The Trouble With 'Common Good Originalism'

A new conservative faction embraces "authoritative rule for the common good."


As far back as I can remember, conservatives have attacked liberal judges for substituting their policy preferences for the text of the Constitution, and for trying to cram the entire progressive agenda onto a handful of provisions (the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause) that were never meant to carry such weight. But the times are changing. Now, a new conservative faction is aiming to beat the results-oriented liberal judges at their own game.

Writing in the latest issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, conservative lawyer and Newsweek opinion editor Josh Hammer urges his fellow travelers on the right to embrace a new "jurisprudence that actually serves our substantive goals." What goals? "Conservatism in the Anglo-American tradition," Hammer argues, "is preeminently concerned with the societal health and intergenerational cohesion of the nation-state, with the structural integrity and formative capability to inculcate sound republican habits of mind in the intermediary communitarian institutions that exist between citizen and state, and with the flourishing of individual citizens in a way that serves God and nation and comports with the great Western religions' conceptions of the teleological ends of man." This "conservatism," Hammer explains, "is thus more open to wielding state power, when need be, to 'enforce our order,' or even to 'reward friends and punish enemies.'"

Hammer dubs this approach "common good originalism," but there is not so much that is recognizably originalist about it. To be sure, he does repeatedly invoke the Preamble to the Constitution, reading its soaring language as a permission slip for vigorous government action on behalf of various conservative causes. But even when the government is promoting "the general Welfare" or securing "the Blessings of Liberty," the government must still act within the confines of its constitutionally enumerated powers and must still respect the many individual rights possessed by the citizenry.

Hammer is not so big on limiting government power. Rather, he favors a legal regime that will "prioritize the true flourishing of the communitarian whole over the temporal satisfaction of the individualist self." He wants more government control over speech and journalism, more regulation of the economy, and "a more robust constitutional ambit for the actions of the federal government than other competing originalist interpretative methodologies" would allow. Hammer also thinks that police officers should get more judicial deference and should be awarded more qualified immunity in cases of alleged police misconduct. He even asserts that the Fourth Amendment contains "some degree of mandated deference toward the governmental actors tasked with 'search[ing]' and 'seiz[ing] offending citizens."

Hammer's take on the 14th Amendment illustrates some of the shortcomings of his approach. Among other things, that amendment was originally understood by those who drafted and ratified it as placing birthright citizenship in the constitutional firmament. As I have previously explained, "the text and history of the 14th Amendment are clear: If a child is born on U.S. soil, and that child's parents don't happen to be diplomats, foreign ministers, or invading foreign troops, then that child is a U.S. citizen by virtue of birth."

Hammer does not care for that result (since it means birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants), so he minimizes the text and history that cuts against him and emphasizes "the profound substantive harms that a mandated birthright citizenship interpretation would wreak upon cherished common good concepts such as national sovereignty and the sanctity of national citizenship."

In short, Hammer seeks conservative results by reading his preferred conservative agenda ("our substantive goals") into the constitutional text. "Background substantive norms of conservatism, rightly understood, are, or should be," Hammer writes, "ingrained in the extant U.S. constitutional order." Hammer may call it "originalism," but it sure operates more like right-wing living constitutionalism.

If that sounds familiar, it is because Hammer largely retreads the ground covered last year in a widely discussed Atlantic essay written by conservative Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule, who had this to say to his fellow right-wingers:

Originalism has now outlived its utility, and has become an obstacle to the development of a robust, substantively conservative approach to constitutional law and interpretation. Such an approach—one might call it "common-good constitutionalism"—should be based on the principles that government helps direct persons, associations, and society generally toward the common good, and that strong rule in the interest of attaining the common good is entirely legitimate. In this time of global pandemic, the need for such an approach is all the greater, as it has become clear that a just governing order must have ample power to cope with large-scale crises of public health and well-being—reading "health" in many senses, not only literal and physical but also metaphorical and social.

According to Vermeule, the time has come for conservatives to ditch originalism and start getting comfortable with "authoritative rule for the common good." What did he mean by that? "Under a regime of common good constitutionalism," Vermeule explained, "libertarian assumptions central to free-speech law and free-speech ideology" must necessarily "fall under the ax." What is more, "libertarian conceptions of property rights and economic rights will also have to go, insofar as they bar the state from enforcing duties of community and solidarity in the use and distribution of resources."

That stuff was actually my favorite part of Vermeule's essay. I mean, just think about it. He told conservatives to abandon originalism because originalism was going to produce a bunch of libertarian results. Vermeule effectively conceded that the libertarian originalists have been right all along.

NEXT: The Senate's Industrial Policy Bill Is a Debt-Financed Corporate Giveaway That Lobbyists Love

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. >>should be based on the principles that government helps direct persons, associations, and society generally toward the common good

    ya base it on lies. good start.

    1. I’m having trouble discerning who, exactly, is in this faction. AFAICT, it’s two obscure journalists that aren’t any less credible than Root.

      1. The Harvard Professor favors a Corporatist-Catholic theocratic dictatorship along the lines of Franco or Salazar. I’d wager this “faction” is negligible.

        1. Yeah, but eventually the Dems will call it a Republican measure, just like they claimed Obamacare was Republican originated because one Heritage wonk proposed it.

          1. And a Republican governor and presidential nominee enacted.

            1. Are Rinos actually Republican, though?

              1. I don’t know about Rhinos but how about those Chinese elephants? They can’t even run zoos, let alone virology labs.

                1. Making money online more than 800$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little ASAW child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
                  on this page…..VISIT HERE

        2. At this point it’s more of an intellectual movement than anything else. But twenty years ago so was the crazypants thinking now en vogue on the left.

          1. As soon as this tiny faction of conservatism takes control of every major institution in this country I’ll start worrying about it. Meanwhile kindergarten children are being taught that they don’t have a biological sex and that it’s OK to kill white people because they are oppressors.

        3. Ah, but they all started out as “negligible.”

      2. couple guys with questionably German names hmmmm

        1. Yes, and it does convey rather distinct Germanic overtones, does it not?

          I mean “common good” is what whomever is pulling the strings says it is.

          1. Herr Hammer has “substantive goals”.

            1. He wants to “Turn This Muthah Out,” and by ‘Muthah,’ I mean Lady Liberty.

          2. What the “progressives” want I’m sure they consider the common good also.

            The writers of the Constitution were neither fools nor sloppy in their words. They were at times caught on the horns of a dilemma (e.g. slavery vs dissolution of the union), but they were solid wordsmiths. While many were personally devoutly Christian, they made space for all comers, even spiritualists such as the Quakers.

            I read no more support for fascist common good than I do progressive.

            But then, I’m generally not mainstream anyway. Yeah, I’m concerned that this viewpoint could catch on quite nicely in large parts of the group that voted for Trump.

    1. Stop being so polite.

    2. But enough with this Anti-Asian sentiment…;)

  2. The new conservatives are not conservative. Not even close. American conservatism was a very Burkean ideology, and thus American conservatives were really classic liberals of a sort. No longer. They are distinguished from progressives only in style.

    1. Disagree – even though American conservatives liked to pretend they were classical liberals because there is a theoretical strain of conservatism that in America could have been classical liberal. Course that strain was also hatched by the Easter bunny.

      On the bright side – if ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ and ‘progressives’ and all the other pigeonholes are now comfortable with a living interpretation of the Constitution maybe it is time for an Article 5 convention so that the living can actually, you know, interpret the Constitution into something that can be communicated to everyone besides just judges and lawyers.

      1. “an Article 5 convention”

        That’s the sort of irresponsible populism intellectuals hate.

      2. “…an Article 5 convention”

        It may have been you that got me to looking into this a few months back. As of today Convention of States [COS] has passed resolutions in 15 States, with active legislation in many others. It looks as though they may well reach the 34 State threshold to call for a convention.

        I can only imagine the opposition that will arise; up to now they seem to have mostly flown below the radar, but once MSM starts to weigh in, never mind the likes of Schumer who would be one of the first to go with term limits.

        1. OTOH – once the dog gets near to catching the ambulance, it may not know what to do next and so may decide to stop trying to catch the ambulance.

    2. It’s hilarious watching you radical leftists fume that after a century and a half your opponents have finally adopted your tactics and are going to beat the fucking shit out of you with them.

  3. “authoritative rule for the common good.” Also known as statism.

    1. And 99% of all organized societies ever, either as intended or at least advertised. Especially when the common good included some theological fantasy.

    2. Also known as statism.

      The Devil, as always is in the details. What is this ‘common’ good?

      If it is the idea that every person should be as free as possible to choose and pursue their own notion of the good so long as that pursuit does not infringe on the ability of others to likewise pursue their own chosen path. then it may still be a sort of statism, but it the sort of statism that will secure power in order that you may be left alone.

  4. ‘”Under a regime of common good constitutionalism,” Vermeule explained, “libertarian assumptions central to free-speech law and free-speech ideology” must necessarily “fall under the ax.” What is more, “libertarian conceptions of property rights and economic rights will also have to go, insofar as they bar the state from enforcing duties of community and solidarity in the use and distribution of resources.”‘

    This sounds vaguely familiar…. hmm…. Lenin?

      1. Everything inside the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.

    1. It’s not so much Marx, or Engels as it is Plato.

  5. I do find it interesting that a picture of …what is that, the Lincoln Memorial surrounded by barbed wire is used though. Come January 6, never in my lifetime had I heard Democrats as a whole thump their chests and wax poetic about America’s venerated institutions, and the desire to preserve them from a bunch of unkempt agitators.

    1. The one agitator summarily executed by a cop seemed kempt enough to me.

      Those democrats did not care about “America’s venerated institutions”, they cared only about their own personal safety.
      You see, it is different when the citizens come near to democrats to address their grievances. As long as only minority business, or institutions far away from DC are burning, it is all mostly peaceful. But if an actual legislative grifter might have to see someone who disagrees with their fascist edicts, that is totally unacceptable. The actions of democratic mayors when faced with personal accountability by citizens was a clear predictor of the fascist reaction to anyone not assumed by skin color to favor the fascists.

      1. Those democrats did not care about “America’s venerated institutions”, they cared only about their own personal safety.

        None of them were hurt. The only person largely threatened by name was the VP, a Republican. They only cared inasmuch as it let them command harumphs about their phoney baloney jobs.

    2. I believe that the building in question is the Supreme Court building.

      The caption under the pediment reads ‘EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW’. The pediment itself features bas-relief sculpture of 9 seated, robed figures.

        1. Built after 1837 but before 1863?

            1. And, AIUI, they built the thing under budget, returning the excess to the Treasury.

              Sounds like news from another planet now, doesn’t it?

    3. in my lifetime had I heard Democrats as a whole thump their chests and wax poetic about America’s venerated institution””

      considering how many just the day before wanted to tear down those venerated institutions due to their racism meanings

  6. The old Humpty Dumpty school of language, I see.

    Why not just go for an amendment that explicitly says “This constitution only applies to citizens, legal immigrants, and legal visitors to the United States of America?

  7. It’s a logical approach, given that limited government, like so many libertarian shibboleths, is for all practical purposes unobtainable. Political activities towards that end mostly serve as a distraction from practical actions making the reality of big government at least tolerable.

    If I have to live with a tyrant, better my tyrant than yours.

    1. If you have to live with a tyrant, you won’t have a choice in the matter, nor can you guarantee that “your” tyrant won’t change.

      That’s kinda the whole deal about tyranny, as I’m led to understand. Choice in tyranny? Talk about “shibboleths!”

  8. Sooo… how is Kamala Harris telling would-be immigrants, “do not come” not the biggest news headline of the week?

    1. Well, maybe the second biggest headline of the week, right after the Fauci emails.

    2. sounded like a hizbollah video. was today’s newspaper displayed for confirmation?

    3. Why should it be?
      The most important news was that the Windsors had a new baby who is eighth in line to the monarchy of some increasingly fascist island “empire” off the coast of Europe .

    4. Because it sound advice since she cares for their wellbeing.

      Totally different than Trump.

      Scott Adams was right that Biden was going to continue many of Trump’s policies because there was either a lot Trump got right or a lot of stuff where there was only one realistic option.

  9. Conservatism in the Anglo-American tradition,” Hammer argues, “is preeminently concerned with the societal health and intergenerational cohesion of the nation-state, with the structural integrity and formative capability to inculcate sound republican habits of mind in the intermediary communitarian institutions that exist between citizen and state, and with the flourishing of individual citizens in a way that serves God and nation and comports with the great Western religions’ conceptions of the teleological ends of man.

    WTF. Is the guy pretending to be James Joyce or William Faulkner?

    What he really needs is the pithier German quote for all this –
    Gewohnheiten des Geistes Anstalt gestalterichgenerationsübergreifendBegriff Staatsbürger

    1. I think he’s just trying to lure us to sleep, which, of course, is part of the plan.

  10. Can’t see how any libertarian principles won out here, since no major party has espoused them in decades, and also no libertarian candidate has won office running under that party – they all ran as RINOs. It would make sense in a world where our federal government was term limited and balanced budget limited, but that never happened. And it never will. I will take the GOP, as broken as it is at times, over the radical far left neo marxists on the left. And you will too.

    1. Like Hell I will! I don’t have to take any of these control-freak sons-o’-bitches, whether they are symbolized by an elephant, an ass, a rhino, a red rose, a <fasces, a hakenkreutz (literally “twisted cross” or swastika,) or a hammer and sicle! I’ll remain both a non-voter and unregistered!

      They may get away with doing their worst, but they won’t do it with my support!

  11. So… am I correct in assuming this is another article where Reason turns over every rock they can to find some obscure “conservative authoritarians” they can use to make ridiculous generalizations so they can “both sides” away the wholly totalitarian left?

      1. 10 years from now, when Pres Harris outlaws all political speech in person or online without a Gov license – for our safety- Reason, despite the lack of a single Republican vote from that 23% of Congress from the racist hinterlands, can point the bipartisan crackdown because “but Adrian Vermule..”

      2. Dark night of fascism descending indeed.

    1. Somebody cracked the code

    2. Yeah. So stupid that they’ve got people who actually read Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy and write articles. They should be reading Guns and Ammo or something. Right?

        1. Well, that dovetails nicely with Ivy League Medical Schools lecturing about the gleeful feeling from the indiscriminate murder of the melanin deprived

    3. You haven’t notice how populist Republicans in general are abandoning free market and limited government ideals? This is just the intellectual vanguard of that trend.

  12. My cynical side wonders why the Atlantic, and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, publish articles like these.

    Is it because they’re a bunch of open-minded types who welcome conservatives into their pages in a spirit of fair play for competing ideas?

    Or is is because these *particular* conservatives are providing a rationale for greater state power, a rationale which can be appropriated by progressives to achieve the *progressive* version of the “common good”?

  13. “I learned it from watching you!”

  14. Maybe this what Ken is talking about when he says “Progressives are totalitarian! Vote for Republicans! They’re merely authoritarian!”

  15. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck 90% of the time then it’s probably a duck 90% of the time whether it self-proclaims it’s a swan or not.

    So lawyer Josh Hammer (bookie) *IS* a Democrat that writes for a Harvard Law journal ( lefty-leaning ) while *PRETENDING* to be a conservative (i.e. A RINO)….

    Democrats pretending to be conservative to get elected isn’t a new game of the Nazi’s. It’s been going on for decades.

    1. Confusing? Not at all; stop looking to the gov-gods and media narratives to define a parties platform and just go look at the party platforms.. Then it’s easy to see which ones are *PRETENDING* and which one’s aren’t.

  16. Crikey mate, that razor wire in the photo, not there because a few weirdo conservatives are still freaking out about the ‘deadly insurrection’ mythology they’ve hyped. And continue to hype. But, yeah, fair play.

  17. “In short, Hammer seeks conservative results by reading his preferred conservative agenda (“our substantive goals”) into the constitutional text.”

    In which case, he is the mirror image of Cass Sunstein, who seeks progressive results by reading his preferred progressive agenda into the constitutional text, e.g., how the Ninth Amendment somehow means that Congress is mandated to enact single-payer health care.

    Here’s hoping that the two simply cancel each other out.

  18. How do we get the fucktards ready to submit to some ideology for their perception of righteousness (aka “common good”) to simply pack themselves off and leave the rest of us alone?

    I miss the world with unclaimed spaces beyond the frontier.

    1. Go to war.
      What, you were looking for an easy answer?

      1. I was thinking about colonies in Antarctica or on Mars.

        But war works, too.

    2. It’s been happening in the streets for over a year now. We just need to corral and cordon them off, cover everything from top to bottom with chain-link fencing, then pop some popcorn, make book, and roll dice for garments.

  19. Just look at the discussion this morning. Certainly the modern right is no longer enamored by strictly protecting private property rights.

    1. GFY

  20. The only difference between their theory and communism is their focus is national rather than international. ‘Communitarian’ indeed. It’s just Fascism with a nicer name.

    Anyone who invokes the ‘common good’ as a justification for something deserves to be scorned. Even if such a thing really exists (which is doubtful), no one could actually know what it is.

    1. Well, there is such a thing as a “common good”, but we all define it differently. That is why we should all be free to pursue it according to how each of us defines it, not according to how the state defines it.

      1. It’s not so ‘common’ at that point, is it?

        We all have our own individual goods. A good society maximizes the ability of (all) individuals to (simultaneously) pursue those things, on their own, without government.

      2. That’s patently ridiculous. It is entirely reasonable for us to enable freedom to pursue the things we want to pursue. It is entirely unreasonable for us to be required to accept that as the ‘common good’ because someone wants to create some post-modern definition of ‘common’ that means nothing in common to anybody and whatever people want for themselves.

        Common has a meaning. Can tinker with the particulars but not with the very notion of ‘what is common’.

        1. Okay, so what is the ‘common good’ then? At least a first draft of it, anyway.

          1. The common good is what we, in common, decide it is. The common good is the process not the outcome

            1. As an aside – if the ‘common good’ is the thing decided on rather than the process by which we decide (and in deciding become we) – then the outcome can only devolve to authoritarian. An individual Top Man can decide such things and everyone else has already alienated themselves from the right of self-governance. Even if they go through the rigamarole of pretending that topMan has the authority via the ten nanoseconds commitment to ‘vote’ for them.

              Maybe that’s also why I seem so focused on process and structure (like eg the size of the House or getting rid of school districts and reverting to school boards).

            2. I’m glad we agree that what our system needs is more democracy.

              Call your senator.

              1. I noticed how much you loved democracy when you spent 4 years histrionically screeching about Russian election hacking.

              2. Once you figure out that the USA is a Constitutional Union of Republican States perhaps you will MOVE yourself to a Democratic National Socialist Country instead of trying to *pretend* the USA into the Nazism you so champion.

      3. You mean like forcing people to wear useless pieces of cloth over their face to assuage your neurosis because you’re an obese fat motherfucker and think everyone else owes it to you to make sure you never get sick?

    2. We should call it “Communist-tarian” or “Communist Aryan” in the interest of truth-in-advertising.

  21. The best common good is the liberty for all of us to pursue our own priorities, and with some system of government to preserve that liberty.

    In other words, something the US gave up on decades ago.

  22. If they meant to exclude children of invading troops (Did they really say that somewhere?) from the operation of amendment 14, then they must’ve meant to exclude children of other people in the country illegally. The issue didn’t come up at the time because there weren’t broad laws against the presence of foreigners. You can’t just wedge in the invading troops doctrine as an assumption without making the same assumption about other people whose entry was illegal.

    Anyway, I take “general welfare” in the preamble to the whole Constitution the way I’ve been told: as an exclusion of the power to favor narrow or special interests, not as a grant of authority.

    1. The issue didn’t come up at the time because there weren’t broad laws against the presence of foreigners.

      The issue didn’t come up at the time because there is a very long-standing legal notion that a person cannot be stateless merely by the circumstances of their birth. Chattel property is stateless – people who can be citizens cannot be.

      We spent the entire 19th century negotiating bilateral agreements with countries related to emigration, commerce, friendship, etc. eg this one in 1845 with Saxony on the Mutual Abolition of the Droit d’Aubaine and Taxes on Emigration.

      After the 14th Amendment was passed, we immediately started negotiating bilateral naturalization agreements. The assumption in the 14th Amendment is that a person is subject to either one side or the other of these treaties. They do not fall through the cracks into limbo merely because we have decided that we are too lazy.

      It is appalling that anarchist libertarians have ‘forgotten’ this. The US created the right of international mobility through a LOT of effort by the US GOVERNMENT. We may view it as a natural right but that is not remotely how it became anything. And certainly not how we ended -basically – the very real legal notions of serfdom and feudalism that were present in many places well into our Civil War era.

      1. There are libertarians who think that limited government is necessary to secure individual property rights. This would fall under that.

    2. So I got this radio and the ‘preamble’ heading says it plays FM-radio but ya know what!! It doesn’t!! I look at it over and over and over again and it doesn’t play FM-radio.

      Oh no; I didn’t bother reading -how- it picks up FM-radio like how to power it or turn it on. It just says “plays FM-radio”.

      Ya; they really are that stupid.

  23. So Conservatives aren’t libertarians. Got it.

  24. Which side went authoritarian by pushing lockdowns, masks, and vaccination coercion for the “common good?”

  25. Republicans — half-educated bigots, superstitious slack-jaws, disaffected clingers, and obsolete authoritarians — are among my favorite culture war casualties. Stomping their stale, ugly political and cultural aspirations into irrelevance in modern America has been important and enjoyable work for our liberal-libertarian mainstream for more than a half-century. We will shove even more progress down the whimpering throats of these “common good clingers.”

    They get to whimper and mutter about it all they like, of course. That is the American way — better Americans shaping our national improvement against the wishes of conservatives, and the right-wingers whining about all of this damned progress.

  26. “Conservatism in the Anglo-American tradition”

    Lots of words here just to say “white”.

    1. We need to balance out all that whiteness with some progressive PoC like Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Jacques Derrida, etc.

      1. I believe that Marx and Engels were white, of German heritage. And both of Marx’s grandfathers were Rabbis. The workers that they addressed were by and large white.
        So I think that Marx and Engels would fit very well in Anglo Judeo-Christian traditions so loved by white people.

  27. “It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own pride is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole; that pride and conceitedness, the feeling that the individual … is superior, so far from being merely laughable, involve great dangers for the existence of the community that is a nation; that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and the will of an individual; and that the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of interests of the individual. … By this we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men. ” These statements were made in our century by the leader of a major Western nation. His countrymen regarded his viewpoint as uncontroversial. His political program implemented it faithfully. The statements were made by Adolf Hitler. He was explaining the moral philosophy of Nazism.

    1. Wow. That’s uncanny. Sounds exactly like those dastardly conservatives. It’s a good thing we have a strong supranational global government to keep that kind of thinking suppressed before it turns into something dangerous.

  28. “”the text and history of the 14th Amendment are clear: If a child is born on U.S. soil, and that child’s parents don’t happen to be diplomats, foreign ministers, or invading foreign troops, then that child is a U.S. citizen by virtue of birth.””

    Simply a lie. Reason writers are scum.

    The 14th did *not* grant birthright citizenship to foreigners.
    Native Americans, though born in the US, were also subjects of Native American tribal governments and *not* automatic citizens by birth until THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.

    There was even an exemption for *some* Native Americans built into the Act, where they would *not* be citizens if that damaged their tribal property rights.
    The Act would have been straightforwardly unconstitutional under an unlimited birthright citizenship regime.

    There was no similar FOREIGNER CITIZENSHIP ACT granting birthright citizenship to babies born in the US to citizens of other countries.
    Birthright citizenship to any and all is *not* a constitutional requirement, or current legislation.
    It is applied now by #DeepState fiat.

    1. Isn’t it a bit late in history to be desperately clinging to white supremacy?

      1. Yeah granting the descendants of black slaves but not native Americans citizenship is a great example of white supremacy you retarded faggot.

        It’s a good thing those poor, stupid, benighted niggers who can’t even get a drivers license have good anti-racists like you to do their thinking for them. Must be quite a burden. You know, for a white man.

  29. I got out of religion for a bloody reason. I’M NOT INTERESTED in a Theocracy thank you very much.

    1. That’s a good little Marxist. Your god is the state. Religion is for superstitious bumpkins, not enlightened New Soviet Men!

      1. So… who is John Galt?

    2. You and not alone and pay no mind to the proponents of false binaries like the one below.

      You can walk and chew gum at the same time and you can reject both tyranny by God and tyranny by Top Men and Mob all at the same time. Enjoy your floor polish and desert topping all at once!

  30. “‘Under a regime of common good constitutionalism,’ Vermeule explained, ‘libertarian assumptions central to free-speech law and free-speech ideology’ must necessarily ‘fall under the ax.’ What is more, ‘libertarian conceptions of property rights and economic rights will also have to go, insofar as they bar the state from enforcing duties of community and solidarity in the use and distribution of resources.'”

    When someone finally translates Vermule’s Bible from it’s strange old Latin dialect they are going to, too late, force their way frantically through the duped crowd to scream “It’s a cookbook!”

    “To Serve Man”

    1. Or given all of his “community and solidarity” collectivism, maybe she’ll scream “It’s the Communist Manifesto.”

  31. Republican National Socialism is not new:
    24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations within the state as long as they do not endanger the state or violate the ethical and moral feelings of the Germanic race.
    The party as such subscribes to a positive Christianity without binding itself to a specific denomination. It opposes the Jewish materialistic spirit within and around us and is convinced that a lasting recovery can only come about from within based on the principle: THE COMMON GOOD BEFORE THE INDIVIDUAL GOOD.

    1. As fast as things open up again, I’m going to a coin show to see if I can find the Nazi coins with that slogan, as well as the slogan Gott Mitt Uns (“God Is With Us.”)

      I’ve been wanting to get them so I can keep them in my wallet and rub the noses of wannabe Commissars and Theocrats in them.

  32. Rule by committee can only ever achieve the mediocre. It takes a monarch to achieve greatness

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.