User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: The Founders’ Constitution and its discontents

  1. #1
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,011, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496555
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,683
    Points
    859,011
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,214
    Thanked 147,565x in 94,409 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    The Founders’ Constitution and its discontents

    This is an interesting article about the new book, Common Good Constitutionalism. It is support for the living constitution doctrine. The author of the article gets more specific: The book is an attack on originalism, and a proponent of the administrative state (my words, which is predicated the living constitution doctrine.)

    The Founders’ Constitution and its discontents – Acton Institute PowerBlog

    Vermeule teaches law at Harvard, one of the nation’s most elite universities. He specializes in administrative law—a Progressive Era innovation that some critics contend violates the Constitution’s separation of powers—and constitutional theory. Constitutional “theory” often has even less to do with the Constitution than constitutional “law.” Oddly, for a subject taught in law schools, the field is dominated by moral philosophers, exemplified by John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin. The attraction of constitutional theory, from the legal scholar’s standpoint, is that the canvas is blank, the inquiry is unhindered by text or history, and the only limits are the scholar’s ambition and ingenuity. Vermeule, who holds an endowed chair at Harvard Law School, exudes plenty of both.

    Each theorist has his own personal preferences, and Vermeule is no exception. He is an ardent devotee of the administrative state (having co-written a bold defense of it in 2020’s Law & Leviathan) and a recent convert to Catholicism, which coincides with his turn toward what some observers call “integralism,” a movement that “seeks to subordinate temporal power to spiritual power—or, more specifically, the modern state to the Catholic Church.” Vermeule’s embrace of integralism aligns him with so-called post-liberals led by Patrick Deneen on the Catholic right, as well as some quirky proponents of “natural law” jurisprudence. (Deneen enthusiastically blurbed Vermeule’s book.)
    Vermeule’s provocative book has attracted a good deal of attention. Common Good Constitutionalism is heralded in some quarters (and denounced in others) as an avant garde critique of “originalism”—the notion, popularized by Justice Antonin Scalia in the 1980s, that judges should interpret the Constitution in accordance with its original public meaning—that is, what the document was understood to mean at the time it was enacted. Instead, Vermeule offers an alternative model of government: Elected officials and bureaucrats should act based on their own sense of what would best promote the common good rather than being constrained by the text of the Constitution. Vermeule defines “common good” as “the flourishing of a well-ordered political community,” with the goal of achieving “peace, justice, and abundance” (which includes “economic security”). This sounds like New Age utopianism, the realization of which requires centralized power and invites the exercise of broad subjective discretion—precisely the opposite of what the Framers intended.

    What was the Framers’ design? The Constitution enumerates the limited powers conferred on the national (or federal) government, which are carefully divided among three branches: the legislative (Congress), executive (president), and judicial. The Framers contemplated that dividing the national government into three branches would provide essential checks and balances to prevent the accumulation and abuse of power. Each branch had a defined and complementary role, with Congress making law, the executive enforcing law, and the judiciary interpreting law.


    Under our dual system—federalism—states retain all powers not expressly delegated to the national government, as stated in the 10th Amendment. At both the state and federal levels, most important policy decisions are made by the politically accountable legislative branch. “We the people” can, in this fashion, exercise the necessary “consent of the governed” to enjoy representative self-government while maintaining our precious liberty.
    The Founders’ Constitution has a fixed meaning that can be changed only by formal amendment. Since the New Deal, and especially following the Warren Court judicial revolution of the 1960s, however, radical changes in constitutional law have been wrought by judicial fiat. The locus of power has shifted decisively to the national government, vast authority has been concentrated in an alphabet soup of (unelected) federal administrative agencies that exercise quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial power, and federal courts have assumed a policymaking role far exceeding Alexander Hamilton’s assurance in Federalist 78 that the judiciary “will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution.”

    This is our modern dilemma
    Read the entire article at the link.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Chris (05-12-2022),FindersKeepers (05-12-2022),stjames1_53 (05-12-2022)

  3. #2
    Points: 138,396, Level: 89
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 1,054
    Overall activity: 35.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger First ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    stjames1_53's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    58242
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    50,622
    Points
    138,396
    Level
    89
    Thanks Given
    104,276
    Thanked 29,263x in 20,294 Posts
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    This is an interesting article about the new book, Common Good Constitutionalism. It is support for the living constitution doctrine. The author of the article gets more specific: The book is an attack on originalism, and a proponent of the administrative state (my words, which is predicated the living constitution doctrine.)

    The Founders’ Constitution and its discontents – Acton Institute PowerBlog





    Read the entire article at the link.
    Franklin said it..................a Republic, as long as you can hang on to it.
    And
    A corrupt people needing a corrupt government..............demanding the corruption from government.
    As we are witnessing the fall of America, there are those who still value personal liberty over the Collective. They will always be here.
    Unfortunately, so will the Dark Side.
    The scene has been set for the battle, but the war is far from over.
    For waltky: http://quakes.globalincidentmap.com/
    "The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
    - Thucydides

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" B. Franklin
    Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum

  4. #3
    Points: 138,396, Level: 89
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 1,054
    Overall activity: 35.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger First ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    stjames1_53's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    58242
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    50,622
    Points
    138,396
    Level
    89
    Thanks Given
    104,276
    Thanked 29,263x in 20,294 Posts
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I leave this site to check mail and found this................

    The second American civil war is already happening (msn.com)

    I said 10 years ago it was going to get nasty. It's about to get a lot worse.
    For waltky: http://quakes.globalincidentmap.com/
    "The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
    - Thucydides

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" B. Franklin
    Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to stjames1_53 For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (05-12-2022),MisterVeritis (05-12-2022)

  6. #4
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,011, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496555
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,683
    Points
    859,011
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,214
    Thanked 147,565x in 94,409 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stjames1_53 View Post
    I leave this site to check mail and found this................

    The second American civil war is already happening (msn.com)

    I said 10 years ago it was going to get nasty. It's about to get a lot worse.
    Robert Reich- the ex-economist, current radical progressive.Robert Reich
    Robert Reich
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (05-12-2022)

  8. #5
    Points: 665,250, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 91.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433311
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,547
    Points
    665,250
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,983
    Thanked 80,900x in 54,717 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Yea, common good. In a way, the general welfare clause covers it. The government should act in the interests of all. But at the same time, its powers are limited by an enumeration and a Bill of Rights. Vermeule's common good argument is just another living documentist's way around those limitations.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (05-12-2022),Peter1469 (05-12-2022)

  10. #6
    Points: 138,396, Level: 89
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 1,054
    Overall activity: 35.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger First ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    stjames1_53's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    58242
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    50,622
    Points
    138,396
    Level
    89
    Thanks Given
    104,276
    Thanked 29,263x in 20,294 Posts
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Robert Reich- the ex-economist, current radical progressive.Robert Reich
    Robert Reich
    They are giving us advance warning as to what they are going to do next................
    For waltky: http://quakes.globalincidentmap.com/
    "The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
    - Thucydides

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" B. Franklin
    Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to stjames1_53 For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (05-12-2022)

  12. #7
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,011, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496555
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,683
    Points
    859,011
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,214
    Thanked 147,565x in 94,409 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stjames1_53 View Post
    They are giving us advance warning as to what they are going to do next................
    They use columnists like him to float trial balloons. If they cause an uproar they hold off.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (05-12-2022),stjames1_53 (05-12-2022)

  14. #8
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,011, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496555
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,683
    Points
    859,011
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,214
    Thanked 147,565x in 94,409 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yet another article about common good constitutionalists- the new phrase to describe the living constitution, which is to say no constitution.

    Are We All Common Good Constitutionalists Now?

    Adrian Vermeule’s Common Good Constitutionalism is really two books in one. The first is an exposition and defense of the classical view of what law is—an ordinance of right reason for the common good, directed toward the objective of human flourishing. The second, by contrast, is a treatment of what this classical legal tradition, in Vermeule’s view, should look like in practice.
    The distinction between these two parts—which may be loosely characterized as descriptive and normative, respectively—is drawn early on, but it is not a distinction that is maintained consistently throughout the volume. This is significant because Common Good Constitutionalism is an overtly polemical book, one that repeatedly sets up “originalism” and “progressivism” as foils of the classical legal tradition.

    From the outset, the term “originalism” occupies a difficult-to-pin-down place in the book. On the one hand, Vermeule argues that originalism needs to be “properly chastened,” and in a sense redeemed, by acknowledging the principle that text is always interpreted in accordance with a set of background beliefs. On this point I entirely agree, and have argued as much previously: no one ever approaches a text from a presuppositionless standpoint. Originalists go wrong if they think they can attain a mathematical kind of interpretive precision that no written text can ever bear. On the other hand, Vermeule compares originalism and the classical legal tradition to “oil and water,” alleging that they are irreconcilable in principle and that originalism (along with progressivism) lies on the opposite side of a “gulf” from common good constitutionalism.




    This is some serious backflips to toss the Constitution out and make it whatever we want it to mean at any given point in time.


    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  15. #9
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,011, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496555
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,683
    Points
    859,011
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,214
    Thanked 147,565x in 94,409 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yet another article about common good constitutionalists- the new phrase to describe the living constitution, which is to say no constitution.

    Are We All Common Good Constitutionalists Now?


    Adrian Vermeule’s Common Good Constitutionalism is really two books in one. The first is an exposition and defense of the classical view of what law is—an ordinance of right reason for the common good, directed toward the objective of human flourishing. The second, by contrast, is a treatment of what this classical legal tradition, in Vermeule’s view, should look like in practice.
    The distinction between these two parts—which may be loosely characterized as descriptive and normative, respectively—is drawn early on, but it is not a distinction that is maintained consistently throughout the volume. This is significant because Common Good Constitutionalism is an overtly polemical book, one that repeatedly sets up “originalism” and “progressivism” as foils of the classical legal tradition.

    From the outset, the term “originalism” occupies a difficult-to-pin-down place in the book. On the one hand, Vermeule argues that originalism needs to be “properly chastened,” and in a sense redeemed, by acknowledging the principle that text is always interpreted in accordance with a set of background beliefs. On this point I entirely agree, and have argued as much previously: no one ever approaches a text from a presuppositionless standpoint. Originalists go wrong if they think they can attain a mathematical kind of interpretive precision that no written text can ever bear. On the other hand, Vermeule compares originalism and the classical legal tradition to “oil and water,” alleging that they are irreconcilable in principle and that originalism (along with progressivism) lies on the opposite side of a “gulf” from common good constitutionalism.




    This is some serious backflips to toss the Constitution out and make it whatever we want it to mean at any given point in time.
    The author goes on to point that out.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts