Well written. But I think you may be a bit off on Aquinas, what your describing is much more lie voluntarism, which Aquinas explicitly opposed
and re proceduralism and conservatives, I'm not so sure, in the 1970s and 1980s lower case "c" conservatives (e.g. Bork et al.) were just making it up as they went along until they and the special interest groups they were connected with did it so much successfully that it just became law and even in some senses a change to the sort of always there informal constitution
As you know, Vermuele is an open Monarchist. He has posted *today* about wanting an Augustus in America. Should that not endanger some skepticism that his scholarship seeks to undermine, rather than promote, American law?
> but are called to actively subvert, undermine, and eventually seize, that government. Substantive conservatism is a living, not dead, theory of law.
It seems like this rhetoric is only different in degree from calling from open internal warfare. How many people died in Europe 1618-1648 because their governments were “evil” for ascribing to a false religious interpretation?
It seems odd that Justice Gorsuch was arguing that the Equal Rights Amendment applied even if it hadn't been ratified because the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment makes superfluous the text of the ERA that proposed that "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
Campaigners against the ERA claimed that if it passed, men would be allowed in women's bathrooms. Supporters of the ERA said that was silly, the text wouldn't allow that, and they presumably meant that the 14th Amendment wouldn't allow that either. Indeed, at the time it seemed silly to imagine that "equal protection of the laws" would mean that a man was welcome in a women's bathroom because a woman was welcome there.
Very well done, but a shorter version of an answer would be this: process is important in many cases, and up to a point; but at the ultimate cases -- the cases that raise deep constitutional and moral questions -- it is impossible to avoid going beyond process. Anyone who thinks
Madison, Jefferson, et al. would have viewed process as sufficient is, IMHO, fooling themselves; it was precisely because thinkers of that time period assumed judges, legislators and other decision-makers would be guided, in difficult situations, by a somewhat vague but nonetheless historic moral background that they thought a fair government could exist.
Well written. But I think you may be a bit off on Aquinas, what your describing is much more lie voluntarism, which Aquinas explicitly opposed
and re proceduralism and conservatives, I'm not so sure, in the 1970s and 1980s lower case "c" conservatives (e.g. Bork et al.) were just making it up as they went along until they and the special interest groups they were connected with did it so much successfully that it just became law and even in some senses a change to the sort of always there informal constitution
As you know, Vermuele is an open Monarchist. He has posted *today* about wanting an Augustus in America. Should that not endanger some skepticism that his scholarship seeks to undermine, rather than promote, American law?
> but are called to actively subvert, undermine, and eventually seize, that government. Substantive conservatism is a living, not dead, theory of law.
It seems like this rhetoric is only different in degree from calling from open internal warfare. How many people died in Europe 1618-1648 because their governments were “evil” for ascribing to a false religious interpretation?
A very enjoyable and thought provoking read. Sines light on the processes at work at Harvard. Keep up the good work
It seems odd that Justice Gorsuch was arguing that the Equal Rights Amendment applied even if it hadn't been ratified because the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment makes superfluous the text of the ERA that proposed that "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
Campaigners against the ERA claimed that if it passed, men would be allowed in women's bathrooms. Supporters of the ERA said that was silly, the text wouldn't allow that, and they presumably meant that the 14th Amendment wouldn't allow that either. Indeed, at the time it seemed silly to imagine that "equal protection of the laws" would mean that a man was welcome in a women's bathroom because a woman was welcome there.
Very well done, but a shorter version of an answer would be this: process is important in many cases, and up to a point; but at the ultimate cases -- the cases that raise deep constitutional and moral questions -- it is impossible to avoid going beyond process. Anyone who thinks
Madison, Jefferson, et al. would have viewed process as sufficient is, IMHO, fooling themselves; it was precisely because thinkers of that time period assumed judges, legislators and other decision-makers would be guided, in difficult situations, by a somewhat vague but nonetheless historic moral background that they thought a fair government could exist.