The Invisible Movement
First I want to apologize for the slow-down in posts, but I'm finally done with oral arguments and you can all be sure to see a flury once studying for finals (and the accompanying breaks) kick in. More substantively, there have been several critical posts at VC regarding Rosen's NYT article about the Constitution in Exile Movement.
Here's one that made me chuckle:
I must confess, I haven't had a chance to read the Rosen article but from what I gather it is pointing to arguments made by the likes of Richard Epstein, their impact, etc. Instead the only comeback the libertarian/right has is to pick on the nomenclature? Disappointing to say the least.
By the way, Classical Liberals, stop using that term. The ancient Athenians called and they want it back. Thanks.
Here's one that made me chuckle:
Just worth pointing out that the *cough* "controversy" around the term and concept seem to be semantic. I.e. the arguments run as follows: well there's no organization devoted to a constitution in exile...or well we're not for getting rid of ALL jurisprudence since the New Deal. Are libertarians that insecure? I mean just come out and say that you think Social Security should be held unconstitutional. Minimum wage? Grossy unconstitutional. Unemployment insurance? A tool for the devil.
Amber Taylor on the "Fictitious" Constitution-in-Exile Movement: Over at Class Maledictorian, Harvard law student Amber Taylor comments on claims that there is a libertarian Constitution-in-Exile movement:As someone who pretty much agrees with Richard Epstein on everything, I would be a card-carrying member of this movement if it existed. But it doesn't.In light of Amber's post, it seems safe to predict that future New York Times coverage will claim the movement is thriving at Harvard.
I must confess, I haven't had a chance to read the Rosen article but from what I gather it is pointing to arguments made by the likes of Richard Epstein, their impact, etc. Instead the only comeback the libertarian/right has is to pick on the nomenclature? Disappointing to say the least.
By the way, Classical Liberals, stop using that term. The ancient Athenians called and they want it back. Thanks.
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 12:42 AM
4 Comments:
The problems people have with the articles are legion.
1. There is no cohesive "Constitution in Exile" movement or organization, although a cursory read of the article might make you think there is.
2. The article mashes together a lot of people who have significant disagreements about legal interpretation and policy in an attempt to increase the number of CIE "members."
3. The article seeks to tie the purported movement to the Bush administration. If there was such a movement, it would be antithetical to many of the administration's policy goals.
4. The article is a thinly veiled hit piece that misrepresents the several important scholars and lawyers. For example, the substance of the piece grudgingly admits that IJ spends most of its time helping the little guy, but the photo of Chip Mellor makes him look like Snidely Whiplash (as Randy Barnett noted).
BTW, the ancient Athenians weren't particularly liberal, except maybe in comparison to Sparta. So we'll keep the classical liberal label, thanks.
Majoritarian rule (based on ancient law handed to them from "above") with a strong immigration policy...are we splitting hairs here?
Since when does classical liberals/libertarian = majoritarian?
I know, that was the joke.
Post a Comment
<< Home