Talk:Common good constitutionalism

Aquinas and SYNTH

Hey @Jeffersonpayne: impressive work throwing so many articles together in such quick succession. On this article, you reinserted Aquinas into the article, citing the Summa. You then contextualize it in the following sentences with modern sources. In the latter of those two sources, I could not find direct reference to Aquinas or an attribution to his theory (sorry if it was there) and the first source (Vermuele's book) lacks a page number for the citation. There are a few other concerns I have with this page, but most of them are minor. I would suggest just dropping the Summa and Hammer citation and sticking to a close paraphrase of Vermuele's book if he references Aquinas (add the page number by copying this template and adding it after the citation ). If he does not, then that section would run afoul of WP:SYNTH (not a big deal, there is almost certainly a source that references Aquinas's ideas in the context of CGC). ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti thanks for the tips! Several of the articles cited do discuss Aquinas’ definition, so I will go through and find page cites to make that more clear. Jeffersonpayne (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jeffersonpayne: Perfect! Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Danger of framing: CGC is not taken seriously by many academics and is trenchantly criticised

Common Good Constitutionalism remains a very niche school of thought, albeit one which has received inflated attention over the last couple of years, in part due to the funding behind its doyen, Adrian Vermeule, and in part due to the controversial nature of its claims. As it stands, this page reflects a fairly accurate account of CGC, from the point of view of a CGC advocate. I am not sure that is what wikipedia ought to be aiming for, particularly as CGC is rejected - fairly robustly - by the vast majority of academics. This does not really come across in the article as it stands. In fact, my hunch, given that the article lists a number of very junior scholars specifically (Dr Conor Casey and Mr Michael Foran), is that sections of this page have been drafted, or influenced by, a junior scholar who is part of this core CGC group - perhaps one of the aforementioned scholars.

Of course, ideas which are strongly contested by the majority of academia ought still be detailed on wikipedia, especially given the controversy surrounding this particular theory. But it would be better to edit the article in light of this wider framing. I recommend:

1. Indicating at the outset that CGC remains something of a fringe movement, (I would contend that it is largely one led by Adrian Vermeule himself and a few of his adherents, but this is perhaps something readers can decide for themselves).

2. Re-framing or re-phrasing the information on the current page to indicate that the narrative presented is that of CGC advocates, and that those claims are, at best, heavily contested.

3. Including a section on criticisms or negative responses to the CGC claim. There are currently some responses of this nature on the Adrian Vermeule wikipedia page. The following seems a good place to start: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/vermeule-catholic-integralism-theocracy-progressives-conservatives-constitution.html. Conservatives and Catholics have also been critical: https://spectatorworld.com/topic/medieval-fantasists-infiltrated-america-catholic-right-integralists-vermeule/ and https://www.discoursemagazine.com/ideas/2022/01/27/the-integralist-argument-is-wrong-even-if-youre-catholic/. Unfortunately, criticism of this kind is sometimes hard to come by due to the seemingly obvious nature of the critique. The core idea that laws should bend towards a defined moral goal is contestable and has been for thousands of years. Not only would anyone who does not subscribe to the tenets of the Natural Law Tradition (itself a minority view within the academy) disagree heavily with CGC, but almost all expositions of CGC involve agreement with a very specific set of Catholic moral doctrine and the aims of integralism.

4. Removing reference to certain academics to make the page appear less like a pet project or 'boys club' involving a small group of scholars. The relevance of Dr Casey is debatable, but he has, on inspection, published in this area (albeit usually in order to promote Vermeule's own views). The relevance of Mr Foran is peripheral at best, even in the small circle of CGC advocates. Leaving in Mr Foran's citation detracts from the integrity of the article. 2A02:C7C:3831:C300:70CB:647A:7ADE:76B5 (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with moving over the criticism section over from Vermule's page, but I think it's important to separate this particular academic project from Vermeule's own views on integralism. Vermeule argues they are separable, and most of the academic and judicial discourse around CGC treats them as separate. Criticism of Vermuele's integralism belongs on Vermeule's page, except to the extent a source argues CGC is inherently intergralist (which few source do, as far as I can tell). As far as the "fringe" aspect of CGC - numerous articles about it have been published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and it has drawn responses from sitting federal circuit court judges and prominent right-of-center legal scholars such as Will Baude, Randy Barnett, and others. Yes, much of this response has been negative. But the mere fact that American circuit court judges and Ivy League scholars feel the need to respond says something about its importance. It would be good to add those critiques in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.17.50 (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems like some changes have since been made. Noting the positive response of Barnett and Baude etc. is important. But at present (having noted recent edits), the 'critique' section appears dreadfully one-sided (reading, essentially: 'CGC is praised by many, with one or two detractors'). This could not be further from the truth. Defenders of CGC are either natural lawyers, Catholic scholars, or some, such as Prof Segall, who offer some VERY limited praise (unfortunately very much taken out of context here).

I would strongly recommend that wiki enlists the help of a more neutral scholar or writer to clean up this section. The strongest critiques are being edited out and an imbalanced account of CGC's reception is being promoted. I continue to harbour serious concerns about the constant re-appearance of citations to the work of Mr Foran in the edits. Wikipedia should not be used as a means to promote one's own (marginal) work. 2A02:C7C:3831:C300:8C0C:B270:5A11:AD1F (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Repeatedly deleting cited and attributed perspectives on this subject is not helping the development of a neutral and balanced critique section. If the sourced content has a problem, fix the problem rather than deleting it all. If the sourced content appears one sided, then find detractors to cite and do so. There may be room to remove some content on the grounds of redundancy, I haven't read every line yet, but believing the article is one-sided against your personal or professional take is not sufficient grounds for deletions. You seem to be claiming that the majority of scholars disagree with CGC, and if this is the case then it should be trivial to find sources backing this up. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I would also caution you on your 'concerns' about authorship and editor bias. Wikipedia takes casting aspersions on other editors very, very seriously. Were you to claim that you believe an editor has inserted references to their real life identity in order to promote their works, or that some editors are quietly members of a core group of CGC pushing scholars involving the cited scholars, it would likely be seen as casting aspersions, particularly without very strong evidence to back it up. I don't believe you have done this yet, and this isn't an accusation, but I worry that your attitude may lead you to say something that does qualify. Just remember to assume good faith, Wikipedia works slowly and the vast majority of editors are here to see that content is notable, verifiable, and properly presented. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I would like to heartily second this reply. This is a touchy topic and it is normal that disagreements will flare from time to time, but it is important to avoid casting undue aspersion. Atchom (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The Modern Law Review is an extremely influential journal, so it's strange to suggest as you do that only the author himself would think it is relevant to include in the article. Atchom (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Reorganization Of This Page

This page appears to be something of a mess. Some major problems include:

1. Not clearly differentiating between "common good constitutionalism" an an 1) Atlantic article 2) a book and 3) a constitutional theory. It seems the "history" section ought to clearly explain the development of CGC as a doctrine.
2. No clear exposition of the theory itself, or its place in the American legal/political debate. It seems to me that there are two aspects of this theory which are important to the lay reader 1) the content of the theory (largely laid out in the book) and 2) the broader political context for this theory, which is the ongoing battle on the American legal right over the future of originalism.
3. Critical "reactions" interspersed throughout the page, both positive or negative. For example, Helmholz's positive review appears twice. It seems these ought to be contained in one section, and where a scholar has reacted to both the article and the book (as Randy Barnett has) both ought to be mentioned.

I would propose the following reorganization:

Intro: A very short lede which simply states that CGC is a theory of constitutional law proposed by Vermeule

History and Development: Perhaps one paragraph tracing the publication of the article, the book, and mentioning in passing Vermeule's other responses. This section should also mention in the development of CGC as a response to originalism and living constitutionalism, the broader fight on the American legal right over the future of originalism.

[Principles?? Could name this section something else]: A very short breakdown of the theory, using the book as a primary source. The start of this already exists, but probably needs a little more detail.

Reactions: Most if not all critical responses should be moved here. I think it would be especially helpful to highlight three kinds of reactions: 1) responses from the judiciary, including citations (like the military court mentioned) and negative responses from circuit judges like Pryor 2) responses from academics, both positive and negative and 3) "spin off" theories, like Josh Hammer's Common Good Originalism. I think it is especially important to focus on responses to the book as opposed to the article - which is now two years and a half years old.

Hopefully with the right structure, we can cut down on unsourced content, duplicative content, POV content, and edit warring. All that said, I don't want to make major edits to this page until this has been discussed further. 76.178.17.50 (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I am not a subject matter expert my any stretch of the definition, but I think this post makes very salient points and I would support this proposal on the basis of making a presentable article. Many of the points are ones I found myself thinking when making my coarse-tooth pass of edits. I think at the very least the Reactions section and subdivisions would do much to help organize the (apparently very) varied responses that CGC has spawned.

GabberFlasted (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

POV tag

I've added a POV tag because this article is heavily unbalanced towards those in favor of Common good constitutionalism. The theory has been roundly criticized from both the right and the left, but most of this article is devoted to views in support of the theory. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

This kind of complaint has been made already (see above 'Danger of Framing') and the appropriate response to it surely remains the same: if people feel there should be more critical voices added then they should source appropriate critiques from respectable sources. And to be sure, these do exist in some good law reviews and journals. But it must also be noted there is also a significant body of secondary literature in good law journals supportive of the theory. The topic has in fact spawned a very rich debate in the legal academic literature and this is worth covering.

Sure, if one focuses solely on popular press media coverage (national review/Vox/Reason kind of periodicals) based in the United States, then you'll get a more uniformly critical slant. But I don't think these are the kind of sources you should want to prioritise in assessing the merits of an academic legal theory. Rather, you'd probably want to rely on respectable academic books and journals; and these paint a far more nuanced picture of the debate. 86.10.108.95 (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Trouble parsing a sentence

At 14:36 on 29 August 2022,‎ 192.63.0.203 added text, including the sentence in the 2nd paragraph beginning with "Vermeule himself argues..." Is there a typo in that sentence? I can't figure out how to scan it. Specifically, should the word "either" be removed? There is no "or"... Wbforbes (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)