David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
When the world is once again preoccupied with constitution-making, this article challenges us to rethink our most basic conceptions regarding the adoption, ratification and amendment of popular-based constitutions. The conventional thought is that written constitutions may only be adopted within a short window of opportunity in the aftermath of a great revolution. Scholars primarily draw on the American and French revolutions of the late 18th century for lessons in successful or failed exercises of popular sovereignty. We further believe that constitution-making entails one document that embodies the will of the sovereign. We hold that the regular organs and tools of government cannot be used in the service of popular-based written constitutions. Only constitutional conventions and special ratification processes may qualify to express the will of a sovereign nation. This article suggests otherwise by drawing on the seemingly opposite experiences of Britain, a State without a codified constitution, and the U.S. According to new findings presented herein, British lawmakers developed a "referendal" model of constitutional transformations based on popular sovereignty, which foreshadowed Ackerman's renowned "dualist" model. The Article analyzes similarities and differences between the two models and assesses their significance for comparative study. In light of the comparison, it asserts that a common Anglo-American evolutionary model for constitutional transformations can be found. It is a model that maintains the distinction between the People and their representatives, yet allows for adoption of constitutional changes in stages, in multiple documents, and even statutes, using the regular mechanisms of government in extraordinary ways, which enable the People's voice to be heard. Its lessons are invaluable to every new exercise of popular sovereignty.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Douglas W. Kmiec (ed.) (2009). The American Constitutional Order: History, Cases, and Philosophy. Lexisnexis Matthew Bender.
Michael Coenen, The Significance of Signatures: Why the Framers Signed the Constitution and What They Meant by Doing So.
Ernest Barker (1951). Essays on Government. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Michael P. Zuckert (2007). On Constitutional Welfare Liberalism: An Old-Liberal Perspective. Social Philosophy and Policy 24 (1):266-288.
Michel Rosenfeld (2010). The Identity of the Constitutional Subject: Selfhood, Citizenship, Culture, and Community. Routledge.
Beau Breslin (2009). From Words to Worlds: Exploring Constitutional Functionality. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #334,038 of 1,410,432 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #177,872 of 1,410,432 )
How can I increase my downloads?