Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:13:23.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Asking Better Questions: The Problems of Constitutional Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Mark A. Graber
Mark A. Graber*
Affiliation:
University of Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recently, some members of the public law subfield have begun exploring American constitutionalism in ways that may sound strange, if not perverse, to the uninitiated. Panels and papers are devoted to such topics as What is the Constitution? and Can there be unconstitutional constitutional amendments? Although confusing to some academics, these novel approaches to standard academic pursuits are also opening new lines of scholarly inquiry and unearthing doubtful assumptions that have gone unchallenged for too long. By laying out the new questions that political scientists are asking and could ask about constitutional theory, this paper may provide a guide for the perplexed and directions for future research.

Throughout most of the twentieth century, the question, How should judges interpret the Constitution? was the central focus of constitutional theory. This inquiry conflated at least two distinct issues and, in so doing, ruled out legitimate constitutional possibilities. Because legal commentators failed to discriminate between theories about what the Constitution means and theories about how a particular institution, the judiciary, should resolve constitutional controversies, they normally assumed without question that the fundamental principles of the Constitution are judicially enforceable and that the judiciary is the authoritative interpreter of the Constitution.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 216 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The author thanks Brian Roberts and Julia Frank for significantly improving the logic and coherence of this paper.

References

Ackerman, Bruce A. 1989. “Constitutional Politics/Constitutional Law.” Yale Law Journal 99: 453.10.2307/796754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, Bruce A. 1984. “The Storrs Lectures: Discovering the Constitution.” Yale Law Journal 93: 1013.10.2307/796204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, Sotirios A. 1984. On What the Constitution Means. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Bobbin, Philip. 1981. Constitutional Fate: Theory of the Constitution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bork, Robert H. 1980. The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Brest, Paul. 1975. “The Conscientious Legislator's Guide to Constitutional Interpretation.” Stanford Law Review 21: 585.10.2307/1228328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown v. Board of Education. 1954. 347 U.S. 483.Google Scholar
Cooley, Thomas M. 1890. A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations Which Rests Upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union, 6th ed. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.Google Scholar
Cooper v. Aaron. 1958. 358 U.S. 1.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Downes v. Bidwell. 1901. 182 U.S. 244.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law's Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Garrison, William Lloyd. 1966. “The Great Crisis.” In Documents of Upheaval: Selections from William Lloyd Garrison's The Liberator, 1831-1865, ed. Nelson, Truman. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
Graber, Mark A. 1989. “Our (Im)Perfect Constitution.” The Review of Politics 51: 86.10.1017/S0034670500015874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, Thomas. 1975. “Do We Have an Unwritten Constitution?” Stanford Law Review 27: 703.10.2307/1228335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Robert H. 1944. Korematsu v. United States. 323 U.S. 214.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Thomas. 1975. The Portable Thomas Jefferson, ed. Peterson, Merrill. United States of America: The Viking Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Sanford. 1988. Constitutional Faith. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Sanford, and Mailloux, Steven, eds. 1988. Interpreting Law and Literature: A Hermeneutic Reader. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Lochner v. New York. 1905. 198 U.S. 45.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, Karl N. 1934. “The Constitution as an Institution.” Columbia Law Review 34:6.10.2307/1115631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIlwain, Charles Howard. 1947. Constitutionalism: Ancient and Modern, rev. ed. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, Catharine A. 1987. Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Madison, James. 1973. The Minds of the Founder: Sources of the Political Thought of James Madison, ed. Meyers, Marvin. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company.Google Scholar
Marshall, John. 1803. Marbury v. Madison. 1 Cranch 137.Google Scholar
Meese, Edward III, 1987. “The Law of the Constitution.” Tulane Law Review 61: 979.Google Scholar
Murphy, Walter F. 1980. “An Ordering of Constitutional Values.” Southern California Law Review 53: 703.Google Scholar
Murphy, Walter F., Fleming, James E., and Harris, William II, 1986. American Constitutional Interpretation. Mineola, NY: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, Robert F. 1989. Constitutional Cultures: The Mentality and Consequences of Judicial Review. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Powell, H. Jefferson. 1986. “Constitutional Law as Though the Constitution Mattered.” Duke Law Journal 915.Google Scholar
Powell, H. Jefferson. 1985. “The Original Understanding of Original Intent.” Harvard Law Review 98: 885.10.2307/1340880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, William Van Orman. 1961. From a Logical Point of View: Logico-Philosophical Essays, 2nd ed., rev. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674042605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roe v. Wade. 1973. 410 U.S. 113.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1962. “Constitutionalism: A Preliminary Discussion.” American Political Science Review 56: 853.10.2307/1952788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 1990. “The Nature of Contemporary Political Science: A Roundtable Discussion.” PS: Political Science & Politics 23: 37–38.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin. 1983. “Fathers and Sons: The Court, the Commentators, and the Search for Values.” In The Burger Court: The Counter-Revolution that Wasn't, ed. Blasi, Vincent. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Story, Joseph. 1987. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sundquist, James L. 1983. Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States, rev. ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Thayer, James B. 1893. “The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law.” Harvard Law Review 7: 129.10.2307/1322284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoreau, Henry David. 1975. The Portable Thoreau, ed. Bode, Carl. United States of America: The Viking Press, Inc. Google Scholar
Tushnet, Mark. 1981. “The Dilemmas of Liberal Constitutionalism.” Ohio State Law Journal 42: 411.Google Scholar
West, Robin. 1988. “Jurisprudence and Gender.” University of Chicago Law Review 55: 1.10.2307/1599769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zorach v. Clauson. 1952. 343 U.S. 306.Google Scholar