One of the 4 or 5 greatest documents in the history of civilization, the US Constitution, created and has served for 225 years to strengthen to basic freedoms on which the United Sates of America was founded. George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, put the importance of the document and its principles this way: "Toward the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown." To continually water down through constant "innovations"...isn't that what we are dealing with now? The Marxist left constantly sings the about the need to make the Constitution a "living document" and is irrelevant in its current form because it is out of date. Washington told us to be on guard for such tactics over two hundred years ago. It will serve us well right now to heed his warnings.For an issue by issue discussion of the Constitution, see the EPOCH Times , Defending the Constitution. It discusses the fallacy of a living constitution, the brilliance of the second amendment, racism, sexism, understanding the Constitution, and much more. An educational read, full of fact & truth, not politics and political correctness.

Critics Call It Theocratic and Authoritarian. Young Conservatives Call It an Exciting New Legal Theory.

from Politico,

At the center of this debate was Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule, whose latest book served as the ostensible subject of the symposium. In conservative legal circles, Vermeule has become the most prominent proponent of “common good constitutionalism,” a controversial new theory that challenges many of the fundamental premises and principles of the conservative legal movement.

On the one side of this debate are defenders of the conservative legal status quo, who made up the majority of the speakers at the Cambridge symposium. By and large, these conservatives continue to champion the time-honored legal principles of the right: the sanctity of individual rights, the importance of judicial restraint and the wisdom of limited government. Practically all of them continue to identify as originalists. On the other side of the debate are those who, like Vermeule, want to push the conservative legal movement in a more radical direction. Partisans of this camp hail from different sectors of the American right, and they go by different names. (Some eschew the label of “conservative” for the edgier “postliberal” or “integralist,” two terms that are variously applied to Vermeule.)

For the most part, the debate between these two factions has been unfolding outside of the conservative mainstream. Instead, it’s being hashed out in the pages of academic law journals, in back-and-forths on obscure conservative blogs and in the nerdier corners of conservative legal Twitter, where Vermeule was until recently a prolific

More From Politico:

365 Days Page
Comment ( 0 )