Beyond Originalism
The dominant conservative philosophy for interpreting the Constitution has served its purpose, and scholars ought to develop a more moral framework.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...sm/609037/
Adrian Vermeule
Professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School


But originalism has now outlived its utility, and has become an obstacle to the development of a robust, substantively conservative approach to constitutional law and interpretation. Such an approach—one might call it “common-good constitutionalism”—should be based on the principles that government helps direct persons, associations, and society generally toward the common good, and that strong rule in the interest of attaining the common good is entirely legitimate. In this time of global pandemic, the need for such an approach is all the greater, as it has become clear that a just governing order must have ample power to cope with large-scale crises of public health and well-being—reading “health” in many senses, not only literal and physical but also metaphorical and social.
.....................................................................................................................................................

(05-06-2020 10:52 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Beyond Originalism
The dominant conservative philosophy for interpreting the Constitution has served its purpose, and scholars ought to develop a more moral framework.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...sm/609037/
Adrian Vermeule
Professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School


But originalism has now outlived its utility, and has become an obstacle to the development of a robust, substantively conservative approach to constitutional law and interpretation. Such an approach—one might call it “common-good constitutionalism”—should be based on the principles that government helps direct persons, associations, and society generally toward the common good, and that strong rule in the interest of attaining the common good is entirely legitimate. In this time of global pandemic, the need for such an approach is all the greater, as it has become clear that a just governing order must have ample power to cope with large-scale crises of public health and well-being—reading “health” in many senses, not only literal and physical but also metaphorical and social.
.....................................................................................................................................................

There's nothing conservative about his philosophy.

(05-06-2020 10:52 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Beyond Originalism
The dominant conservative philosophy for interpreting the Constitution has served its purpose, and scholars ought to develop a more moral framework.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...sm/609037/
Adrian Vermeule
Professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School
But originalism has now outlived its utility, and has become an obstacle to the development of a robust, substantively conservative approach to constitutional law and interpretation. Such an approach—one might call it “common-good constitutionalism”—should be based on the principles that government helps direct persons, associations, and society generally toward the common good, and that strong rule in the interest of attaining the common good is entirely legitimate. In this time of global pandemic, the need for such an approach is all the greater, as it has become clear that a just governing order must have ample power to cope with large-scale crises of public health and well-being—reading “health” in many senses, not only literal and physical but also metaphorical and social.
.....................................................................................................................................................

The best way to, "direct persons, associations, and society generally toward the common good," is to maximize freedom and liberty.

(05-06-2020 10:52 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  But originalism has now outlived its utility, and has become an obstacle to the development of a robust, substantively conservative approach to constitutional law and interpretation. Such an approach—one might call it “common-good constitutionalism”—should be based on the principles that government helps direct persons, associations, and society generally toward the common good, and that strong rule in the interest of attaining the common good is entirely legitimate. In this time of global pandemic, the need for such an approach is all the greater, as it has become clear that a just governing order must have ample power to cope with large-scale crises of public health and well-being—reading “health” in many senses, not only literal and physical but also metaphorical and social.
.....................................................................................................................................................

The principle that "government helps direct persons, associations, and society generally toward the common good" is highly debatable.

Milton Fridman put it this way: "The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests." This includes government bureaucrats. And the self-interest of government bureaucrats is often NOT in the interests of other individuals they are supposed to be working for.

As for the idea that strong government "in the interest of the common good" is desirable, Milton Friedman said it best: "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results. "

I wonder - how do journalists at The Atlantic justify their desire for a strong government with their fear of the power wielded by President Trump? Do they even realize that a stronger government means that the Trumps and McConnells of the world will have more power over the lives of average Americans?

(05-06-2020 03:12 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I wonder - how do journalists at The Atlantic justify their desire for a strong government with their fear of the power wielded by President Trump? Do they even realize that a stronger government means that the Trumps and McConnells of the world will have more power over the lives of average Americans?

I don't want the Trumps and McConnells having more power over me, and I really, really, really don't want the Bidens and Schumers and Pelosis having ANY power over me.

Forgot to include McCarthy with Trump and McConnell, but McCarthy is pretty forgettable. I still have to look up his mane every time I want to type it.

This is what you get with an absence of God. There is no God. There is no Soul. There is no individual. There is no human. Only the monarch state.

(05-06-2020 03:12 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I wonder - how do journalists at The Atlantic justify their desire for a strong government with their fear of the power wielded by President Trump? Do they even realize that a stronger government means that the Trumps and McConnells of the world will have more power over the lives of average Americans?

They far left figures that they dominate government agencies, associations, non profits, NGOs and all of that stuff. I could start a conservative non profit and within a few years leftists would infiltrate it.

"These principles include respect for the authority of rule and of rulers; respect for the hierarchies needed for society to function; solidarity within and among families, social groups, and workers’ unions, trade associations, and professions; appropriate subsidiarity, or respect for the legitimate roles of public bodies and associations at all levels of government and society; and a candid willingness to “legislate morality”—indeed, a recognition that all legislation is necessarily founded on some substantive conception of morality, and that the promotion of morality is a core and legitimate function of authority. Such principles promote the common good and make for a just and well-ordered society"

"Common-good constitutionalism is also not legal liberalism or libertarianism. Its main aim is certainly not to maximize individual autonomy or to minimize the abuse of power (an incoherent goal in any event), but instead to ensure that the ruler has the power needed to rule well. A corollary is that to act outside or against inherent norms of good rule is to act tyrannically, forfeiting the right to rule, but the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to “protect liberty” as an end in itself"

Guy is phucking scary. BTW Harvard is hosting an anti home schooling conference in June. One of the main speakers says parents are allowed to raise their kids only because "government" allows that.

Psst! Hey perfesser?

GFY.

"Endowed by their Creator", not left to what we hope the benevolent Federal Gubment will allow us to do, say or pursue.

This is what happens when government replaces God or religion, typical Marxism/Leninism and all the other despots.

Do people already need to be warned and reminded of the excesses of "governments" trying to help us? Before Durham even hits?

This is what tyranny looks like.

(05-06-2020 03:37 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 03:12 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I wonder - how do journalists at The Atlantic justify their desire for a strong government with their fear of the power wielded by President Trump? Do they even realize that a stronger government means that the Trumps and McConnells of the world will have more power over the lives of average Americans?

They far left figures that they dominate government agencies, associations, non profits, NGOs and all of that stuff. I could start a conservative non profit and within a few years leftists would infiltrate it.

"These principles include respect for the authority of rule and of rulers; respect for the hierarchies needed for society to function; solidarity within and among families, social groups, and workers’ unions, trade associations, and professions; appropriate subsidiarity, or respect for the legitimate roles of public bodies and associations at all levels of government and society; and a candid willingness to “legislate morality”—indeed, a recognition that all legislation is necessarily founded on some substantive conception of morality, and that the promotion of morality is a core and legitimate function of authority. Such principles promote the common good and make for a just and well-ordered society"

"Common-good constitutionalism is also not legal liberalism or libertarianism. Its main aim is certainly not to maximize individual autonomy or to minimize the abuse of power (an incoherent goal in any event), but instead to ensure that the ruler has the power needed to rule well. A corollary is that to act outside or against inherent norms of good rule is to act tyrannically, forfeiting the right to rule, but the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to “protect liberty” as an end in itself"

Guy is phucking scary. BTW Harvard is hosting an anti home schooling conference in June. One of the main speakers says parents are allowed to raise their kids only because "government" allows that.

You could just bold the entire thing and be done with it.

Yea, I get that this is just more akademik navel gazing, mental masturbation, but it reads like another in the long line of manifesto's decrying the individual and promoting the State and placing our faith in the good of man to men. That's not worked out too well in the past.

(05-06-2020 03:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

Heard a young guy in his late 20s use the term boogaloo the other day under his breath while we were talking about this kind of frickery. Never suspected him to be a Patriot. Looked the word up. Always thought he leaned a little left.

If this dude is a patriot, the left is so screwed. Many patriots run silent.

I am encouraged for tomorrow

When we start losing judges who interpret the Constitution as written, that'll be the end.

(05-06-2020 03:12 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I wonder - how do journalists at The Atlantic justify their desire for a strong government with their fear of the power wielded by President Trump? Do they even realize that a stronger government means that the Trumps and McConnells of the world will have more power over the lives of average Americans?

That's why you got to vote Democrat!

these are my 'type' relative to 1 vs. 0..

I'll do my best to respond in earnest (fwiw) fro.m the field...

you did well starting this thread...its beyond important vs. Impotent...



#pat

That's not the scary thing to me.

If we lose to these morons, then our freedom is gone.

If we WIN this fight, that's when it gets dangerous. If the globalists decide the U.S.A. cannot be turned, then they will kill ALL of us. ALL OF US - without worries about using the land that's left. They'll just nuke us all and hunt down whoever is left.

That is the real danger. The globalists have to be stopped beyond our borders, or our borders simply won't matter anymore.