Modern Constitutional Democracy Research Articles

The Social Construction of a Legitimate Presidency

A recognized strength of modern constitutional democracies is their ability to insure legitimate political succession through the use of elections.For a review of the contribution of democratic theory to the succession problem, see: Peter Calvert, “The Theory of Political Succession” in The Process of Political Succession, ed. Peter Calvert (London: Macmillan, 1987), 245–66. We do not challenge this assessment; rather, we suggest that the process of producing a legitimate leader is a complex social construction with numerous variations. The pathway to political legitimacy can be conceived thus as a passage through a series of “gateways” and “rituals” that, when successfully confronted, confer political authority. The public, the press, and political elites participate in the process of conferring legitimacy on the “winner.” The 2000 presidential election is a prime illustration of this process because its contested nature clarifies and highlights gateways that have been less visible in other elections. We present an analysis of the social construction of legitimacy in the post-election and early weeks of George W. Bush's presidency, including examples of strategies designed to negotiate successful passage through these rituals. Finally, we note the capacity of these rituals to produce legitimate successions even when irregular events pose a challenge to democratic theory.

How can a society make its citizens just?

How can citizens be made just? I focus on how modern constitutional democracies can entice, convince, and guide their citizens to become just. I rely chiefly on Rawls’s theory of justice (1971), as well as the work of sociologist Derek L. Phillips. I argue that internal control by citizens themselves is the best option. This view is attractive because every citizen can play a part in establishing and maintaining the public conception of justice by being role models, engaging in dialogue with fellow citizens, or by simply doing their part in maintaining just institutions.

Hume's Constitutionalism and the Identity of Constitutional Democracy

Modern constitutional democracy entails a particular kind of political self-understanding that uniquely centers on a constitution. While many recent studies have focused on how constitutional text shapes this self-understanding, little attention has been paid to the implications of different views of constitutional authority. This is a critical consideration, however, because constitutional authority has always been intrinsically fragile within constitutional democracy, and never more so than at present. In this article, I explore the potential of constitutional science to generate a conception of constitutional authority and collective identity. I focus on David Hume's effort to use constitutional science to shape opinion about liberty and the nature of the political community. This analysis also provides a basis for reflecting on the problematic relation of democracy to constitutionalism and on the peculiar problem of constitutional opinion in constitutional democracy.

The Nadir of Native American Sovereignty

Tribal sovereignty has always been the central and most perplexing issue in federal policy. Almost every problem that faced, or faces, Native Americans-property ownership, mineral and water rights, and civil jurisdiction, self-government-have all hinged on the federal government's conception of the powers maintained by tribal governments and the federal courts' interpretation of the proper relationship among the national government, the states, and the Native American nations. Rather than remaining static, the scope of tribal sovereignty expanded and contracted with epochal changes in the federal government's vision of the place of Indians in American society. Characterized by federal judge Philip Nichols, Jr. as one of the blackest days in the history of the American Indian (p. 71), Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock was the nadir of tribal sovereignty and the culmination of the late-nineteenth-century attack by the federal legislature and judiciary on Native American political and legal rights. Charles E Wilkinson (American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy, 1987) defined sovereignty as the power of a people to make governmental arrangements to protect and limit personal liberty by social control and demonstrated how pervasively changes in the Supreme Court's interpretation of this intangible influenced Native American lives (pp. 54-55). Yet, surprisingly few monographs have studied the major cases that affected the realm of Native American tribal powers and individual rights as singular objects. Although law libraries remain sadly bereft of detailed works on the important cases of the twentieth century, legal historians have recently and quickly closed the gap in the literature on the nineteenth-century decisions. For instance, in 1994 Sidney J. Harring published Crow Dog's Case: American Sovereignty, Tribal Law, and United States Law in the Nineteenth Century, in which he described the transition in the federal government's treatment of criminal violations on the reservation from self-policing (Ex Parte

Review: American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy, by Charles E. Wilkinson

Review: <i>American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy</i>, by Charles E. Wilkinson

American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy

In 1959, the Supreme Court ushered in a new era of Indian law, which recognizes Indian tribes as permanent governments within the federal constitutional system and, on the whole, honors old promises to the Indians. Drawing together historical sources such as the records of treaty negotiations with the Indians, classic political theory on the nature of sovereignty, and anthropological studies of societal change, Wilkinson evaluates the Court's work in Indian law over the past twenty five years and considers the effects of time on law.

Charles f. wilkinson. American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1987. Pp. xi, 225. $18.50

Journal Article charles f. wilkinson. American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1987. Pp. xi, 225. $18.50 Get access Wilkinson Charles F.. American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1987. Pp. xi, 225. $18.50. Larry Burt Larry Burt American West Center University of Utah Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The American Historical Review, Volume 93, Issue 2, April 1988, Pages 529–530, https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/93.2.529 Published: 01 April 1988

American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy

American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy

American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy

Journal Article American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy Get access American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy. By Wilkinson Charles F.. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. xi + 225 pp. Appendix, notes, index. $18.50.) Floyd A. O'Neil Floyd A. O'Neil American West Center, University of Utah Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Western Historical Quarterly, Volume 19, Issue 1, January 1988, Page 61, https://doi.org/10.2307/969793 Published: 01 January 1988

American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy

Journal Article American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy. By Charles F. Wilkinson. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. xi + 225 pp. $18.50.) Get access Robert H. Keller, Jr. Robert H. Keller, Jr. Fairhaven College Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of American History, Volume 74, Issue 2, September 1987, Page 492, https://doi.org/10.2307/1900045 Published: 01 September 1987

Муніципальна влада у теорії та практиці народовладдя: проблеми співвідношення та взаємодії

У статті досліджуються конституційно-правові проблеми організації та функціонування муніципальної влади в контексті її співвідношення з феноменом народовладдя. Висвітлюється еволюція системи уявлень про місцеве самоврядування у вітчизняній та зарубіжній юридичній думці в аспекті теоретико-методологічного розуміння вчення про муніципальну владу. Така постановка питання обумовлюється тим, що питання щодо місця і ролі муніципальної влади у системі народовладдя, її правової природи, співвідношення та взаємодії таких феноменів, як народовладдя та громадоправство, належить до найбільш дискусійних у сучасній конституційній теорії.