Robert George and James Martin, Besties

First Things: Father Martin Corrects Cardinal Tobin by Robert P. George

Tribute to Eugene Genovese by Robert George

"Conservative" Robert George, part 2

Immigration and American Exceptionalism (via MOJ)

Immigration and American Exceptionalism from Center for Vision and Values on Vimeo.

"Conservative" Robert George?

Governor Perry, the 10th Amendment, and the 14th

“It is important for Governor Perry and for all Americans to recognize the responsibility of the national government under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to ensure that the guarantees of Section 1 of that Amendment are honored by all 50 states. Those guarantees include the following: ‘nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ As a matter of indisputable scientific fact, the child in the womb is a living human being. As a matter of moral truth, deeply embedded in our legal and constitutional traditions, all human beings are persons. Thus, by the clearest logical implication, the national government is empowered and obligated by our Constitution to ensure that unborn human persons are equally protected in their most fundamental right---the right to life. Because this is an expressly delegated power, there is no 10th Amendment basis for denying or relieving the national government of its responsibilities, along with the states, to protect the child in the womb.”

Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism (via Mirror of Justice)

This is probably more a project inspired by Robert P. George than the Straussians, but the effect is the same, especially when you see that Lincoln is held as an exemplar of American Constitutionalism. Can natural rights be rehabilitated so that the concept is palatable to paleos and traditional conservatives? Perhaps, but it is unlikely to be done here. Show me Robert George endorsing an authentic understanding of American Federalism and maybe I'll change my mind.

Another George/Lee piece on embryos

Patrick Lee & Robert P. George, Confused on Fertilization
Another failed effort to show that human embryos are not human beings.

See Embryo: A Defense of Human Life.

Robert George to be in Oakland tomorrow

Manhattan Forum Conference

The Catholic Voice: Manhattan Declaration author sees ‘call of conscience on great moral issues’

Robert George, What happens when judges decree instead of deliberate

Washington Examiner

Robert George responds to Judge Walker's ruling

scribd document (AFP post)

Wright On: Moral Reasoning and Natural Law | Big Questions Online

Wright On: Moral Reasoning and Natural Law | Big Questions Online
A "diavlog" with Robert P. George.

Michael Perry:

The subtitle of my book The Idea of Human Rights (Oxford, 1998) is "Four Inquiries". Four inquiries, four chapters. The title of the fourth chapter: "Are Human Rights Absolute? The Incommensurability Thesis and Related Matters". In that chapter, I comment at length on, and explain why I am skeptical about, John Finnis' position regarding moral "absolutes": determinate moral norms that are exceptionless (unconditional). I hope MOJ readers who are interested in pursuing the issue will take a look at what I have to say in chapter 4 (pp. 87-106)--and, if they are at all inclined, let me know where, in their judgment, my argument misfires.

No absolute or exceptionless moral norms? How is this harmonious with orthodoxy?

Robert George's response to Mr. Perry's previous post. So adhering to one absolute is sufficient to make one not a moral relativist? "It boggles the mind." Mr. Perry's profile at MOJ.

Will the crisis be fixed pass when the old guard (of heterodoxy) finally passes?

William B. May coming to Oakland

He will be giving a Manhattan Forum lecture on July 27 at 7 P.M. The title of his lecture is "Marriage and Children - Reshaping the Dialog to Reflect the Human Reality." Details.

(Robert George is giving a lecture on August 25. The fee, which will also cover admission for the Manhattan Forum Conference on September 18. Details.)

Catholics for the Common Good

Robert George responds to Michael Perry: Dictatorship of Relativism.

Those intellectuals stick together.

John Haldane proclaims Robert George to be A New Voice for the American Right.

This being so, the Republicans are still struggling to find national leadership both in Congress and among state Governors. While social conservatism does not lack prominent voices, the most articulate and effective seem to be coming from outside the world of professional politicians, a matter of some discomfort to party managers. Together with familiar talk radio "shock jocks" and the new Tea Party activists, both of whom are a liability as well as an asset, is a newly prominent line of well-educated commentators and academics, many of them religious, though not in the manner popularly associated with the Evangelical Right.

Among the leading figures of this group is Robert George. Swarthmore, Harvard and Oxford educated, George occupies a distinguished position at Princeton, holding the McCormick Chair of Jurisprudence that was occupied in earlier times by Woodrow Wilson, who went on to be President of the University, Governor of New Jersey, two-term US President and Nobel laureate. Very unusually for that traditionally Waspish environment, George is an orthodox Roman Catholic.

Well-known as a scholar, lawyer and public commentator, he has acquired a new status as a leader of American intellectual conservatism, the heir to William F. Buckley Jr, Richard John Neuhaus, Irving Kristol, and Ralph McInerny, who have all died in the past two years. Indeed, if the verdict of a major profile recently published in the New York Times Magazine is to be believed, George is the leading American voice of thoughtful Christian conservatism. But any images of eccentricity or fogeyishness would be out of place: "Robby" George is youthful, stylishly dressed and fully up-to-speed with the electronic information culture.

George has had considerable influence outside the academy, having been a member of both the US Commission on Civil Rights, and the President's Council on Bioethics. But his centre of operations is in Princeton's elite academic environment and it was there that we talked about his ideas and his hopes for America.

Central to his work is the task of understanding and helping others to appreciate what he describes as "the profound, inherent and equal dignity of every human being and all that follows from that about how we should lead our lives, and govern ourselves as communities". According to George, this takes us to a true humanism that identifies principles of conduct (including justice and human rights) by considering the various fundamental and irreducible aspects of human wellbeing and fulfilment.

I haven't yet come across anything by Professor George to alleviate my doubts about his understanding of the American federal system. There are those on the "left" who critcize his American Principles Project as being another Republican website.

Robert George, Constitutionalism and Supreme Court Justices and Jurisprudence

Robert George is popular writer among conservative Catholics, and I would recommend his writings on abortion and the natural law (though I think he is incorrect in his adoption of the new Natural Law Theory of John Finnis and Germain Grisez). But I have to say that as I accept the paleo understanding of the Constitution more and more, I am led to doubt whether Professor George, despite his academic credentials and scholarship, has an adequate grasp of what an originalist view of the Constitution entails. He writes in Conservatives and the Kagan nomination:

What is relevant is Kagan's understanding of the proper role of courts in our system of government under the Constitution. And that should be the focus of conservatives' concerns. If, indeed, Kagan believes it is legitimate for judges to read into the Constitution liberal (or, for that matter, conservative) views about abortion, sexuality and marriage, religion, speech, or anything else, then she should be opposed for that reason. In my judgment, a constitutionalist is someone who believes that the legitimate sources of constitutional meaning are the text of the Constitution, the logical presuppositions and implications of its provisions, its structure, and its publicly understood historical (or "original") meaning. A jurist who is willing to look beyond these sources of meaning in order to reach outcomes in line with his or her moral and political preferences undermines the Constitution by usurping authority it allocates to other actors in the system.

His post could come from any Republican -- concern about Kagan's possibly liberal views on social issues and the first amendment. But what of executive overreach (regardless of whether it is practiced and defended by a Democrat or a Republican)? No mention of that. What he writes about being a constitutionalist may look all right, but "publicly understood historical (or 'original') meaning" might be written with a restricted sense. As far as I know, Professor George has not written anything positive about states' rights or state sovereignty, nor has he said that the Constitution should be understood in accordance with those who ratified it.

American Principles Project: Robert P. George's Statement on the Nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court of the United States

The Public Discourse: Morality, Rationality, and Natural Law by Robert P. George

Boisi Center: Robert P. George, who will deliver the 9th Annual Prophetic Voicies Lecture on March 25, was recently profiled in the New York Times Magazine.

Robert George, Morality and Policy: Contemporary Challenges

Morality and Policy: Contemporary Challenges — NEW (mp3)
Robert P. George, Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
4/3/2009

Robert P. George, What Marriage Is—And What It Isn't