent” likely to become the next CM as legislators return from Delhi, urging the high command to end the leadership confusion. english.mathrubhumi.com/news/i #Karnataka #Congress #DKShivakumar #LatestNews #MLA

  13. UCMJ Article 92 & The Duty to Disobey Illegal Orders – 2025

    Editor’s Note: This text (edited) was created by Gemini, November 20, 2025. The image is provided as CC0 1.0 public domain for use by anyone as needed. UCMJ Article 92 by Michael McCulley is marked CC0 1.0 Universal

    The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) does not explicitly have a section titled “constitutional duty to disobey illegal orders,” but its provisions clearly establish that military personnel are required to obey only lawful orders. Illegal orders—those that violate the Constitution, U.S. laws, or international laws—do not require compliance and must be disobeyed.

    Relevant UCMJ Articles and Provisions
    Article 92 (10 U.S.C. § 892) – Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation

    This article makes it a punishable offense to disobey lawful orders or regulations. It applies only to lawful orders, implying that unlawful orders are not to be obeyed. Orders are presumed lawful unless they clearly violate laws or constitutional rights.

    This article also emphasizes the obedience of lawful orders, with punishment for willful disobedience. It implicitly excludes unlawful orders from what must be obeyed.

    Legal experts interpret this as underscoring that orders lacking valid military purpose or that violate the Constitution are illegal and must not be followed.

    Legal and Constitutional Duty to Disobey Illegal Orders

    Military personnel swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, placing constitutional duty above obedience to unlawful commands. They are legally and morally obligated to refuse orders that require criminal acts, torture, harming civilians, or violate treaties such as the Geneva Conventions.

    The law and military legal commentary affirm that obeying illegal orders is not a defense for committing illegal acts (the “Nuremberg defense” is invalid). Service members have a responsibility to seek clarification, document, report, and refuse unlawful commands.

    Illegal orders include any commands that contradict the Constitution, U.S. laws, lawful superior orders, or fall beyond the issuing official’s authority. The legality of an order can ultimately be decided by a military judge.

    Summary

    The UCMJ Article 92 governs obedience, but its text and interpretation make clear only lawful orders must be obeyed.

    The constitutional duty to disobey illegal orders arises from the oath to defend the Constitution and the principle that illegal orders are void.

    Military law supports refusal of orders that require crimes or violations of constitutional and international law, with protections for service members who do so lawfully.

    This relationship is grounded in UCMJ Articles 90 and 92, intertwined with constitutional principles and military legal interpretations, providing a clear framework that service members must disobey illegal orders.

    MLA Bibliography

    Tags: 2025, Bibliography, Constitutional Duty, Duty to Disobey Illegal Orders, Gemini, Gemini AI, Google Gemini, International laws, Legal Experts, Military Judges, MLA, U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, UCMJ, UCMJ Article 90, UCMJ Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice

    #2025 #bibliography #constitutionalDuty #dutyToDisobeyIllegalOrders #gemini #geminiAi #googleGemini #internationalLaws #legalExperts #militaryJudges #mla #uSConstitution #uSLaws #ucmj #ucmjArticle90 #ucmjArticle92 #uniformCodeOfMilitaryJustice

  14. #Fredericton #DECH #hospital is in collapse.

    All of #NewBrunswick's #healthCare facilities are dangerously overcrowded, generally 3+ times capacity, and understaffed in doctors and nurses. Many nurses are travel nurses, costing 6x locals, but with 0 exp in the building.

    All hell is breaking loose and #BlaineHiggs brags about his surplus.

    Please join me in calling your #MLA, and health minister #BruceFitch to demand actual solutions and help!

    Enough is enough!

    #wearAMask #covidIsVeryReal #youAreNotImmune #youAreNotProtected #youCanDie #youCanBecomeDisabled #covid19 #rsv #pneumonia #pandemic #wakeUp #protectYourself #nb #canada #privitisationKills

  15. Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis expressed confidence that Chief Minister Eknath Shinde would complete his full tenure even if disqualified as an MLA. Fadnavis stated that Shinde has a strong case and it is unlikely that he would be disqualified. Fadnavis also clarified that NCP leader Ajit Pawar was not promised the CM's chair when he joined hands with the Sena-BJP government. In response to a video posted by the BJP, Fadnavis stated that there was no hidden message and it was randomly posted on social media.
    #MLA #MLC #Fadnavis #MastIndia #MastodonIndians #India @mastodonindians
    timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ci

  16. It will be interesting to see how the residents of #Minto respond to this announcement.

    To me, it's interesting that the
    #NewBrunswick government gave up so easily on a #Fredericton location and then suddenly #MLA Mary Wilson is painted as a "local hero", then the correctional facility conveniently ends up in the riding of the Minister of Public Safety, whose department oversees the decision.

    (GNB.ca: "
    #GrandLake chosen as site for new correctional facility")

    https://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/news/news_release.2023.07.0385.html

  17. Super excited to be heading to Santa Cruz after #MLA to join some amazing folks to talk about #Race, Violence, and #Form in Nineteenth-Century Irish Studies #C19Studies #IrishStudies dickens.ucsc.edu/race-violence