That still does not justify the extremes expressed in the John Eastman memo.
Good try normalizing Claremont Institute 's vast Constitutional knowledge being put towards subverting the Constitution and deforming and distorting the Founder's intentions.
Just a reminder, Harry Jaffa said in 2002:
"You can not have free government if you can not bind the people who participate in the government to accept the results of the election. It is the exercise of our inalienable right to life that enables us, and justifies us, in forming legitimate governments. When those governments are formed, we cannot reject them because we don’t like the results."
Since when did Straussians become egalitarians? I thought they were the opposite of egalitarians. And how did ECS adopt the egalitarianism too? It's like Marxists rejecting materialism.
see my facebook post attacking Peter B's "review" https://www.facebook.com/clifford.bates/posts/10159842262668724
Welcome Pavlos! And good to see you this past weekend
Looking forward to more, Pavlos.
That still does not justify the extremes expressed in the John Eastman memo.
Good try normalizing Claremont Institute 's vast Constitutional knowledge being put towards subverting the Constitution and deforming and distorting the Founder's intentions.
Just a reminder, Harry Jaffa said in 2002:
"You can not have free government if you can not bind the people who participate in the government to accept the results of the election. It is the exercise of our inalienable right to life that enables us, and justifies us, in forming legitimate governments. When those governments are formed, we cannot reject them because we don’t like the results."
Since when did Straussians become egalitarians? I thought they were the opposite of egalitarians. And how did ECS adopt the egalitarianism too? It's like Marxists rejecting materialism.