Will Justice Amy be the second coming of Clarence Thomas--only as a white female? I sure hope so! And Patrick Deneen offers some hope in that regard in this teaser. What a concept, hey? America as a project to secure the common good. The point is, for that to be the case there needs to be some basic agreement on just what the common good is. Says Deneen:
So the constitution is not merely a non-aggression pact, as I think it has been increasingly interpreted, for people to do as they wish.
In other words, at the time of the founding there was a basic agreement as to the substantive content underlying the notion of a common good. We need to recover that to Make America Great Again. I believe AG Bill Barr is very much on board with that project--of recovering a substantive notion of the common good--and Deneen contends that Justice Amy will be, too. I'm all for it.
"America is a political project to secure the common good."@PatrickDeneen on natural law, the common good, the U.S. Constitution, and Amy Coney Barrett.— Yoram Hazony (@yhazony) September 29, 2020
Full interview coming soon on @NatConTalk . pic.twitter.com/iLGu4lDXTK
"America is a political project to secure the common good."ReplyDelete
No actually to preserve White Anglo Saxons Protestants:
-We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,_
If your position is that you should not take care of yourself and your children and their children, then you can have that. But if you force that position on others, then you become a tyrant. I will take care of myself and my lineage, my posterity. And my race or anybody else's is not at issue. But my relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ does absolutely matter.Delete
The Constitutions of the Soviet Union had racial equality, universal suffrage, right to work, right to housing, right to leisure, right to retirement, etc ...Delete
How’d that work out?
Trump has an opportunity to really control the Supreme Court. Apply reparation to the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas gets 2 votes instead of one (wink)ReplyDelete
You've probably heard the joke about why a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness:ReplyDelete
"Nothing is better than eternal happiness, and a ham sandwich is better than nothing."
Politically, few things are better than a Constitution based on a people's shared moral and political values.
But it's now 65 years since the Hart-Celler Act started importing non-Western barbarians to dilute the American population and disrupt our social cohesion. It's 75 years since leftists started using schools and mass media to attack and discredit American history, morals, customs, and institutions.
"We" -- residents of the United States -- no longer have a shared view of the common good, a respect for America's history, or any commitment to the rule of law. Whether you look at Ilhan Omar or Hillary Clinton, that much is obvious:
"British and American concepts of individual liberty are not universals that can be immediately understood and desired by everyone, as is often claimed. They are themselves the cultural inheritance of certain tribes and nations." (Yoram Hazony, The Virtue of Nationalism)
At this point, repurposing the Constitution as "a non-aggression pact" might be the best we can get. It would be better than what we have now, and *far* better than where we're heading.
I understand what you're saying, but here's the problem: The Left will NEVER agree to a non-aggression pact. Leftism is all about domination, not getting along.Delete
"all about domination, not getting along."Delete
Yeah, at least somewhat since Robespierre, more since Marx, much since Obama in '08.
Until liberals face such facts, we should prepare for secession/ expulsion.
If we see them facing such facts, such that they dump their devil's pact with the Left, we can assess the odds of trying to implement such a non-aggression pact.
I mis-stated how long it's been since the Hart-Celler Act was passed. It was 55 years ago, not 65.Delete
"Left will NEVER agree to a non-aggression pact."Delete
Precisely. See Détente. Nor should "non-aggression" ever be sought with an enemy committed to nothing less than your total surrender or annihilation by any and all means.
The single line representation of political ideologies is not correct.ReplyDelete
It’s more of a circle with inner circles touching different segments where the ideologies reside.
Or, probably better is a Venn diagram.
Either way, there is no political ideology that cannot be oppressive or totalitarian. None.
Our Founders knew this via classical liberal education on dead white, brown, black, and olive men.
They gave us the tool to truly advance humanity. It has not yet been fully actualized, which, ironically, our Founders anticipated. They even expected this not to last due to the nature of man, which is oppression and control, ie totalitarianism whether it is called communism or fascism. Terms not invented when we were founded.
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
NB I moved this comment to Mark's Comey post and added a postscript.Delete
"Sen. Feinstein, Dems formally ask for delay in Amy Coney Barrett confirmation"ReplyDelete
Hahahahahahaha! Yeah, uh no.