So - Yanks! How influential is this guy on the right's sort-of legal/constitutional thinking? Is this a likely direction of travel for conservative scholars and future clerks etc (and eventually, judges)?
Because from here it is fairly terrifying.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/common-good-constitutionalism/609037/
QuoteBeyond Originalism
The dominant conservative philosophy for interpreting the Constitution has served its purpose, and scholars ought to develop a more moral framework.
March 31, 2020
Adrian Vermeule
Professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School
In recent years, allegiance to the constitutional theory known as originalism has become all but mandatory for American legal conservatives. Every justice and almost every judge nominated by recent Republican administrations has pledged adherence to the faith. At the Federalist Society, the influential association of legal conservatives, speakers talk and think of little else. Even some luminaries of the left-liberal legal academy have moved away from speaking about "living constitutionalism," "fundamental fairness," and "evolving standards of decency," and have instead justified their views in originalist terms. One often hears the catchphrase "We are all originalists now."
Originalism comes in several varieties (baroque debates about key theoretical ideas rage among its proponents), but their common core is the view that constitutional meaning was fixed at the time of the Constitution's enactment. This approach served legal conservatives well in the hostile environment in which originalism was first developed, and for some time afterward.
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.
Alternatives to originalism have always existed on the right, loosely defined. One is libertarian (or "classical liberal") constitutionalism, which emphasizes principles of individual freedom that are often in uneasy tension with the Constitution's original meaning and the founding generation's norms. The founding era was hardly libertarian on a number of fronts that loom large today, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion; consider that in 1811, the New York courts, in an opinion written by the influential early jurist Chancellor James Kent, upheld a conviction for blasphemy against Jesus Christ as an offense against the public peace and morals. Another alternative is Burkean traditionalism, which tries to slow the pace of legal innovation. Here, too, the difference with originalism is clear, because originalism is sometimes revolutionary; consider the Court's originalist opinion declaring a constitutional right to own guns, a startling break with the Court's long-standing precedents.
These alternatives still have scattered adherents, but originalism has prevailed, mainly because it has met the political and rhetorical needs of legal conservatives struggling against an overwhelmingly left-liberal legal culture. The theory of originalism, initially developed in the 1970s and '80s, enjoyed its initial growth because it helped legal conservatives survive and even flourish in a hostile environment, all without fundamentally challenging the premises of the legal liberalism that dominated both the courts and the academy. It enabled conservatives to oppose constitutional innovations by the Warren and Burger Courts, appealing over the heads of the justices to the putative true meaning of the Constitution itself. When, in recent years, legal conservatism has won the upper hand in the Court and then in the judiciary generally, originalism was the natural coordinating point for a creed, something to which potential nominees could pledge fidelity.
But circumstances have now changed. The hostile environment that made originalism a useful rhetorical and political expedient is now gone. Outside the legal academy, at least, legal conservatism is no longer besieged. If President Donald Trump is reelected, some version of legal conservatism will become the law's animating spirit for a generation or more; and even if he is not, the reconstruction of the judiciary has proceeded far enough that legal conservatism will remain a potent force, not a beleaguered and eccentric view.
Assured of this, conservatives ought to turn their attention to developing new and more robust alternatives to both originalism and left-liberal constitutionalism. It is now possible to imagine a substantive moral constitutionalism that, although not enslaved to the original meaning of the Constitution, is also liberated from the left-liberals' overarching sacramental narrative, the relentless expansion of individualistic autonomy. Alternatively, in a formulation I prefer, one can imagine an illiberal legalism that is not "conservative" at all, insofar as standard conservatism is content to play defensively within the procedural rules of the liberal order.
This approach should take as its starting point substantive moral principles that conduce to the common good, principles that officials (including, but by no means limited to, judges) should read into the majestic generalities and ambiguities of the written Constitution. 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.
To be sure, some have attempted to ground an idea of the common good on an originalist understanding, taking advantage of the natural-rights orientation of the founding era. Yet that approach leaves originalism in ultimate control, hoping that the original understanding will happen to be morally appealing. I am talking about a different, more ambitious project, one that abandons the defensive crouch of originalism and that refuses any longer to play within the terms set by legal liberalism. Ronald Dworkin, the legal scholar and philosopher, used to urge "moral readings of the Constitution." Common-good constitutionalism is methodologically Dworkinian, but advocates a very different set of substantive moral commitments and priorities from Dworkin's, which were of a conventionally left-liberal bent.
Common-good constitutionalism is not legal positivism, meaning that it is not tethered to particular written instruments of civil law or the will of the legislators who created them. Instead it draws upon an immemorial tradition that includes, in addition to positive law, sources such as the ius gentium—the law of nations or the "general law" common to all civilized legal systems—and principles of objective natural morality, including legal morality in the sense used by the American legal theorist Lon Fuller: the inner logic that the activity of law should follow in order to function well as law.
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. Constraints on power are good only derivatively, insofar as they contribute to the common good; the emphasis should not be on liberty as an abstract object of quasi-religious devotion, but on particular human liberties whose protection is a duty of justice or prudence on the part of the ruler.
Finally, unlike legal liberalism, common-good constitutionalism does not suffer from a horror of political domination and hierarchy, because it sees that law is parental, a wise teacher and an inculcator of good habits. Just authority in rulers can be exercised for the good of subjects, if necessary even against the subjects' own perceptions of what is best for them—perceptions that may change over time anyway, as the law teaches, habituates, and re-forms them. Subjects will come to thank the ruler whose legal strictures, possibly experienced at first as coercive, encourage subjects to form more authentic desires for the individual and common goods, better habits, and beliefs that better track and promote communal well-being.
Common-good constitutionalism draws inspiration from the early modern theory of ragion di stato—"reason of state," which, despite the connotations that have become attached to its name, is not at all a tradition of unscrupulous machination. (Indeed, it was formulated precisely to combat amoral technocratic visions of rule as the maximization of princely power.) Instead the ragion di stato tradition elaborates a set of principles for the just exercise of authority. Promoting a substantive vision of the good is, always and everywhere, the proper function of rulers. Every act of public-regarding government has been founded on such a vision; any contrary view is an illusion. Liberal and libertarian constitutional decisions that claim to rule out "morality" as a ground for public action are incoherent, even fraudulent, for they rest on merely a particular account of morality, an implausible account.
Given that it is legitimate for rulers to pursue the common good, constitutional law should elaborate subsidiary principles that make such rule efficacious. Constitutional law must afford broad scope for rulers to promote—as the ragion di stato put it, in a famous trinity of principles—peace, justice, and abundance. Today, we may add health and safety to that list, in very much the same spirit. In a globalized world that relates to the natural and biological environment in a deeply disordered way, a just state is a state that has ample authority to protect the vulnerable from the ravages of pandemics, natural disasters, and climate change, and from the underlying structures of corporate power that contribute to these events. Because the ragion di stato is not ashamed of strong rule, does not see it as presumptively suspect in the way liberalism does, a further corollary is that authority and hierarchy are also principles of constitutionalism. Finally, and perhaps most important, just rule emphasizes solidarity and subsidiarity. Authority is held in trust for and exercised on behalf of the community and the subsidiary groups that make up a community, not for the benefit of individuals taken one by one.
How, if at all, are these principles to be grounded in the constitutional text and in conventional legal sources? The sweeping generalities and famous ambiguities of our Constitution, an old and in places obscure document, afford ample space for substantive moral readings that promote peace, justice, abundance, health, and safety, by means of just authority, hierarchy, solidarity, and subsidiarity. The general-welfare clause, which gives Congress "power to ... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States," is an obvious place to ground principles of common-good constitutionalism (despite a liberal tradition of reading the clause in a cramped fashion), as is the Constitution's preamble, with its references to general welfare and domestic tranquility, to the perfection of the union, and to justice. Constitutional words such as freedom and liberty need not be given libertarian readings; instead they can be read in light of a better conception of liberty as the natural human capacity to act in accordance with reasoned morality.
More important still, thinking that the common good and its corollary principles have to be grounded in specific texts is a mistake; they can be grounded in the general structure of the constitutional order and in the nature and purposes of government. The Supreme Court, like Congress and the presidency, has often drawn upon broad structural and natural-law principles to determine the just authority of the state. "Police power," which, despite its misleading name, refers to the general power of state governments to protect health, safety, order, and public morality, is nowhere mentioned in the written Constitution. America's real, "efficient" Constitution is largely unwritten or uncodified, as is true of constitutions everywhere.
This is not the occasion to offer a bill of particulars about how constitutional law might change under this approach, but a few broad strokes can be sketched. The Court's jurisprudence on free speech, abortion, sexual liberties, and related matters will prove vulnerable under a regime of common-good constitutionalism. The claim, from the notorious joint opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that each individual may "define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life" should be not only rejected but stamped as abominable, beyond the realm of the acceptable forever after. So too should the libertarian assumptions central to free-speech law and free-speech ideology—that government is forbidden to judge the quality and moral worth of public speech, that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric," and so on—fall under the ax. Libertarian conceptions of property rights and economic rights will also have to go, insofar as they bar the state from enforcing duties of community and solidarity in the use and distribution of resources.
As for the structure and distribution of authority within government, common-good constitutionalism will favor a powerful presidency ruling over a powerful bureaucracy, the latter acting through principles of administrative law's inner morality with a view to promoting solidarity and subsidiarity. The bureaucracy will be seen not as an enemy, but as the strong hand of legitimate rule. The state is to be entrusted with the authority to protect the populace from the vagaries and injustices of market forces, from employers who would exploit them as atomized individuals, and from corporate exploitation and destruction of the natural environment. Unions, guilds and crafts, cities and localities, and other solidaristic associations will benefit from the presumptive favor of the law, as will the traditional family; in virtue of subsidiarity, the aim of rule will be not to displace these associations, but to help them function well. Elaborating on the common-good principle that no constitutional right to refuse vaccination exists, constitutional law will define in broad terms the authority of the state to protect the public's health and well-being, protecting the weak from pandemics and scourges of many kinds—biological, social, and economic—even when doing so requires overriding the selfish claims of individuals to private "rights." Thus the state will enjoy authority to curb the social and economic pretensions of the urban-gentry liberals who so often place their own satisfactions (financial and sexual) and the good of their class or social milieu above the common good.
In this sense, common-good constitutionalism promises to expand and fulfill, in new circumstances and with a new emphasis, the Constitution's commitments to promoting the general welfare and human dignity. Overall, constitutionalism will become more direct, more openly moral, less tied to tendentious law-office history and endless litigation of dubious claims about events centuries in the past. Originalism has done useful work, and can now give way to a new confidence in authoritative rule for the common good.
Adrian Vermeule is the Ralph S. Tyler, Jr. Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School.
I've never run across this call for "enlightened despotism" as the basis for constitutional interpretation in the US before, but I've read Rousseau and seen this idea there.
Originalism was always a means to a pro-GOP policy end. If it ceases to be useful they're take up something else to guarantee the legal outcomes that they want.
Catholic Integralists like Vermuele aren't really a major constituent of the MAGA world. They're a peculiar minority. The only other minor media figure I can think of off the top of my head is Sohrab Ahmari. There aren't many of them out there.
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2020, 03:19:46 PM
I've never run across this call for "enlightened despotism" as the basis for constitutional interpretation in the US before, but I've read Rousseau and seen this idea there.
Enlightened despotism is not a Rousseauian idea.
Executive summary?
Quote from: The Brain on April 03, 2020, 03:25:21 PM
Executive summary?
TLDR: Papists arguing for a dictatorship to rule over the heathen masses.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 03, 2020, 03:21:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2020, 03:19:46 PM
I've never run across this call for "enlightened despotism" as the basis for constitutional interpretation in the US before, but I've read Rousseau and seen this idea there.
Enlightened despotism is not a Rousseauian idea.
He believed that the community was more important than the individual, and that, so long as the rulers were following the "general will," they could do to individuals whatever was necessary.
Quote from: Fate on April 03, 2020, 03:26:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 03, 2020, 03:25:21 PM
Executive summary?
TLDR: Papists arguing for a dictatorship to rule over the heathen masses.
Popery is never the answer.
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2020, 03:27:42 PM
He believed that the community was more important than the individual, and that, so long as the rulers were following the "general will," they could do to individuals whatever was necessary.
That is neither enlightened despotism, nor what Rousseau wrote. If you want a champion of enlightened despotism, you'd better pick Voltaire. Rousseau consistently denounced despotism. Rousseau's general will requires the absolute equality of all citizens, and he famously wrote that all laws that are not ratified by the people (nor by its representatives) is void.
Rousseau's general will is indeed a concept that is unwieldy (and no doubt uncomfortable), but the problem comes from the difficulty to attend to dissent, as the 1792 Revolutionaries confronted. Rousseau's democracy is radical, and asks radical transparency and involvement from citizens.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 03, 2020, 03:48:56 PM
That is neither enlightened despotism, nor what Rousseau wrote. If you want a champion of enlightened despotism, you'd better pick Voltaire. Rousseau consistently denounced despotism. Rousseau's general will requires the absolute equality of all citizens, and he famously wrote that all laws that are not ratified by the people (nor by its representatives) is void.
Rousseau was about equality but not liberty. Voltaire was all about liberty but not equality. Voltaire inspired the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Rousseau inspired the Committees of Public Safety. That was despotism in the name of "the people," whatever Rousseau would have called it.
Is there anyone outside of this one law professor ascribing to this idea?
There's a lot of train wrecky stuff in here but just a few immediate thoughts include:
- the concept of "reason of state" is antithetical to the American constitutional idea and system.
- rather ironic to marry a supposed politics of moral virtue to a Machiavellian grounded political theory
- police powers are exercised by states, it is a basic foundational point of the American constitutional order that the constitution does not confer general police powers on the national government. It is frankly incredible for a constitutional law professor to make such an obvious error - so much so that it almost certainly isn't an error at all but a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader.
My experience is that Harvard professors sometimes are... less than able.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 03, 2020, 03:48:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2020, 03:27:42 PM
He believed that the community was more important than the individual, and that, so long as the rulers were following the "general will," they could do to individuals whatever was necessary.
That is neither enlightened despotism, nor what Rousseau wrote. If you want a champion of enlightened despotism, you'd better pick Voltaire. Rousseau consistently denounced despotism. Rousseau's general will requires the absolute equality of all citizens, and he famously wrote that all laws that are not ratified by the people (nor by its representatives) is void.
Rousseau's general will is indeed a concept that is unwieldy (and no doubt uncomfortable), but the problem comes from the difficulty to attend to dissent, as the 1792 Revolutionaries confronted. Rousseau's democracy is radical, and asks radical transparency and involvement from citizens.
Man, I wouldn't argue with Grumbler on this one. He
knew both Voltaire and Rousseau.
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2020, 04:38:12 PM
Rousseau was about equality but not liberty. Voltaire was all about liberty but not equality. Voltaire inspired the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Rousseau inspired the Committees of Public Safety. That was despotism in the name of "the people," whatever Rousseau would have called it.
It's a common contrasting parallel, but it's not very accurate. The DRM is not very Voltairian at all. Its sources of inspiration are a lot more muddied than these simple genealogies would lead on, including some direct borrowing from Rousseau (notably article 6). If you really want to get at some of the main sources of the DRM, it would be better to turn to Locke, the Virginia Declaration of Rights and some Montesquieu. This muddied genealogy owes to the debates that led to its crafting, based on committee work within the National Assembly.
Voltaire was very good for slogans, but not quite for thinking about political reform - at least not beyond his reflexive anti-clericalism. Mostly because he didn't have much of a political thought. The Revolutionaries mostly used him as a totem for his acidic prose and a figure of resistance.
Many Revolutionaries were certainly claiming that whatever they were doing was inspired by Rousseau, so high was his intellectual prestige at the start of the Revolution. That they twisted and turned his preferred Republicanism, and used his claims of general will to justify a wide range of repressive behavior is no more surprising than our contemporaries using Adam Smith to justify anything and everything in the pursuit of wealth. This should inspire us to read more Adam Smith, not simply dismiss him with a slogan. The same with Rousseau. There is enough of ambiguity (and wealth) in his work that we can avoid ascribing to him what isn't in there.
Oex, i am not going to debate you on an issue that you clearly know much more than I, so let me concede all your points.
My point was that the ideas expressed in the OP were the sorts of inchoate concepts expressed by the Enlightenment, before any of those ideas were ever attempted in real life.
Seems to me he's not arguing for dictatorship but rather proper respect for the law and deference to legal authority.
Which to me doesn't sound so much revolutionary but rather pointless, since we already have things like failure to comply, resisting arrest, contempt for Congress, etc. The first major Constitutional crisis of the US was the Whiskey Rebellion, which established that failure to comply with legally constituted taxation could be met with armed force.
it is language like
QuoteIts 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.
that makes me think of the Enlightenment writing. Who today believes that the central focus of government is "the ruler?"
Maybe I'm cynical...but I felt it had more of a Hobbesian tinge. :P
Lemme just tag in Popehat:
QuoteMe: [opening door a crack] is that the civic cooperation I ordered
UPS guy: [looks at clipboard] naw this is fascism
Me: send it back
UPS: but shipping is free! And look how nice it's dressed!
Me: I don't care how fucking nicely it's dressed-send it back
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1245027236601679872
People touting the common good are usually trying to justify doing bad things. Particularly from a moral standpoint. Utilitarian morality is a wonderful tool for that. It think it's not too far off the mark to say that just about every state-sponsored atrocity in human history was done for what the perpetrator believed was the common good.
"Law is parental"?? That makes my skin crawl.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 03, 2020, 05:06:09 PM
Is there anyone outside of this one law professor ascribing to this idea?
There's a lot of train wrecky stuff in here but just a few immediate thoughts include:
- the concept of "reason of state" is antithetical to the American constitutional idea and system.
- rather ironic to marry a supposed politics of moral virtue to a Machiavellian grounded political theory
- police powers are exercised by states, it is a basic foundational point of the American constitutional order that the constitution does not confer general police powers on the national government. It is frankly incredible for a constitutional law professor to make such an obvious error - so much so that it almost certainly isn't an error at all but a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader.
Yeah I've no idea. It just struck me as interesting because from what I can see he's a former Scalia clerk, he's now a Harvard professor and obviously publishing in the Atlantic. So I was wondering how much is he just an outlying but credible eccentric, or how much is he a part (albeit an extreme part) of the sort of conservative legal establishment? Is he just an oddball or is he helping groom the next generation in the pipeline of conservative judges?
He is capitalizing, I think, on a desire for a more robust engagement with the notion of the Common Good - on the right and on the left. It's part of a backlash against neoliberalism and its general indifference to the good life. It's not expressed so directly usually, but I think it's there. There is a growing interest in my students, for instance, in stoicism (or, in my courses, neo-stoicism, the 18th century version...)
I tend to think - from a leftist perspective - we need indeed more engagement with the notion of the Common Good. Not as justification for authoritarian policy, but rather as a constitutive part of our political life. We have quite an impoverished notion of politics right now, and I fear it will leave us rather defenseless against post-quarantine climate.
Interestingly this guy has just been appointed by Trump to the Administrative Conference of the US, which is an independent and apparently non-partisan federal agency that recommends improvements to administrative process and procedure.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2020, 01:54:19 PM
Interestingly this guy has just been appointed by Trump to the Administrative Conference of the US, which is an independent and apparently non-partisan federal agency that recommends improvements to administrative process and procedure.
This is what happens when loyalty to Trump becomes the most important factor in hiring:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/15/trump-appointees-loyalty-interviews-364616