today i learned there are harvard law professors currently walking the earth who
- think secret service investigations are warranted against the threat of Gavin Newsom saying "Kristi Noem will have a bad day"
- openly advocate for catholicism to take over the american government
- love Trump (of course)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Vermeule
#harvard #harvardLaw #uspol #uspolitics #law #SCOTUS #KristiNoem #AdrianVermeule #Vermeule #GavinNewsom
The tradition begins with legal theorist
#Carl #Schmitt
and can be followed in the work of the political philosopher #Leo #Strauss,
thinkers affiliated with the #Claremont #Institute,
a California-based think tank with close ties to the Trump movement,
and the contemporary writings of the legal scholar #Adrian #Vermeule.
Many on the right have bristled at presidential power’s being constrained over the past century by two waves of administrative reform.
The first dates back to the early 20th century and the rise of the bureaucratic-regulatory state during the Progressive and New Deal eras.
The second wave emerged in the 1970s, as Congress responded to the abuses of power by Richard Nixon.
The presidency has evolved to become an office exercising general (and often passive) oversight of vast departments and agencies,
which are staffed by career civil servants who stay on across administrations.
Presidents are constrained by layers of lawyers and others determining what is allowable based on law and precedent.
This evolution came about in part because the presidency can be the office most susceptible to despotic or tyrannical rule.
That’s where the more radical critique emanating from the hard right focuses its attention.
Schmitt (who died in 1985) developed his most influential ideas during the turbulence and ineffectual governance of Germany’s Weimar Republic.
In his view, liberalism has a fatal weakness.
Its aversion to violent conflict drives it to smother intense debate with ostensibly neutral procedures that conceal the truth about the nature of politics.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/04/opinion/trump-schmitt-strauss-intellectuals.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Ayer, más de noventa miembros de la aptitud de la Aquiescencia de Derecho de Harvard emitido Una enunciación sobre el estado de derecho: Tenemos el privilegio de enseñar y estudiar la ley con usted. Le escribimos hoy, en nuestras capacidades individuales, porque creemos que los preceptos legales estadounidenses y las instituciones diseñadas para defenderlas están […]
"The burning has started. The question is, where will it stop? Will they go as far as Vice President JD Vance has suggested they might? Vance retweeted Harvard Law Professor Adrian Vermeule, who referred to decisions made by judges—the co-equal third branch of government that is designed to make decisions about what constitutes 'legitimate acts of state'—as 'judicial interference.'”
~ Joyce Vance
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.
Critics Call It #Theocratic and #Authoritarian. Young Conservatives Call It an Exciting New #Legal #Theory.
The cornerstone of Vermeule’s theory is the claim that “the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to ‘protect liberty’ as an end in itself” — or, in layman’s terms, that the Constitution empowers the government to pursue conservative political ends, even when those ends conflict with individual rights as most Americans understand them. In practice, Vermeule’s theory lends support to an idiosyncratic but far-reaching set of far-right objectives: outright bans on abortion and same-sex marriage, sweeping limits on freedom of expression and expanded authorities for the government to do everything from protecting the natural environment to prohibiting the sale of porn.
⚯ Michel de Cryptadamus ⚯
Chuck Darwin
ButterWord
William Lindsey 
