The "New Right" Under Attack

But the oligarchs don't take them as serious threats. It's just a dog whistle to let their subjects know how the thought criminals are and to treat them accordingly.

It’s always a good sign to be condemned by the @nytimes, so congrats @Vermeullarmine , @PatrickDeneen , @roddreher , @SohrabAhmari & all the others!https://t.co/8N4sAIwOTt

— Péter Heltai (@peterheltai) October 19, 2021

Dante Was Wrong

Now apologists for the empire will talk about the subsidiarity that had to exist because the emperor was not in a position to consolidate his power, and so his actual exercise of authority over other polities was limited by physical distance and lack of manpower. If things had been different, would Dante and Latin integralists have been celebrating the fact? Maybe not Dante, but I have doubts about the neo-integralists.

In Dante’s account, the universal monarchy (empire) includes and sustains nations under the principle of subsidiarity https://t.co/8rPUZ2mkQs

— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) March 16, 2021

Vermeule Is a Bad Representative for Latin Integralism

"Sunstein and Vermeule facilely trot out the standard justifications for the administrative state: Congress authorized it; circumstances require it; the Constitution allows it. The first point is, unfortunately, true." https://t.co/4gVNHcsQhx

— The American Conservative (@amconmag) January 8, 2021

A Defense of the Administrative State

Is the Modern Administrative State Irredeemable?
by Adrian Vermeule & Cass Sunsteinhttps://t.co/9h1xypvXAl

— Church Life Journal (@ChurchLifeND) October 27, 2020

Sunstein and Vermeule

Apologists for Parolin and Francis

Pleased to write for the first time for the New York Post, with ⁦@gjpappin⁩, in defense of the Vatican’s renewed agreement with China https://t.co/d2OoCagDTo

— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) October 29, 2020

🇻🇦The Vatican just renewed its agreement with China.

Why?

The deep theological & political reasons behind the Vatican's approach are rarely discussed.@Vermeullarmine & I lay out reasons for the agreement in today's @nypost https://t.co/Jr99ijJd1H

— Gladden Pappin (@gjpappin) October 29, 2020

Actually, having two different jurisdictional orders for the same territory is very much possible. Juridical "neatness" at the expense of what is pastorally wise is a problem. But apologists for the papal centralism prefer juridical "neatness." Even Latins recognize that the supreme law of the Church is charity, and the good of Christians overrides all other considerations, even "ecclesiastical neatness." Who in Rome consulted the underground bishops in China for their opinions?

Anthony Clark's latest at least offers both sides of the argument: China’s Catholic Leviathan: Jesuits and the Sino-Vatican Agreement. But the affirmative is still wrong: full communion with the bishop of Rome is not the highest good.

Blakely v. Vermeule

Cool. So it’s now ok to charge people with not being Catholic enough? The guidance seems to change, depending. https://t.co/veAMkurKah

— Patrick Deneen (@PatrickDeneen) October 6, 2020

A Review of Law and Leviathan

The case for major administrative law reform rests on the need to respond a growing crisis on the ground. @RichardAEpstein on @Vermeullarmine and @CassSunstein's Law & Leviathan: https://t.co/g9ukK7sPH3 @realclearpolicy

— Brian A. Smith (@briansmith1980) September 16, 2020

Related:

Connecting Law and Leviathan to the classical legal tradition https://t.co/6wCKFSuH61

— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) September 16, 2020

Law and Leviathan

NPR interview on LAW AND LEVIATHAN, which is appearing (dropping?) tomorrow. @Vermeullarmine https://t.co/sXEzjbzQzU

— Cass Sunstein (@CassSunstein) September 14, 2020

Critics of big government argue that the federal bureaucracy goes against the founding principles of the US.@CassSunstein and @Vermeullarmine make the case that what they call the administrative state is constitutionally justified. @NPR @hereandnow https://t.co/A8lSoEYyax

— Harvard University Press (@Harvard_Press) September 14, 2020

The Problem Is Not the Method

The problem is the lack of accountability in transmitting and receiving an interpretive tradition. Institutional "integralism" would have even less success in obtaining results, because integralists wouldn't be given positions of power to begin with.

If you find yourself saying things like this, maybe it’s time to rethink the reliability of the method itself:

“Not a single justice, including the originalists, discerned the original meaning, even though it should have been obvious to the entire Court.” https://t.co/qEnbMJSgsC

— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) August 11, 2020

He'll Enjoy This Honor

An expert on administrative law and all that...

Congratulations, @Vermeullarmine! A great American placed exactly where he needs to be to serve the Nation. pic.twitter.com/X6HIBKWkVE

— Sohrab Ahmari (@SohrabAhmari) July 24, 2020

LAW AND LEVIATHAN. Coming soon: A defense of the Rule of Law, & of its crucial role in constraining the operations, and the power, of the modern administrative state. By @Vermeullarmine and yours truly. @harvardpress https://t.co/cqQkYPxecR

— Cass Sunstein (@CassSunstein) July 24, 2020

Post-Liberalism?

Recording now available | The future of #postliberalism; an international seminar | Speakers: @Phillip_Blond @PatrickDeneen @NJ_Timothy @Vermeullarmine and Ryszard Legutko. Expertly chaired by @moveincircles https://t.co/6QCrLMf2ta

— ResPublica (@res_publica) July 17, 2020

The Future of Post-Liberalism

ONLINE EVENT | The future of post-liberalism; an international seminar | 16th July, 15:00 | Join @Phillip_Blond @PatrickDeneen @Vermeullarmine Ryszard Legutko and @NJ_Timothy in our event chaired by Mary Harrington @moveincircles | Register here: https://t.co/uyj05chqQg

— ResPublica (@res_publica) June 24, 2020

A New Latin Integralist Project

“Our aim here is to show that the classical legal tradition provides powerful justifications for the rule of law, morality, and social order, and that only this tradition can effectively combat the progressive onslaught against everything we hold dear.”

— Ius & Iustitium (@iusetiustitium) June 18, 2020

The reification fallacy. Whether its adherents can effectively combat the revolutionaries remains to be seen.

The Elites

What evidence is there that for those who are responsible for 1-4, or involved in maintaining 1-4, fall under 5? Maybe a few naive minor members would be puzzled, but the elites are not utopian liberal idealists.

1. Form continent-spanning empire of over 300 million

2. Add systems of racial policing and economic inequality

3. Eliminate or privatize all substantive common public beliefs and traditions

4. Encourage individualism
...
...

5. Be very puzzled when civil conflict erupts

— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) June 1, 2020

Who's Going to Control It? Not You or Other Latin Integralists.

Fantastical.

Here we see the typical mistake, puzzling but typical, of assuming that the question is whether to create the machinery. The machinery already exists; the only question is who will control it and for what ends. https://t.co/OEfAurRqZ6 https://t.co/zoKuhacK6M

— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) May 29, 2020

What Federalism?

The Atlantic: There’s No Historical Justification for One of the Most Dangerous Ideas in American Law
The Founders didn’t believe that broad delegations of legislative power violated the Constitution, but conservative originalists keep insisting otherwise.

Julian Davis Mortenson
Law professor at the University of Michigan
Nicholas Bagley
Law professor at the University of Michigan

Yep. Glad this point is being thoroughly established. (See https://t.co/hNaBwdNQyz for an early effort). https://t.co/h5dSiarX0P

— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) May 26, 2020

Vermeule is promoting this. What happened to state sovereignty and a limited federal government? Apparently it doesn't take much to become a law professor, so long as you subscribe to some nationalist tradition. But the tradition of American federalism is dead. So if a contract/treaty/compact is no longer understood properly by multiple parties and not being adhered to, does that mean the contract is now null and void? Free the states, then localist political reform.

How Are You Going to Create Solidarity?

I agree that in urban mass population areas at least, there is no social cohesiveness and no community for reasons I've gone over before on the blog. But what is the remedy to this? Coercion? Forcing people to act like a community? Human nature doesn't work that way, and identity politics should be an indication of this to intellectuals who care.

I’m shocked that an aggregate of consumer-citizens, whose relationship to the state is defined solely in abstract juridical terms, can’t act with a common purpose https://t.co/lxzbmOiUm5

— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) May 14, 2020

Yes, let's follow the High-School Libertarian. pic.twitter.com/IFjJmg7dYr

— Rafael de Arízaga (@RafaeldeArizaga) May 14, 2020

Vermeule Responds to Josh Hammer

MoJ: On “Common-Good Originalism”

I was so engaged by Josh Hammer’s thoughtful work that I did an unusually long response — with bonus collateral remarks on some other varieties of originalism https://t.co/1HvKEn7rA1

— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) May 10, 2020

Originalism, Common-Good Originalism, and Common-Good Constitutionalism. @Vermeullarmine responds to @josh_hammer. We are watching an important debate unfold before our eyes. https://t.co/1yBukkHGlM

— Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) May 10, 2020

Originalism, Common-Good Originalism, and Common-Good Constitutionalism by Josh Blackman
Adrian Vermeule responds to Josh Hammer. We are watching an important debate unfold before our eyes.

No matter where things land, a new Overton window for legal conservatives, unfolding between @josh_hammer and @Vermeullarmine (& in thoughtful exchanges like these), would be a huge improvement. Arguably, among young lawyers on the right, it’s already there https://t.co/9H1Wh2t8xD

— Gladden Pappin (@gjpappin) May 10, 2020

My sincere thanks to @Vermeullarmine for this helpful, respectful, and very thought-provoking response to my recent call at @theammind for “common good originalism.”

We are shifting the Overton window. The only question is where precisely we will land. https://t.co/21w8ZB3ZNM

— Josh Hammer (@josh_hammer) May 10, 2020

READ: Excellent response by @Vermeullarmine to @josh_hammer’s addition to @theammind symposium on “common good constitutionalism” https://t.co/czZhoXXdMI

— JamesWilsonInstitute (@JamesWilsonInst) May 10, 2020

Collected links on Common-Good Constitutionalism (now with visible titles)! https://t.co/tUFTOv6PJq

— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) May 11, 2020

Stretching

And in 1892 the Supreme Court discussed Ferdinand and Isabella’s commission to Columbus as an important background source for understanding the principles of our constitutional order - especially the fundamental principle that “this is a Christian Nation” #AngloAmericanTradition https://t.co/8uGm6bWKCZ pic.twitter.com/gyfp2PtmFP

— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) May 6, 2020

See the whole thread...

Suddenly a wail arose from the think tanks: “Wait, no, our interpretive theory must include a theory of mistakes, we have to put the materials in their best constructive light according to political morality, and maybe Ronnie wasn’t such a bad guy after all mutter mutter” https://t.co/JsUYmfcmPS

— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) May 6, 2020

More of Vermeule's Brand of Constitutionalism

MOJ: Deference and the Common Good By Adrian Vermeule

On the relationship between common-good constitutionalism and judicial deference https://t.co/c8GL0bxLKJ

— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) May 8, 2020

File under “things one thought were obvious” https://t.co/fmBfHvcIn7

— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) May 8, 2020

(Adrian Vermeule) Deference and the Common Good https://t.co/fNdA0hdKPF

— Mirror of Justice (@MirrorJustice) May 8, 2020