I've also been reading the critiques of the book/concept on both the left and the right:
The Problem With “Common Good Constitutionalism” (Hoover)
"Enter Professor Adrian Vermeule of Harvard Law School and his highly controversial recent article Beyond Originalism, which seeks to meld the Dworkinian search for the best moral theory with “common-good constitutionalism,” which he describes as an approach to constitutional interpretation “based on the principles that government helps direct persons, associations, and society generally toward the common good.” He adds “that strong rule in the interest of attaining the common good is entirely legitimate.” Needless to say, Vermeule’s bold argument has earned strong rebukes from legal scholars and writers on both the left and the right."
MYTHS OF COMMON GOOD CONSTITUTIONALISM (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy)
"In this Essay, we take stock of the debate over common good constitutionalism and the revival of the classical legal tradition. In doing so, we suggest that several of the most common critiques of that revival are based on serious misconceptions and tendentious, question-begging claims, especially for the superiority of originalism."
Review: Common Good Constitutionalism (American Enterprise Institute)
"When a widely acclaimed Harvard Law School professor publishes a book that another Harvard Law professor calls “the most important book of constitutional theory in many decades,” it’s certainly worth a look. But Common Good Constitutionalism (Polity, 2022), despite all the praise, is more an embarrassment than a legal masterpiece.
In this book, Adrian Vermeule argues that a “classical law” system, derived from a combination of Roman, continental, and English common-law legal systems,can produce a community that achieves what he calls the “common good.” However, the political structure he devises is highly authoritarian, perhaps even totalitarian."
