Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

Critics Call It Theocratic and Authoritarian. Young Cultists Call It an Exciting New Legal Theory.

Rube Reaper

Elite
Joined
Nov 15, 2021
Messages
2,836
At the center of this debate was Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule, whose latest book served as the ostensible subject of the symposium. In conservative legal circles, Vermeule has become the most prominent proponent of “common good constitutionalism,” a controversial new theory that challenges many of the fundamental premises and principles of the conservative legal movement. The cornerstone of Vermeule’s theory is the claim that “the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to ‘protect liberty’ as an end in itself” — or, in layman’s terms, that the Constitution empowers the government to pursue conservative political ends, even when those ends conflict with individual rights as most Americans understand them. In practice, Vermeule’s theory lends support to an idiosyncratic but far-reaching set of far-right objectives: outright bans on abortion and same-sex marriage, sweeping limits on freedom of expression and expanded authorities for the government to do everything from protecting the natural environment to prohibiting the sale of porn.


Vermeule coined the term “common good constitutionalism” to describe his alternative theory, and he was not coy about what it would entail. Unlike originalists and legal liberals, common good constitutionalists would not “suffer from a horror of political domination and hierarchy,” and they would display a “candid willingness to ‘legislate morality.’” In sharp contrast to libertarian conservatives, common good constitutionalists would favor “a powerful presidency ruling over a powerful bureaucracy.” On the Constitutional front, “The Court’s jurisprudence on free speech, abortion, sexual liberties, and related matters [would] prove vulnerable” to new challenges.
 
Last edited:

Rebarcock.

Your(e)humble servant
Founder
Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
11,452
It’s really sad that Mr. T normalized interacting with the Reagans given how awful they were as people and as elected officials.

Orange man is the only president that holds a candle to the suffering they caused.
Fuck you manScreenshot_20221203-193540_Brave.jpg
 

MalO

Elite
Joined
Nov 15, 2022
Messages
753
It's all bullshit. This guy's interpretation and the establishment interpretation.

The Constitution is not subject to interpretation. It's intended to clearly establish lines that are not to be crossed.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first amendment prevents Congress from establishing any law regarding a religion. Yet gay marriage is the debate of our time. There shouldn't be laws regarding marraige in the first place. It's a religious ceremony. Every time I point this out conservatives agree with me and liberals try to argue that the world's oldest and most important religious ceremony isn't a religious ceremony.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The second amendment clearly states that citizens have the right to bear arms for the purpose of forming a militia, and that this right shall not be infringed. Clear as day. Right there. Shall not be infringed. This was redundant because every right in the document isn't meant to be infringed. But they added a line of redundancy to the 2nd specifically to drive it home.

And yet our 2nd amendment is infringed upon. Bans on automatic weapons, bans on "assault weapons", bans on pistols, permits for pistols, bans on explosives, criminal background checks, waiting times, state bans (prohibited because all states are to recognize constitutional rights granted in any state). Time after time after time. There are literally hundreds of explicitely unconstitutional gun laws in our country, and more are added every year.

Where is the outrage?

Our military servicemen take an oath to the Constitution. Not the government. Not the president. Not the people. Not the country. To our Constitution.

Why are there no gun battles in our capitol buildings? Our government is wiping its ass with our Constitution and has been for decades. Nobody cares. Not even the people sworn to protect it.

And it should be noted that the whole purpose of our right to form a militia is to fight back against corrupt government so that we would never again be abused by tyrannical government.

And yet right-wing militia are a favorite whipping boy by the alphabet agencies working for said tyrannical government.

I don't give a fuck about your interpretation. Anyone can read the words as they are explicitely written.
 

Rube Reaper

Elite
Joined
Nov 15, 2021
Messages
2,836
It's all bullshit. This guy's interpretation and the establishment interpretation.

The Constitution is not subject to interpretation. It's intended to clearly establish lines that are not to be crossed.



The first amendment prevents Congress from establishing any law regarding a religion. Yet gay marriage is the debate of our time. There shouldn't be laws regarding marraige in the first place. It's a religious ceremony. Every time I point this out conservatives agree with me and liberals try to argue that the world's oldest and most important religious ceremony isn't a religious ceremony.



The second amendment clearly states that citizens have the right to bear arms for the purpose of forming a militia, and that this right shall not be infringed. Clear as day. Right there. Shall not be infringed. This was redundant because every right in the document isn't meant to be infringed. But they added a line of redundancy to the 2nd specifically to drive it home.

And yet our 2nd amendment is infringed upon. Bans on automatic weapons, bans on "assault weapons", bans on pistols, permits for pistols, bans on explosives, criminal background checks, waiting times, state bans (prohibited because all states are to recognize constitutional rights granted in any state). Time after time after time. There are literally hundreds of explicitely unconstitutional gun laws in our country, and more are added every year.

Where is the outrage?

Our military servicemen take an oath to the Constitution. Not the government. Not the president. Not the people. Not the country. To our Constitution.

Why are there no gun battles in our capitol buildings? Our government is wiping its ass with our Constitution and has been for decades. Nobody cares. Not even the people sworn to protect it.

And it should be noted that the whole purpose of our right to form a militia is to fight back against corrupt government so that we would never again be abused by tyrannical government.

And yet right-wing militia are a favorite whipping boy by the alphabet agencies working for said tyrannical government.

I don't give a fuck about your interpretation. Anyone can read the words as they are explicitely written.
This is a really lazy interpretation of the law and something that no expert in law, regardless of religious or political affiliation, holds.

Supreme Court justices across generations have held that rights are not absolute and were never intended to be.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom