Carl Schmitt, whom I have written about extensively in the past, is very relevant to things that are going on now.
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discuss the death of RBG and how it relates to sovereignty. Schmitt’s definition of who is sovereign, is he who decides the exception. If the US constitution, as opposed to the people, is sovereign who decides when amendments apply and what precisely the words mean. In that case the supreme court is sovereign in theory. Whether the executive, the military, and legislature follows it is of some question and to some extent is the question in itself. Furthermore, does Britain have a comparable institution at this point? In a future, hypothetical libertarian world of competing law generated on the private market would a similar institution exist? How do the intractable decisions get resolved to decide what the law functionally and practically is rather then what some philosopher or theorist thinks it ought to be.