The entry seems determined to associate Schmitt with the Nazi party, which he joined after they came to power in 1. 4 (UTC)It seems the author of the original entry presents a very selective assessment of the work of Carl Schmitt. As far as I can see the only sentence that is obviously critiquing (rather than simpliy expositing) Schmitt's thought and life is the final sentence, which is easily pegged as authorial voice. Speculating about motives is perfectly legitimate historiography and the author openly admits the inconclusiveness of the evidence. This article is full of FACTS regarding chronology, and the summary of Schmitt's political theses is not unfair considering that no summary of a few paragraphs can ever really capture the complexity of a notable thinker. 4 (UTC)The previous commentator's faith in FACTS AND LOGICAL ANALYSIS is fascinating, if a little quaint and outdated. There is no reason why this biased author should self- righteously impose his silly moralistic unction on the reader merely looking for FACTS AND LOGICAL ANALYSIS, not ideological opinion. I'd venture to guess that Habermas quotes Schmitt more frequently than any other scholar in that work. Indeed, Habermas's concept of the political sphere (and public authority) is largely indebted to Schmitt. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere is replete with footnotes to (and reverence for) works by Schmitt. 291 (2005), and Vivian Grosswald Curran, The Legalization of Racism in a Constitutional State: Democracy’s Suicide in Vichy France, 50 H ASTINGS L.Talk: Carl Schmitt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 65 (Winter 2009), David Fraser, National Constitutions, Liberal State, Fascist State, and the Holocaust in Belgium and Bulgaria, 6 G ERMAN L. I cannot take up this debate here, but refer to others who have: see in particular Kristen Rundle, The Impossibility of an Exterminatory Legality: Law and the Holocaust, 59 U NIV. The debate about law’s protective character often surfaces in discussions of Nazi Germany. Schmitt makes reference to Bryce only in describing his own conception of democracy, but Bryce himself follows the Sieyes line in drawing a distinction between the power to enact a constitution, invested in a constituent assembly of some kind, and the power to amend constitutional laws, invested in an ordinary legislature and controlled by specific procedures see Essay III in J AMES B RYCE, S TUDIES IN H ISTORY AND J URISPRUDENCE (1901).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |