Constitutional Controversies Research Articles

NextGenerationEU: Hamiltonian moment or European New Deal?

Abstract During the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the European Union (EU) took the unprecedented step of borrowing 750 billion euros on capital markets, part of which was to be spent in the form of grants. As prior interpretations of the Union’s constitution tended to suggest that it had no power for deficit spending, NextGenerationEU (NGEU) arguably constitutes a major constitutional transformation for the Union. As so often in the literature on the EU, the comparison was made with the federal system of the USA: Commentators likened the Union’s constitutional transformation to the transformation engineered by Hamilton, the financial founding father of the USA, as well as Roosevelt’s New Deal. When the USA was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, Hamilton transformed the landscape of public debt in the USA by proposing to restructure and assume the debt of the states on the balance sheet of the federal government. For the first time, the public debt of the federal government of the USA played a critical role in its economy. The Great Depression prompted another transformation for the finances of the USA. Roosevelt promised his voters to bring back economic growth. During Roosevelt’s tenure in office, the public borrowing of the USA went up significantly. This contribution examines the constitutional controversies provoked by Hamilton’s and Roosevelt’s transformative policies. It argues that, in spite of some similarities, the question of the constitutionality of deficit spending was controversial neither in Hamilton’s nor in Roosevelt’s day. More fundamentally, it argues that both Roosevelt and Hamilton had a transformative vision for the economy not shared by NGEU.

신국제협정: 세 가지 패러다임에 관한 검토와 시사점

From the traditionalist position on international law, a new form of compact agreement, which cannot be classified as an international treaty in terms of academic framework, had long fueled much of contention in politics, international law, and constitutional law. A growing practice of compact agreement had been natural as corresponding with the global compression of international community and rising aspiration of peace regime on the international relations.
 The scholars of international law believe that, regardless of whether the President of the United States is an internationalist or an isolationist, the enactment of international law in the 21st century will be based on more pragmatic rather than formal criteria. It is still true whether or not he is willing to accept or escape the international obligations so that we can more realistically share the powers conferred by the Constitution.
 On the other hand, a constitutional controversy on somewhat mushy yet sophisticated issues on the compact agreements began with the Laurence Tribe's acrimonious criticism in 1990. He argues that a procedure between Congress and the executive branch for the Clinton administration's accession to the North American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA) is unconstitutional. His criticism pointed out that the NAFTA is unconstitutional since it is contrary to the text and structure of the Constitution. On the other hand, scholars of political science believe that, while a politics is termed as the distribution of values, the new form of compact agreement serves connecting the domestic and international politics as a living organism and must be affirmed from the standpoint of parliamentary politics. The political scientists argue on the necessity and inevitability of a new form of international agreement as pursuant to the nature of political process on informal procedures and parliamentary practices.
 In respect of the theoretical controversy, the paper is devoted to survey what the new form of compact agreement is, what types we can identify and explore the theoretical contest among the disciplines. As the dealings of paper attempt to touch on the core of scholarly assertions as fundamental and philosophical, the endeavor could inculcate the mind of international lawyers within and outside the government by providing a better framework to understand the specific real-world issues. The perception and rationale for the new form of international agreement should differ varying with their academic disciplines from which their thought stems from. The paper ends with implications within the grand scale of jurisprudence.

Genteel Culture, Legal Education, and Constitutional Controversy in Early National Virginia

AbstractThis article focuses on the movement to reform legal education in early national Virginia, offering a fresh perspective by examining the connection between legal education and society and culture. It challenges the notion that constitutional ideas were the primary driving force behind reforms and argues that social status and “manners” played a more significant role. Wealthy elites in Virginia associated manners with education, sending their sons to college to become gentlemen, as it secured their aspirations to gentility and their influence over society and politics. Reformers sought to capitalize on this connection by educating a generation of university-trained, genteel lawyers who could lead the state's legislature and its courts. In this sense, educational reform was genteel rather than democratic in its basic assumptions. The article examines the central figure of George Wythe and explores his influence on Virginia's leading men, including Thomas Jefferson and St. George Tucker. It delves into the student experience in Wythe's law office and at the College of William and Mary, the success of educational reforms in the central courts, and the effects on Virginia's constitutional development. The college-educated lawyers who came to dominate the legislature in the early nineteenth century used their training for politics. As these lawyers sought to strengthen the institutions their party controlled, they drove the development of constitutional doctrines like federalism and separation of powers.

Abortion and Reproductive Freedom: Constitutional and Practical Issues.

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, the Supreme Court reversed constitutional protection for abortion. The law will affect the practice of medicine and patients. Practitioners should understand the decision. Protection for reproductive liberties has a checkered history. Much of the constitutional controversy is over the basis for reproductive rights, "substantive due process," the proposition that substantive rights arise from a procedural guarantee in the fourteenth amendment. The change in constitutional protection for abortion will play out differently among the states. Physicians should be prepared to assist patients with new rules and to participate in the public discussion of reproductive liberties.

“Two Courts” for One Constitution: Fragmentation of Constitutional Review in the Law of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers in The Hague

AbstractThe Kosovo Specialist Chambers embody a remarkable project involving elements of the domestic law of the Republic of Kosovo, the EU’s external relations law, and international criminal law. The Chambers’ hybrid nature is not only unique, but also atypical in regards to its influence in Kosovo’s constitutional order. The Specialist Constitutional Chamber is one of the instances of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers sitting in the Hague. The Specialist Constitutional Chamber resembles Kosovo’s Constitutional Court on a specific, though exclusive, area of law—the law surrounding the court in general. The two courts not only exercise the same generic function—on the basis of exclusive material criteria—but also possibly parallel and compete with each other. The relationship between the “two courts” is at best explained with the term “fragmentation of constitutional jurisdiction.” While the two courts are forced to endure under the same normative roof—the Constitution—they inherently exercise often conflicting functions and protect irreconcilable ideological perspectives. The article examines the interaction between the two courts primarily in a normative and jurisdictional perspective. It also presents recent tendencies of both courts to divert in divergent pathways. The article concludes that while the two courts present an unobserved case in comparative constitutional law, they also reveal an interesting and unconventional constitutional controversy appearing in the context of a sovereign country’s relationship with international law obligations.

Parliamentary Law and Institutional Crisis in the United Kingdom During Brexit

Abstract The British parliamentary system is generally praised for its longevity and stability. However, the flaws of British democracy were highlighted following the referendum of June 2016. This withdrawal was not only an earthquake for the European project, it was also the source of unprecedented constitutional controversies in the UK itself. In particular, it raised a series of questions about the respective competences of national institutions and local institutions in the field of European affairs and, more broadly, in foreign affairs. Since the British Constitution is not a written one, the rules for the distribution of competences in these areas are essentially the result of practice. The UK’s parliamentary regime, that was in the process of collapsing in September 2019 appears, against all odds, to have recovered following the early elections of 12 December 2019. The result of those elections has apparently provided a way out of the crisis, although it is unclear whether it will be temporary or not.

The Presidents and the Constitution, Vol. One: From the Founding Fathers to the Progressive Era ed. by Ken Gormley

Reviewed by: The Presidents and the Constitution, Vol. One: From the Founding Fathers to the Progressive Era ed. by Ken Gormley Robert E. Ross (bio) Keywords U.S. Constitution, Executive power, Separation of powers, Constitutional politics The Presidents and the Constitution, Vol. One: From the Founding Fathers to the Progressive Era. Edited by Ken Gormley. (New York: New York University Press, 2020. Pp. 416. Cloth $22.00.) The president maintains a unique place in the American constitutional order. Unlike Congress, the nature and scope of executive powers are not determined by constitutional powers "herein" granted. The scarcity of constitutional text detailing the duties and powers of the president has resulted in strenuous efforts to reconcile ambiguities surrounding the exercise of executive power with a constitutional system containing a written constitution. Moreover, what constitutional text there is does little to clarify or settle the limits of executive power. A prime example of this controversy is the removal power. While Article II establishes the president's ability, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint certain officials, the Constitution is silent on the power to remove these officers. Under what conditions can a president remove an appointed official, and does he need the Senate's advice and consent to do so? How these constitutional controversies get settled is a matter for politics, where presidents are not isolated actors. The Presidents and the Constitution, edited by Ken Gormley, ambitiously tries to navigate, and detail the uneasy relationship between the president and the Constitution by paying particular attention to historical context and development rather than focusing on a specific topic of presidential power or Supreme Court cases involving executive action. Given the sheer amount of historical material, this first volume covers the first twenty-six presidents, with the promise of a second volume to complete the historical analysis. Given the extensive list of contributors to the volume, great editorial effort was made to capture an "ongoing narrative" that highlights "constitutional issues that confronted the president, helped to shape the president's time in office, or gave birth to a piece of constitutional precedent during the president's tenure" (11). This broad sweep of presidential history emphasizes the importance of politics for an executive's constitutional authority. The Constitution is not [End Page 504] self-enforcing. In the arena of unsettled constitution meaning, the document requires interpretation and application. This creates a political battle over constitutional meaning, as ambitious executives (and their allies) seek constitutional legitimacy and presidential opponents insist on constitutional restraint. More importantly, political actors must acquiesce to these constitutional interpretations for any attempt to enlarge or restrain executive power to be successful. Rightfully so, this volume highlights the complicated relationship between the three branches of government, being "bound together inextricably in this saga" (10). The meaning of the Constitution comes to life by appreciating the historical development of an ever-evolving conflict between the president, Congress, and the Court. However, not all presidents are created equal, and the political conditions within and between presidencies are often in flux. While presidents come to office with ambition to shape the presidency and constitutional regime, they must also recognize the importance of maintaining political coalitions and function within the accepted constitutional and ideological commitments of a given political regime. The amount of "energy," to use a Hamiltonian term, that can be brought to the executive is closely connected to the strength of existing political values and constitutional attachments. Even if a president wants to enact change, if the other branches of government and the electorate are strongly attached to the status quo, the president's capacity for change is confined within boundaries of these accepted political and constitutional values. However, there is expanded opportunity for the president to shape the political and constitutional landscape if his election coincides with demand for change to the prevailing values and constitutional attachments. This view of executive powers being exercised within the context of larger political change (or lack thereof) lends itself well to a historical analysis of the presidency, and The Presidents and the Constitution explicitly and implicitly brings to light this political interaction between the president, other branches of government, and the electorate. For example...

Book Review: Film and Constitutional Controversy: Visualizing Hong Kong Identity in the Age of “One Country, Two Systems”

Book Review: Film and Constitutional Controversy: Visualizing Hong Kong Identity in the Age of “One Country, Two Systems”

Rival Visions: How Jefferson and His Contemporaries Defined the Early American Republic ed. by Dustin Gish and Andrew Bibby

Reviewed by: Rival Visions: How Jefferson and His Contemporaries Defined the Early American Republiced. by Dustin Gish and Andrew Bibby Cara Rogers Rival Visions: How Jefferson and His Contemporaries Defined the Early American Republic. Edited by Dustin Gish and Andrew Bibby. Jeffersonian America. ( Charlottesville and London: University of Virginia Press, 2021. Pp. xii, 330. $42.50, ISBN 978-0-8139-4447-0.) The contributors to Rival Visions: How Jefferson and His Contemporaries Defined the Early American Republicagree on two primary assertions: the early republic can best be understood by using Thomas Jefferson's ideas as a "benchmark" against which to measure change; and modern debates over American identity have been "overtaken" both by a "disturbing ideological [End Page 149]conformity" and by "dogmatic partisanship" (p. 2). This collection of essays seeks to inject historical context into contemporary partisan divides by focusing attention on the rivalries that have shaped America from the beginning. As John Ragosta puts it in his chapter on Jefferson, James Madison, and John Adams, "conversations in the Early Republic were oftentimes more informative than monologues" (p. 178). Rival Visionsputs differing perspectives from the early republic into conversation with one another, emphasizing "conflict more than consensus" and encompassing such varied themes as constitutional debates, technological developments, and philosophical divergences (p. 3). The political theorists, biographers, historians, and constitutional scholars who have contributed to this volume were originally inspired by a 2013 conference on Jefferson and his contemporaries held at Christopher Newport University. Editors Dustin Gish and Andrew Bibby have divided the eleven essays into three sections: "Envisioning the New Nation," "National Tensions in the Early Republic," and "Constitutional Controversies." This division is less chronological than thematic, and readers will find variety within each section. For example, in Part 1, Eran Shalev explores the different historical antecedents that the Founders drew on in order to validate their republican experiment; Darren Staloff argues that Jefferson and Adams's fundamental difference lay in their disagreement over human perfectibility; and Gish and Armin Mattes each position the Founders' experiences with—and divergent reactions to—the French Revolution as a key element to our understanding of the early American nation. In Part 2, complementary essays by Christa Dierksheide and Peter S. Onuf contain insightful discussions of Jefferson and slavery, examining Jefferson's attempts to ameliorate the institution and contrasting Jefferson's optimistic faith in enlightenment with George Washington's quiet pragmatism. Essays by Daniel Dreisbach and Ragosta are more openly in debate, offering competing interpretations of Jefferson's support for religion in the public sphere. Dreisbach argues that most of the founding generation believed that religion was necessary for virtue, and virtue for a republic, concluding that even the unorthodox Jefferson's policies and practices "had the effect of raising religion's profile and extending its influence into the public sphere" (p. 153). Ragosta, in contrast, focuses on three separate "conversations" in Jefferson's life in order to claim that the separation of church and state was, in fact, Jefferson's primary aim—and, by the early nineteenth century, one of his greatest accomplishments (p. 164). Dreisbach and Ragosta are both persuasive, and their conversation offers a useful overview of current debates surrounding religion in the early republic. Part 3 includes Jean Yarbrough's essay on Jefferson's moral sense philosophy and its connection to an agrarian lifestyle; Daniel Klinghard's analysis of Jefferson's views on technology, progress, and politics; and Charles Hobson's fascinating comparison of Jefferson and one of his most prominent rivals, John Marshall. Hobson convincingly argues that personal animosity and decades of misunderstandings and offenses between these two Virginians prevented them from ever reconciling and finding that their rival visions of America actually had several areas of overlap. This essay is a fitting end to a book that begins by [End Page 150]lamenting Americans' current ideological divisions: Hobson provides a timely warning against allowing personal animosity to cloud reasoned political debate. Rival Visionswill be of interest to all scholars of Jeffersonian America. Cara Rogers Ashland University Copyright © 2022 The Southern Historical Association

Constitutional controversies in the subnational democratization of Mexico, 1994–2021

AbstractAfter the 1994 judicial reform, the Mexican Supreme Court has transformed into a more genuine enforcer of law and the final arbiter in an increasing number of disputes over power and resources between different levels and branches of government. Constitutional controversies have become an essential legal resource enabling subnational actors to defend the autonomy and jurisdiction guaranteed in the Constitution. The number of constitutional controversies filed by municipalities and subnational actors before the Court increased considerably in the 1995–2021 period, reaching nearly 2500 intergovernmental disputes of exclusive jurisdiction. In the context of growing political fragmentation, this judicialization process has motivated subnational actors to appeal regularly to the Supreme Court to act as a counterweight, resulting in an increasing influence in the national political arena and even in the implementation of public policies. With its rulings, a nonrepresentative body is regulating coexistence among elected political actors and institutionalizing new rules of behavior. The Supreme Court's rulings on fundamental cases that are still pending should reveal whether the 2021 judicial reform will enhance judicial independence.

Clashing Canons and the Contract Clause

This Article is the first in-depth examination of substantive canons that judges use to interpret public pension legislation under the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions. The resolution of constitutional controversies concerning pension reform will have a profound influence on government employment. The assessment begins with a general discussion of these interpretive techniques before turning to their operation in public pension litigation. It concentrates on three clashing canons: the remedial (purpose) canon, the “no contract” canon (otherwise known as the unmistakability doctrine), and the constitutional avoidance canon. For these three canons routinely employed in pension law, there has been remarkably little research on their history, evolution, or impact. This study spotlights the methodology that underlies these diverse and complicated judgments. Illuminating actual judicial practices lets us better comprehend when, how, and why these canons function. It puts us in a position to choose the most appropriate canon(s) and to offer improvements on their operation. It also allows us to relate the role of canons to other kinds of legal reasoning. Significantly, studying these canons fills a void in state statutory interpretation as well as contributes to a better understanding of state court enforcement of the Contract Clause that has received scarcely any attention.

The suspension: "the freeze tag game" in constitutional controversies in Mexico

La evolución de la suspensión y su naturaleza como medida cautelar en los medios de regularidad constitucional, demandan el divorcio entre esta y la idea de que su efecto solo implique un afán de encantamiento que imposibilite la ejecución del acto que motiva la controversia constitucional. De esta forma, con miras a enervar cualquier daño de imposible reparación, provocado por un órgano estatal que inobserve disposiciones pilares del texto de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos (CPEUM) –el sistema de protección del federalismo, la división de poderes y la tutela de la persona humana– deben aplicarse las características connaturales, cautelares, de la suspensión, para adelantar provisionalmente los derechos que, con posterioridad, sean estudiados en su constitucionalidad.

Failed Elections and the Legislative Selection of Electors

Questions about the state legislative role in determining the identity of presidential electors and electoral slates, and the permissible extent of a departure from regular legislative order, have recently reached peak prominence. Much of the controversy, including several cases to reach the Supreme Court, has concerned the constitutional delegation of power over pre-election rules. But a substantial amount of attention has also focused on the ability of state legislatures to appoint electors in the period between Election Day and the electors’ vote. An asserted legislative role in the post-election period has two ostensible sources: one constitutional and one statutory. The constitutional provision — the portion of Article II allowing states to appoint electors in the manner the legislature directs — has received substantial scholarly and judicial attention. In contrast, there has been no prominent exploration of the federal statute, 3 U.S.C. § 2, despite text similar to the constitutional provision. This piece appears to represent the first exploration of that federal statute as an ostensible basis for legislative appointment of electors in the aftermath of an election, when that election has “failed to make a choice.” After reviewing the constitutional controversy, the essay canvasses the history of the statute and its context. And it discovers a previously unreported historical anomaly, which might well affect construction not only of the statutory text, but the constitutional predicate, in the event of a disputed presidential election.

Interpretive Principles in Reading the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

Abstract The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as RTE Act) enacted by the Indian Parliament in 2009 has been a kernel of constitutional controversies. There are spate of controversies emerging from polemical provisions under the RTE Act. In this article, the rabid principle slating out free education for children for economically weaker section and disadvantaged category has been dissected in its design, content, function, and perception. The first part of the article explores different state-private welfare function models and locates the 25 per cent reservation clause under the gamut of one of its classifications. The second part of the article evaluates the Formalist and Realist arguments, and while mapping the role played by objective purpose of the education statute, it argues for the suitability of Holmesian approach to interpreting the 25 per cent reservation clause. In the backdrop of the debate between formal interpretation and Holmesian interpretation, the third part of the article sets out the approaches adopted by different High Courts in interpreting 25 per cent reservation clause and argues for adopting a coherent approach across different courts in India. The final part of the article concludes.

Ponderación de derechos fundamentales en época de pandemia

The appearance and installation in our country of the pandemic caused by the so-called covid-19, has led to the issuance of various supreme decrees, which in the name of protecting the health, the environment of the family and the community, have cut in a way Intensive certain fundamental rights of the first degree, such as freedom of transit and freedom of work. The normative argument used by the Executive Power is weak, since the preeminence of certain fundamental rights of the second degree over the other so-called fundamental rights of the first degree supposes a hypothetical scenario of imminent constitutional controversy in which the so-called weighting of fundamental rights, in which the principles of suitability, necessity and weighting or proportionalityitself will be debated, whose scenarios become very interesting and above all promising for the clarification of the conflict of rights.&nbsp

The fragility of Finnish parliamentary democracy at the moment when Prussianism fell

The Finnish case is in many ways illustrative of the complexities of democratisation after World War I. Finland found itself at the nexus of a Swedish constitutional tradition, legalism and ideological controversies adopted from Imperial Germany, the radicalised Russian Revolution, and Western parliamentary democracy. After having been a model for reformers demanding women’s suffrage, for instance, the country found itself in autumn 1918 going in the opposite direction to almost all other European countries. This article analyses the fragility of Finnish parliamentary democracy then, contrasting it with longer-term trends supportive of democratisation. ‘Democracy’ had been the goal for most Finnish political parties since the adoption of universal suffrage in 1906, but the meaning of the concept remained contested and became increasingly so after the Russian Revolution in disputes concerning parliamentary sovereignty, the declaration of independence, a civil war, monarchical reaction, and the search for a republican compromise. For as long as Germany was expected to win the war, democracy in Finland remained fragile, challenged from within first by the revolutionary far-left and then by the reactionary right. The victory of ‘Western democracies’ forced both the left and the right to rethink their opposition to ‘Western’ parliamentary democracy and to adapt to a constitutional compromise. The ideological contestability of democracy remained but confrontations were confined by extremism’s loss of credibility, the growing influence of centrist groups, and a shared determination to avoid another civil war.

Two Constitutional Rights, Two Constitutional Controversies

This article is my contribution to the Festschrift celebrating the distinguished scholarly career of Richard S. Kay, Wallace Stevens Professor Emeritus and Oliver Ellsworth Research Professor, University of Connecticut School of Law. My overarching aim in the article is to defend a particular understanding of two constitutional rights and, relatedly, a particular resolution of two constitutional controversies. The two rights I discuss are among the most important rights protected by the constitutional law of the United States: the right to equal protection and the right of privacy. As I explain in the article, the constitutional right to equal protection is, at its core, the human right to moral equality, and the constitutional right to privacy is best understood as a version of the human right to moral freedom. The two controversies I discuss, each of which implicates the two rights, are among the most divisive constitutional controversies of our time: the controversies concerning, respectively, abortion and same-sex marriage. Arguments of the two sorts I make in this article—arguments defending a particular understanding of one or more constitutional rights and arguments defending a particular resolution of one or more constitutional controversies—necessarily presuppose a theory of judicial review. The theory of judicial review on which I rely, and whose basic features I rehearse in the article, is the theory I defend at length in my most recent book, A GLOBAL POLITICAL MORALITY: HUMAN RIGHTS, DEMOCRACY, AND CONSTITUTIONALISM (Cambridge University Press 2017).

Teorias constitucionais progressistas, backlash e vaquejada

O artigo parte da relação entreconstitucionalismo e democracia nas teoriasconstitucionais progressistas do campo liberal;especificamente o direito como integridade, ominimalismo judicial e o constitucionalismodemocrático, apontando suas diferenças emrelação ao papel que atribuem às Cortes nasolução das controvérsias constitucionais,como também aos efeitos provocados por suasdecisões (backlash). Por fim, discute-se o casoda vaquejada (ADI n. 4.983) para mostrar comotais teorias constitucionais progressistas e suasrespostas aobacklashpodem servir para iluminaraspectos negligenciados da prática constitucionalbrasileira, sem, contudo, advogar pela importaçãode uma ou outra teoria para o Brasil.

Textual Anxiety: Reading (and Misreading) the Draft Constitution in China, 1954

This article uses comments, questions, and conversations about the PRC's draft constitution of 1954 to assess state legitimacy and how people felt more generally about the Communist regime. Taking advantage of untapped archival sources in Hong Kong and the mainland—including classified intraparty reports and transcripts from meetings in factories, police stations, universities, and villages—this article challenges the conventional view that the constitution bolstered support for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Instead, the document generated a great deal of anxiety among ordinary citizens, as well as among CCP officials and the regime's favored classes. This “text-based” cause of emotional turmoil was a supplement to the classic forms of political terror that dominate the literature on Communist dictatorships. Despite widespread confusion, people's identification of problematic sections of the constitution turned out to be remarkably prescient in light of political disasters in the 1950s and 1960s and ongoing constitutional controversies in the era after Mao Zedong.

Transnational Constructors of Parliamentary Democracy in Swedish and Finnish Constitutional Controversies, 1917–1919

During the First World War, the legitimacy of established polities was challenged everywhere in Europe. Not only the combatant great powers but also smaller states witnessed a resurgence of constitutional disputes and competing ideological conceptualizations of revolution and reform, the will of the people, democracy, and parliamentarism. While these controversies primarily focused on the future of the national polities concerned, historical experiences and discourses accelerated by the war and the Russian Revolution were transnationally interconnected and contributed to discursive transfers between political cultures. Swedish and Finnish socialists were linked by their internationals, liberals were connected by transnational debates for and against ‘Western’ democracy and parliamentarism, and conservative politicians and academics were involved in ideologically oriented networks. This article reconstructs transnational links and discourses in order to understand the exceptionally confrontational dynamics (which, in Finland, partly led to a civil war) and the outcomes of the Swedish and Finnish constitutional debates in 1917–1919. It examines the nature of the transnational connections of eight Swedish and Finnish conservatives, liberals, revisionist socialists, and far-Left socialists, analysing their argumentation on constitutional questions in published works and parliamentary speeches as illustrative examples of the political groups they represented.