In chapter one of Carl Schmitt’s text, Political Theology, Schmitt defines what exactly is sovereignty as he who decides an exception and the measures taken to eliminate such an exception. He furthers this by emphasizing the importance of the very principle of exception and making a distinction between the exception and the norm. In chapter two, Schmitt explores the meaning of sovereignty and its relation to law and state. He utilizes various liberal theories by disproving them in order to distinguish them from his concluding theory of Hobbes who he finds a model of his decisionist school (meaning those that decide by authority) in correlation to state and law. A few of the theorists he introduces are Kelson, Hugo Krabbe, (who Schmitt argues
…show more content…
With this theology, the topic of exception resurfaces. He discusses the way that the thought of exception was unaccepted in the culture of the Enlightenment, but goes to on later explain that the sovereign becomes the exception by residing outside the world with the authority’s deistic view (as the omnipotent God) and furthermore as the “engineer of the great machine, has been radically pushed aside. The machine now runs by itself.” (48) Therefore, despite the rejection of the exception, the state is omnipotent; in other words, the state can be seen intervening in the law everywhere. The state does this primarily to bring balance to the law and to ensure justice through sovereigns that can be identified as the police and lawgivers. Thus, all power resides in the people. Schmitt returns to Hobbes at the end of this chapter to clarify with decisionist thinking that, “Authority, not virtue, makes the law” (52). In the last chapter, Schmitt underscores his theory by states that the state’s role is not to be the eliminator of conflict and the political, as many of the liberal theorists argued, but rather, he says, the state’s role is to be the authority figure, or sovereign, by mean which order and protection is secured. He promotes the exception and the act of giving the people the power to …show more content…
These examples provide much clarity in understanding his theology. Even so, there were times when I understood what he was conveying, but not what he meant by it. Thus, I felt as if I missed a few important points due the frequency of his eloquence. Moreover, I felt that I was in agreeance with Schmitt’s theology and how sovereignty serves to determine what establishes public order and security. I still am a bit tongue-twisted with the theory about the exception and the norm as institutionalized, but I think what he meant was that they both must exist for a legal system to make sense. I feel that this is best understood in the context of the play in saying that the reason Richard acted as terribly as a king was because he failed to determine the public order and security. Furthermore, his cousin, Bolingbroke, was able to take rule because of the balance of norm and exception. Although, I am not sure which is the norm. It seemed, from my point of view, that this text by Schmitt discusses complex arguments that help to better understand the ways of sovereignty
With this theology, the topic of exception resurfaces. He discusses the way that the thought of exception was unaccepted in the culture of the Enlightenment, but goes to on later explain that the sovereign becomes the exception by residing outside the world with the authority’s deistic view (as the omnipotent God) and furthermore as the “engineer of the great machine, has been radically pushed aside. The machine now runs by itself.” (48) Therefore, despite the rejection of the exception, the state is omnipotent; in other words, the state can be seen intervening in the law everywhere. The state does this primarily to bring balance to the law and to ensure justice through sovereigns that can be identified as the police and lawgivers. Thus, all power resides in the people. Schmitt returns to Hobbes at the end of this chapter to clarify with decisionist thinking that, “Authority, not virtue, makes the law” (52). In the last chapter, Schmitt underscores his theory by states that the state’s role is not to be the eliminator of conflict and the political, as many of the liberal theorists argued, but rather, he says, the state’s role is to be the authority figure, or sovereign, by mean which order and protection is secured. He promotes the exception and the act of giving the people the power to …show more content…
These examples provide much clarity in understanding his theology. Even so, there were times when I understood what he was conveying, but not what he meant by it. Thus, I felt as if I missed a few important points due the frequency of his eloquence. Moreover, I felt that I was in agreeance with Schmitt’s theology and how sovereignty serves to determine what establishes public order and security. I still am a bit tongue-twisted with the theory about the exception and the norm as institutionalized, but I think what he meant was that they both must exist for a legal system to make sense. I feel that this is best understood in the context of the play in saying that the reason Richard acted as terribly as a king was because he failed to determine the public order and security. Furthermore, his cousin, Bolingbroke, was able to take rule because of the balance of norm and exception. Although, I am not sure which is the norm. It seemed, from my point of view, that this text by Schmitt discusses complex arguments that help to better understand the ways of sovereignty