>And it was upon that decision of the exception that sovereignty was based and out of which emerged the political and legal order. The order was generated by the decision – ex-nihilo.
The order was *generated* by the decision, or the already existing order was *revealed* by the decision? There is a huge difference between the two. In the second case it seems there is no profound contradiction between that kind of quasi-decisionism and institutionalism.
Michael, I do not fully understand what you are trying to accomplish with your last two posts on connecting Schmitt and Piccone. While reading them I clearly see the parallels between Schmitt and Piccone's essay The Emergence of Federal Populism (the one you linked to in the first post of this series.) Are you just trying to figure out the sources of Piccone's ideas? Or there is more to it?
>And it was upon that decision of the exception that sovereignty was based and out of which emerged the political and legal order. The order was generated by the decision – ex-nihilo.
The order was *generated* by the decision, or the already existing order was *revealed* by the decision? There is a huge difference between the two. In the second case it seems there is no profound contradiction between that kind of quasi-decisionism and institutionalism.
Michael, I do not fully understand what you are trying to accomplish with your last two posts on connecting Schmitt and Piccone. While reading them I clearly see the parallels between Schmitt and Piccone's essay The Emergence of Federal Populism (the one you linked to in the first post of this series.) Are you just trying to figure out the sources of Piccone's ideas? Or there is more to it?