Good stuff, Carl- and all necessary to go over to answer one of Charles Kesler's favorite questions: "What's wrong with Conservativism?"
I really liked the points responding to Melnick's objection part E) that the Founders can be reinterpreted as proto-Progressives. They can't. For the best explanation of why Hamilton was not a proto-FDR, see this essay by Carson Holloway:
For arguments about why the administrative state of the Progressives is a disjunction with the Constitutional regime of the Founders, start with David K. Nichols' "Myth of the Modern Presidency," where he acknowledges that Independent Regulatory Commissions simply cannot be reconciled with the previous notion of separation of powers. Then read this review by Michael Greve of Jerry Mashaw's argument that perhaps we could interpret the post office as the first administrative agency:
Melnick is a 1960s, old style liberal. He and many old style liberals can teach us Conservatives alot. But would he even disagree with Anthony Kennedy, when he wrote about "the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities"? If that kind of reinterpretation of rights is what Melnick has to offer, let me just say: no thanks
Carl, a friend wrote me expressly to ask to congratulate you for this outstanding essay. I might have not done it, so as to not flatter, but you should know, sensible people are for you!
Kesler now has a response. Very solid. Unfortunately, it looks like Law and Liberty has suspended all commenting for a bit. Hope that's a temporary blip. But you can comment here!
Good stuff, Carl- and all necessary to go over to answer one of Charles Kesler's favorite questions: "What's wrong with Conservativism?"
I really liked the points responding to Melnick's objection part E) that the Founders can be reinterpreted as proto-Progressives. They can't. For the best explanation of why Hamilton was not a proto-FDR, see this essay by Carson Holloway:
https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/alexander-hamilton-and-american-progressivism
For arguments about why the administrative state of the Progressives is a disjunction with the Constitutional regime of the Founders, start with David K. Nichols' "Myth of the Modern Presidency," where he acknowledges that Independent Regulatory Commissions simply cannot be reconciled with the previous notion of separation of powers. Then read this review by Michael Greve of Jerry Mashaw's argument that perhaps we could interpret the post office as the first administrative agency:
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/not-originally-intended/
And then finally read these summations of Joe Postell's work, which destroys Mashaw's arguments:
https://lawliberty.org/a-new-classic-in-administrative-skepticism/
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/searching-for-the-administrative-state/
Melnick is a 1960s, old style liberal. He and many old style liberals can teach us Conservatives alot. But would he even disagree with Anthony Kennedy, when he wrote about "the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities"? If that kind of reinterpretation of rights is what Melnick has to offer, let me just say: no thanks
Carl, a friend wrote me expressly to ask to congratulate you for this outstanding essay. I might have not done it, so as to not flatter, but you should know, sensible people are for you!
Kesler now has a response. Very solid. Unfortunately, it looks like Law and Liberty has suspended all commenting for a bit. Hope that's a temporary blip. But you can comment here!
https://lawliberty.org/americas-constitutional-crisis/