Print this post Print this post

An Alt-Right Constitution?

1,370 words

John E. Finn
Fracturing the Founding: How the Alt-Right Corrupts the Constitution
Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2019

The first thing to understand about this polemical work is that it has very little to do with the Alt Right. As readers of this site are aware, the core of the authentic Alt Right is white racial advocacy unencumbered by taboos against the discussion of human differences or Jewish influence; this core is surrounded by a looser periphery of youngish Internet trolls who enjoy making life miserable for liberals and Cultural Marxists. The movement is not greatly concerned with constitutional law.

John E. Finn is a retired liberal professor of constitutional law whose ideas about the Alt Right are derived largely from an uncritical reading of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s publications, The New York Times, and other hostile sources. This results in howlers like calling the Proud Boys a “paramilitary organization.” The Times once published a silly article entitled “The Alt-Right’s Asian Fetish”; Finn obediently lists the alleged “fetish” as a defining trait of the movement. He appears largely unfamiliar with the actual writings of the Alt Right.

Prof. John E. Finn

The general tenor of Finn’s book is captured by his reference to all who think the First and Second amendments mean what they say as “speech freaks” and “gun nuts.” He mocks the “paranoia” of gun owners who imagine that any firearms regulation is a prelude to confiscation, but then turns around and acknowledges that he himself would prefer to see the Second Amendment repealed. And only ignorance can explain his assumption that the Dissident Right’s struggle against censorship and deplatforming relies exclusively on appeals to the First Amendment. He does not even mention Jared Taylor’s promising lawsuit against Twitter, which involves far more sophisticated arguments.

But Finn’s principle target is not the Alt Right at all; it is “Constitutional Patriotism.” This amorphous, largely evangelical Christian movement promotes an understanding of the US Constitution that stresses the founders’ original intent, along with a broad, literal reading of the First, Second, and Tenth Amendments; it also rejects the Fourteenth and certain other post-Civil War amendments. Finn confounds Constitutional Patriots with the Alt Right, either because he thought it would help sell books or because he is the sort of liberal for whom all non-Leftists are indistinguishable “Right-wing wackos.” The confusion is useful to his argument, however, because it lets him attribute Alt Right racialism (“white supremacism”) to Constitutional Patriots who say little about race.

It should be pointed out that the Constitutional Patriots’ general approach to interpreting America’s founding documents has a perfectly respectable pedigree which can be traced through the Southern conservative tradition back to the Anti-Federalists of the founding era itself. In more recent times, this way of reading the US Constitution was extensively developed by M. E. Bradford.

Finn would certainly be unsympathetic even to the most sophisticated presentation of originalism. Whereas Bradford found the Constitution “notably short on abstract principles and modest in any goal beyond limiting the powers of the government it authorizes,” Finn believes it envisioned a “secular, democratic, inclusive and egalitarian community.” Whereas Bradford immersed himself in the documents of the founding era to understand the Constitution as the founders themselves did – even writing a book entitled Original Intentions (1992) – Finn considers the federal judiciary’s understanding of the Constitution authoritative, presumably including the Supreme Court’s discovery of rights to abortion and gay marriage in the penumbras and emanations of various clauses and amendments. He suggests that such alleged discoveries “continue the work of the founders,” whom originalists are content merely to venerate. (The accusation in his title, that originalists are “fracturing the founding,” is thus somewhat disingenuous.)

But Finn never mentions Bradford or any serious scholar who has developed the originalist reading he opposes. He makes things easier on himself by focusing exclusively on the popular movement of self-described “Constitutional Patriots,” a self-taught group which believes an adequate understanding of the US Constitution is within the grasp of anyone of normal intelligence willing to devote a little time to reading and studying the document itself. This movement is quintessentially Protestant, mimicking the reformers’ teaching that believers should study the scriptures directly, without the aid of external authorities. Just as the reformers believed every man could become his own theologian, the Constitutional Patriots think every man can become his own constitutional lawyer. Some figures in the movement market recorded lectures and study guides to facilitate private study. Unsurprisingly, some amateur constitutionalists have developed highly idiosyncratic and occasionally ridiculous theories.

Constitutional Patriots emphasize that the US Constitution does not grant rights such as freedom of speech, which the founders understood as natural or God-given, but merely reserve such rights to the people by forbidding the federal government from interfering with them. On this point, they are perfectly correct. But some in the movement go on to argue for such “reserved rights” as driving on public roads without a driver’s license. From there, things quickly get crazier. Finn cites a Website calling itself The Embassy of Heaven, which sells its own license plates and vehicle registrations for a one-time fee of forty dollars. The so-called Embassy advises drivers pulled over by police officers to:

. . . state that you are a citizen of Heaven traveling upon the highways in the Kingdom of Heaven for the purpose of evangelizing. . . . If they try to claim you are on the highways in the State, remind them that highways are multijurisdictional. If you were using the highways in the State, you would need their permission in the form of a State license. But since you are using the highways in the Kingdom of Heaven, you cannot be trespassing upon the State. They normally will try to have you acknowledge that you are in their State. Remember, there is no communion between light and darkness. Stay in the Kingdom of Heaven, regardless of the pressure.

Somewhat more practically, the Embassy of Heaven recommends that those following their advice drive a cheap car to minimize financial loss when police confiscate it.

Finn makes the valid point that for all their distrust of government, including judges, lawyers, and police, amateur constitutional theorists evince a touching faith in law as such: They believe there exists a “true” way of understanding constitutional law which, rightly acted on, can deliver them from their enemies, the agents of America’s present unconstitutional regime (whose inception is variously dated to 1865, 1917, or 1933). One strand of Constitutional Patriotism argues that the Sixteenth Amendment, which provided for the income tax, either was not properly ratified or is invalid due to its incompatibility with the founders’ Constitution. Finn calls their crusade “a scam run by grifters who dress their con up in appeals to the Constitution and the ‘American’ tradition of resistance to unfair taxation which they foist upon their marks.” Some of the credulous have wound up in jail.

Finn also reports on the Common Law Court movement, whose adherents believe anyone can set up a legally valid court or grand jury with the authority to summon jurors, place liens on property, or even convict government actors of treason, complete with sentence of death by public hanging. Closely related is the Sovereign Citizen movement, who hold that Americans subject themselves to government authority only when they interact with the government. They argue that Americans can “redeem” their natural personal sovereignty by withdrawing from all involvement with the government. Sovereign Citizens refuse all government benefits, refrain from voting, and do not use credit cards or own insurance policies, securities, bonds, or interest-bearing bank accounts. Some will not even write ZIP codes on their mail. They believe a “redeemed” Sovereign Citizen is no longer subject to American law. Sovereign Citizens have been involved in shootouts with law enforcement.

Much of this reportage on the loopier reaches of Constitutional Patriotism, which occurs mainly in the book’s last two chapters, is interesting and unobjectionable – enough to warrant the measured praise of George Hawley’s blurb: “Finn has provided a helpful service by explaining how leading figures of the far right approach the Constitution and by informing readers why legal scholars reject their interpretation.” But as the author of two books on the Alt Right, Hawley should also know that Constitutional Patriotism is a different animal.

This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , . Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Bernie
    Posted April 16, 2019 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    I cant recall the last time I saw an alt-right article on the Constitution. Joe Sobran’s quip about the Constitution presenting no obstacle to our present form of government is likely shared across the dissident right.

  2. McGillicuddy
    Posted April 16, 2019 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    One gets the impression that the book’s author is an intellectually lazy, weak-willed, indoctrinated, over-educated turd that would serve society better working in a car wash, similar to that of Bogdan’s in “Breaking Bad”. He has a decent IQ but lacks any real ability to think independently of the doctrines he was fed that lead to the extinction of his kind. If in earnest, he appears to be an obedient slave working to destroy his own, like someone with one of the “Wrath of Khan” brain slugs attached and in control – although maybe this is just a cheap, quickly written book with the purpose of keeping his teaching gig moving along.

    • Posted April 16, 2019 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

      Surely a general description of most social science academics throughout the Western world.
      We recently had here in New Zealand one of the foremost ‘experts’ in religious studies appearing to assume that Identitarianism was the same as Christian Identity.

  3. Lord Shang
    Posted April 16, 2019 at 11:48 pm | Permalink

    I’m still not wholly clear what the “alt-right” even is (though Greg Johnson probably did a better job than anyone else of summarizing its sociological bases, brief political trajectory, and amorphous ideology). Since the term gained wide currency I have thought of it as simply a catch-all phrase used to denote anti-leftists outside of the “mainstream {faux-}Right”, the one closely aligned with the GOP and its major “think tanks” like AEI, Heritage, Hoover, etc. Obviously, the alt-right rapidly became associated with a special emphasis on counter-PC approaches to racial, sexual, and sociobiological issues.

    Frankly, I think “alt-right” should be retired as a term, at least within the actual movement, and replaced with “Dissident Right”, as is increasingly common anyway, or “White Nationalist”, which is far more self-explanatory and thus accurate. Other options, given the continuing negative, if unfair (but also sometimes idiotically self-inflicted), associations of “WN” with neo-Nazism, could be “White Preservationism”, “White Protectionism”, or “White Patriotism”. I myself prefer the term “Occidentalism” because it captures so much more of what I at least care about – not merely race per se, but racial purity and preservation as the foundation for my conservative/reactionary desire to recover and preserve the totality of European civilization (which, yes, includes our {race-realistically reformed} Christian ethical and cultural inheritance, as well as the historical ethnocultural specificities of the various White homelands, including Anglo-Euro-America). After all, there are a LOT of jerks and douchebags who happen to be of my race, but about whom I care not a fig (indeed, we’d be far better off as a race without them, even if that further reduced our already dwindling global population).

    “Our thing”, in The Godfather sense, is really about preserving ideologically high-quality Whites, those who want our people to endure. In my experience, most of those who “come out race-liberal” are unsavable. Some are intentionally evil; some are the products of brainwashing (and thus can be “de-programmed” via exposure to racial truths); but most are decent persons with some sort of mental defect tantamount to what some are calling an evolutionary maladaptation preventing them from accepting inconvenient truths about irreducible and ineradicable racial differences. I hold that it is as necessary to separate these genetically determined fools from the racially healthy as it is to separate nonwhites.

    So it is not enough to be a “WN”; we should be WN-nationalists. Our race may be White, but our tribe is WN. And I strongly believe that our tribe is all that we might be able to save.

    Anyway, I thank Dr. Devlin for this review, especially as this is exactly the type of book I might purchase due to its title alone, and as Devlin clearly did not enjoy reading it (I’m sure I would have been angry at the waste of my time and money, too). I must, however, quibble with one contention of Devlin’s.

    I am little familiar with “Constitutional Patriotism” (I like the concept, however), and I trust that Devlin has faithfully represented Finn’s portrayal of some of its precepts (of course, this pathetic Finn himself was shown to be extremely unreliable, so I wonder if he is fair to the CPs?). Devlin mocks the idea that every man can be “his own Constitutional lawyer”, but what evidence can he adduce that this was not exactly the belief of the Framers? The “rule of law” as understood within the Anglo-Saxon common law tradition was precisely that laws should be, among other things, uniform and intelligible. The system would not be thought compromised if an illiterate or a retard could not fathom his legal rights and obligations, but I am unaware of any traditional authority that held that one had to be an interpretive genius or at least steeped in case law to be able to understand the supreme law of the land. The Constitution was for everybody, and thus was meant and thought to be intelligible to any normal man. This was absolutely the view of Joe Sobran (I had a conversation with him about 30 years ago where, inter alia, this issue arose), and I think of Bradford too, however subtle and rich his own understanding of our Founding document may have been. [Of course, this does not absolve any wacky CP interpretations, such as some of those described above.]

  4. Dale Gribble
    Posted April 17, 2019 at 3:51 am | Permalink

    Ill let you in on a dirty secret: “Con Law” in law school has little to do with the actual Constitution

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace