Author Leah Jacobson told @EWTNProLife that pro-life women “don’t really have a seat at the table” in the modern feminist movement. She hopes her book “will open that door for us.” https://t.co/Rd3A2oJ8Uw
— Catholic News Agency (@cnalive) July 8, 2021
The Architecture of an Urbanist Natural Law Principle https://t.co/2L2uwJhWUA
— Rick Garnett (@RickGarnett) May 15, 2021
A conservative could have written article like this, arguing that strategic alliances w/ Originalism, Straussianism, & New Natural Law theory, however useful short term, have proven unhelpful in translating Thomist natural law to the American context.https://t.co/CV6rt1ZcEm
— Josh Hochschild (@JoshHochschild) February 3, 2021
The New Republic wants everybody to worry about Natural Law theory, so you should listen to my lecture.https://t.co/K7vBwy9QDT
— Josh Hochschild (@JoshHochschild) February 3, 2021
Lumping in The Josias with NNL makes me wonder not only if the author has read much about the scene but also whether the author has read anything ever. https://t.co/QR9gF1jeyc
— Pat Smith (@smithpatrick08) February 3, 2021
This piece would receive an F if submitted as a final exam in jurisprudence, philosophy, political science, or theology 101. Other than finding three guys named "Leo," the only common thread between the thinkers and ideas discussed is that they are the author's boogeymen. https://t.co/Bo6O00Giiu
— Tom Johnson (@TomMJohnsonJr) February 3, 2021
“A Primer on the Right” and 21st-Century Politics (essay by Jerry Salyer) https://t.co/YZ0cCbDFSB
— ImaginativeConservat (@imaginativecons) January 5, 2021
In the predominantly Kurdish regions of Syria and Turkey, known respectively as Rojava and North Kurdistan, a groundbreaking experiment in communal living, social justice, and ecological vitality is taking place.
— Local Futures (@EconofHappiness) December 2, 2020
Follow this link to read all about it - https://t.co/0I9WhO1uTX. pic.twitter.com/LLKcw1kOF2
What started as a movement for political autonomy has blossomed into an attempt to build a radical pluralist democracy on the principles of communal solidarity — with food security, equality for women, and a localized, anti-capitalist economy at its core.No cultural imperialism here... just absolute human values, right?
What is natural law? Is it a "Catholic thing"? What should Protestant Christians think about it? My Southern Baptist friend Andrew Walker asks me some questions.https://t.co/1NSxojNIpj
— Robert P. George (@McCormickProf) November 20, 2020
A comment over at Sailer's blog:
There is a Youtube channel called Visualizing History that had a presentation on why the Wehrmacht did not collapse in 1944 like the Allies expected it to, whereas the German Imperial Army essentially collapsed in July 1918 and fought only defensively thereafter. The answer was the cohesion of the Wehrmacht was much much higher than that of the Kaiser.
While the Imperial Army suffered something like only a 1/4 of the casualties of the Wehrmacht and lost cohesion, the Wehrmacht kept it until January 1945. Despite suffering a combined nearly 800K casualties on both the West (around 140K) and the East (the balance) during the Summer of 1944. That’s more than 2.8 Stalingrad’s worth of casualties. The secret was that the Army units until quite late were comprised of people from the same region, who if they did not personally know each other likely knew mutual acquaintances and relatives. They spoke the same dialect. Military competence was rewarded and officers were more likely to die in combat than soldiers. Even Generals had only a few percentage points less casualty rates than soldiers. Each unit had its own decorations and distinctiveness, and medals were awarded not to the Aristocracy only but mostly to ordinary soldiers and not for kamikaze stuff but ordinary bravery where the soldiers survived at least the initial encounter. This was in marked contrast in every way to the Imperial Army where none of these conditions held. It is why to Ike’s astonishment the Wehrmacht did not simply collapse but kept fighting on until April 1945.
“Conservative Liberalism” after Christendom https://t.co/RUVefDjC1k
— Public Discourse (@PublicDiscourse) October 12, 2020
James Clark reviews David VanDrunen’s *Politics after Christendom* (@ZonderAcademic) and considers the prospects for natural law arguments: https://t.co/UqZzeBVo3i pic.twitter.com/679cWpFrey
— Front Porch Republic (@FrontPorchRepub) July 27, 2020
Is Natural Law Sufficient to Defend the Founding? (essay by Donald Devine) https://t.co/YWG7XPP48T
— ImaginativeConservat (@imaginativecons) July 27, 2020
Natural law holds that some things are right for all people, at all times, and in all places. Convictions about what these are is neither here nor there as to whether some things are in fact right always, everywhere, and for everyone, @PaulRDeHart writes. https://t.co/6RMDCetGzV
— Public Discourse (@PublicDiscourse) July 7, 2020
Welcome. Ius & Iustitium is a blog on jurisprudence and legal theory associated with @josias_rex.https://t.co/TDuaaE7Zu8
— Ius & Iustitium (@iusetiustitium) June 18, 2020
“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
"Social conservatives must abandon proceduralism and return to the classical legal tradition. Originalism and textualism, both types of positivism, have proved impotent in opposing the liberal concept of the good."
— Sohrab Ahmari (@SohrabAhmari) June 18, 2020
An exciting new legal blog is born! https://t.co/3SRl2BxTlN
Conservative legal movement 📉
— Gladden Pappin (@gjpappin) June 18, 2020
Romano-canonical jurisprudence 📈https://t.co/3zbeGVzvd7
Among those who do not believe in it, or whose "belief" is merely notional, there are people who would count themselves as mortal ideological enemies of one another. Some are on the "right," others the "left," others in between. But what interests me is what they have in common.
— Robert P. George (@McCormickProf) June 4, 2020
Perhaps of most relevance to the recent wrangling over Adrian Vermeule's anti-originalist Atlantic essay is Friedlander's description of cultural conservatives engaged in the cultural warfare that encompasses but exceeds "the longstanding jurisprudential debates between origirialism and non-originalism or between natural law and positivism." These cultural conservatives, Friedlander contends, are "largely constrained by their positivism, if not by their originalism."
If Friedlander is correct, then one can understand part of the alarm sounded in response to Vermeule's essay. If the jurisprudential debates are but one component of a broader kulturkampf in which what is at stake is "the survival or abandonment of the moral authority in the Constitution that is derived from Judaism, Christianity, or any other religion," then the cultural conservatives' removal of their self-imposed constraint of legal positivism should be of concern to those on the other side from them of this kulturkampf.
Contrary to the framing of both Vermeule's essay and the responses to it, more fundamental than the debate between originalism and nonoriginalism (whatever that is) is a debate between legal positivism and natural law as each is taken to undergird our constitutional order. The problem may be not that we're all originalists now, but that we're all legal positivists now. If that's right, then we can't begin to have the debate we ought to be having.
