Was he right, Veeky Forums...

Was he right, Veeky Forums? Is it true that he who has the faculty of declaring a state of exception is the sovereign (i.e detains political power)?

Fucking plebs.

What book are you talking about?
How was it?
Otherwise, I can't see how this thread pertains to literature.

The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy is the book of which I believe he is speaking. But I could be wrong as Schmitt wrote many books.

Political Theology is the one.

lmao what kind of question is that

Yes. Schmitt really BTFO naive constitutional liberalism.

This man, in my country he is everything.

Yes, and it's sad that only the left listens to him anymore.

this

Memes aside where do I need to live for this to be the case?

>Is it true that he who has the faculty of declaring a state of exception is the sovereign (i.e detains political power)?
Why wouldn't that be the case? Why would you need an interwar German intellectual to tell you that?

schmitt was right about basically everything desu

Explain?
>Power is arbitrary
>Therefore NAZISM FUHRER STATE KEK
>Right about basically everything?

There's a huge logical step between step one and two.

heh... Detain THIS political power ya kraut *grabs groin and thrusts vulgarly*

Yes. "Rights" are given so that they can be taken away under "exceptional" circumstances, and the guy that can do it is indeed the guy in charge.

Yes, but not because that is right or wrong, but because that is what happens usually. Even democracies have that when they are at war.

Is your country by chance Israel? Their constitution has confirmed elements from Schmitt.

Pretty much, yeah
Democracy is a lie

I have a question.
In most democracies, a state of exception can only be declared through a due process within the institution of the State. If the State is ruled by representatives of the people, why would the people not hold sovereignity, at least indirectly?

Where can I get the confirmation on this? Academic Journal Articles or something perhaps?

>In most democracies, a state of exception can only be declared through a due process within the institution of the State
Which is an interruption of democracy, due process, an many human rights as desired and most of what you would call or understand as State. Said interruption getting reformed into something increasingly quicker and easier, like the mayor authorizing your protest yesterday, and declaring every protest today void and illegal because of a supposed "emergency", as per the council of his own will, so that the cops beat the shit out of you (and only you) and counter-protesters affiliated to the radical wing of the mayor's party block your escape. Welcome to post-WW2 politics.
>why would the people not hold sovereignity, at least indirectly?
No, they are captives. They cannot undo the state of exception once it is declared and their rights are taken away. Good luck with the next elections.

> They cannot undo the state of exception once it is declared and their rights are taken away.

You know rights and sovereignty don't mean anything, right? The people could just rebel and kill the tyrant.

No. It would mean US courts are sovereign, and yet they are not.