The Paradox Of Constitutionalism

In modern political communities ultimate authority is often thought to reside with 'the people'. This book examines how constitutions act as a delegation of power from 'the people' to expert institutions, and looks at the attendant problems of maintaining the legitimacy of these constitutional arrangements.

The essays gathered in this collection explore the effects of recent changes on two of the main building blocks of constitutionalism, statehood and democracy. It also looks at movements to overcome statehood in the EU and considers possible transformations to, or substitutes for statehood --

This title tackles the dominant constitutional theories provided by Ronald Dworkin and Robert Alexy and presents a critical counterpoint. It considers the paradoxical relationship between principles and rules within constitutional theory. This is essential reading for those involved in constitutional adjudication involving rules and principles.

In this book, Catherine Frost uses evidence and case studies to offer a re-examination of declarations of independence and the language that comprises such documents. Considered as a quintessential form of founding speech in the modern era, declarations of independence are however poorly understood as a form of expression, and no one can completely account for how they work. Beginning with the founding speech in the American Declaration, Frost uses insights drawn from unexpected or unlikely forms of founding in cases like Ireland and Canada to reconsider the role of time and loss in how such speech is framed. She brings the discussion up to date by looking at recent debates in Scotland, where an undeclared declaration of independence overshadows contemporary politics. Drawing on the work of Hannah Arendt and using a contextualist, comparative theory method, Frost demonstrates that the capacity for renewal through speech arises in aspects of language that operate beyond conventional performativity. Language, Democracy, and the Paradox of Constituent Power is an excellent resource for researchers and students of political theory, democratic theory, law, constitutionalism, and political history.

This title tackles the dominant constitutional theories provided by Ronald Dworkin and Robert Alexy and presents a critical counterpoint. It considers the paradoxical relationship between principles and rules within constitutional theory. This is essential reading for those involved in constitutional adjudication involving rules and principles.

According to the traditional understanding of American constitutional law, the Revolution produced a new conception of the constitution as a set of restrictions on the power of the state rather than a mere description of governmental roles. Daniel J. Hulsebosch complicates this viewpoint by arguing that American ideas of constitutions were based on British ones and that, in New York, those ideas evolved over the long eighteenth century as New York moved from the periphery of the British Atlantic empire to the center of a new continental empire. Hulsebosch explains how colonists and administrators reconfigured British legal sources to suit their needs in an expanding empire. In this story, familiar characters such as Alexander Hamilton and James Kent appear in a new light as among the nation's most important framers, and forgotten loyalists such as Superintendent of Indian Affairs Sir William Johnson and lawyer William Smith Jr. are rightly returned to places of prominence. In his paradigm-shifting analysis, Hulsebosch captures the essential paradox at the heart of American constitutional history: the Revolution, which brought political independence and substituted the people for the British crown as the source of legitimate authority, also led to the establishment of a newly powerful constitution and a new postcolonial genre of constitutional law that would have been the envy of the British imperial agents who had struggled to govern the colonies before the Revolution.

The essays in this collection were first presented at an October 1991 conference on comparative constitutionalism under the auspices of the Jacob Burns Institute for Advanced Legal Studies, and the Cardozo-New School Project on Constitutionalism. Essays are organized in sections on the rebirth of constitutionalism, the legitimation of constitution making, the identity of the constitutional subject, the struggle between identity and difference, and the role of property rights. Annotation copyright by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR

This book examines the paradox at the heart of the relationship between judicial power and liberal constitutionalism in Canada, the use of judicial power to review and nullify or modify policies enacted by democratically accountable decision-makers. In this new edition, Manfredi refines his original argument and brings the content completely up to date.