I think Henry’s post below about Will’s arrogance concerning EU constitutionalism is spot on. I was only planning to comment (again, see below), but I can’t resist piling on. Noting that the EU draft constitution contains language saying that “preventive action should be taken” to protect the environment, Will asks, “what in the name of James Madison is it doing in a constitution?” Of course, the obvious answer is that a constitution is, in part, an aspirational document. And aspiring to protect the environment is a legitimate goal of every state—and not merely a fleeting policy preference.
But, in fairness to Will, surely he could have picked some better examples. To find some, he might have turned to American state constitutions. Here are two of my favorites. The Oklahoma state constitution specifies the flashpoint of kerosene. But if EU politicians think that’s a bit too mundane, they can always look for inspiration to the 287 sections and 706 amendments of Alabama’s constitution. In particular, they might want to check out Amendment 612: Bingo Games in Russell County, or, of course, the bingo amendments for Jefferson, Madison, Montgomery, Mobile, Etowah, Calhoun, and St. Clair. Forgive me for leaving off the links for Walker (549), Covington (565), Houston (569), Morgan (599), Lowdnes (674), and Limestone (692) counties. If you read the Alabama state constitution carefully, you’ll find that you’re allowed to play bingo in those counties, too. Oh, and don’t forget about the the City of Jasper.
Alabama, Oklahoma, EU. Makes sense.
Makes perfect sense, actually. Will wants to hold up the American constitutional experience as a model for emulation. But that experience is not exhausted by the federal constitution. It is intimately linked to enduring—and lengthy—state constitutions. So it’s not enough for Will, and other American exceptionalists, to say that many years of writing constitutions has given Americans valuable experience (even though that may well be true). State politicians have also been at it a long time, and, while there are some successes, there are also some spectacular failures. Why no commentary on that? What’s different about state constitutions that they don’t deserve the same type of criticism that Will is leveling at the EU? Note that, even if there are important differences (and I’m sure there are), Will doesn’t distinguish between state and federal constitutions. He just says: “A proper constitution does not give canonical status, as rights elevated beyond debate, to the policy preferences of the moment.” I think Henry’s right to suggest in his post that Will doesn’t display much knowledge of the EU, but he also isn’t showing much concern for the full extent of the American constitutional tradition.
You seem confused Micah. Do you understand the concept of subsidarity?
Briefly, the subsidarity principle gives competences (powers) to the lowest possible level. The union constitution is not cluttered with many and various regional preferences, they are left to those regions. So, in the US you find regional constitutions with items peculiar to the local culture but the Union constitution deals only with issues that apply to all regions.
“State politicians have also been at it a long time, and, while there are some successes, there are also some spectacular failures. Why no commentary on that?”
Perhaps you understand the issue better when you grasp the concept of subsidarity?
“Will doesn’t distinguish between state and federal constitutions. He just says: ‘A proper constitution does not give canonical status, as rights elevated beyond debate, to the policy preferences of the moment’.”
He was only speaking about Union constitutions, not regional constitutions since they are very different things. The subject was the EU constitution and the particular issues related to Unions, such as the EU and the USA. To conflate state and federal constitutions is to miss the essence of subsidarity and the specific issues involved with establishing a Union.
When a Union is formed the new regime is in some ways weaker, and more remote, than the regime they subsume or replace. The effect of this is to increase the desire for independence in regions. In the UK for example Scotland and Wales have renewed interest in local control. Flanders, Wallonia, Catalonia, Lombardia, etc. etc. are all interested in more local control.
Subsidarity is not just an administrative convenience, a way to keep the Union constitution tidy by moving local issues to local documents, it is recognition of the reality created by Union and a mechanism for coping with the issues created by union.
“I think Henry’s right to suggest in his post that Will doesn’t display much knowledge of the EU, but he also isn’t showing much concern for the full extent of the American constitutional tradition.”
Perhaps thinking through the subsidarity issue will help you and Henry gain some understanding of Will’s article. It’s brief, deals only with a few things, but is consistent with more detailed critiques. You may disagree with his criticisms and Will may in fact not be well informed but his article is a brief expression of a thoughtful and complete analysis. I think he stole it, but that’s what journalists do.
You might research the history of other unions such as USSR and Yugoslavia for insights into subsidarity. Switzerland, Spain, Italy and Germany are relatively new nations assembled from bits and pieces of older polities too and so might give insight.
Two points, I suppose. Will doesn’t so much as hint at the difference between federal and state constitutions. In fact, his little joke about the French constitution suggests that he thinks his view applies to all constitutions. Of course, there’s not much space in a column, but, then, it doesn’t take much to make this simple point (as I did in passing above—though you seem happy to ignore it). At any rate, you may be attributing an argument to Will that he doesn’t make—and perhaps doesn’t even want to make.
Second, so far as I can tell, you actually haven’t supplied an argument for why state or local governments should use constitutions for low level administrative purposes. For example, an appeal to the subsidiary principle doesn’t help us understand why Vermont’s constitution is 8000 words long, and why Alabama’s is 300,000. There are obviously very different views at work in these states about the purpose of having a constitution. (I haven’t heard anyone clamoring for a massive overhaul of Vermont’s constitution.) Allowing for regional differences, there’s still an argument to be had here about the nature of constitutions—both state and federal.
Back40: What’s the difference between “subsidarity” and federalism? Is there one?
hmmm, good question, hard question, but I’ll give it a go.
Federalism is one method of implementing the principle of subsidarity.
Subsidarity asserts that authority and power exist at the lowest level and are partially delegated to the center. This can be understood in contrast to devolution which asserts that power belongs to the center and can be delegated or revoked at will. Little endian, big endian.
Subsidarity asserts that authority and power exist at the lowest level and are partially delegated to the center.
Gosh, what a coincidence then that the last decade of EU negotiations has been based upon extending the principle of subsidiarity, particularly through regional governance. In fact, even the oh-so-centralised French endorsed this in their most recent constitutional revision: ‘Son organisation est décentralisée.’
Actually, it’s been an issue for far longer. The Germans are especially keen about subsidarity and see their federal system as the guardian of it. The Swiss are notable in this regard as well.
The UK has had a somewhat more confused position that favors devolution it seems. The French are more like the British in this regard. Both have made efforts to devolve power to the regions but have a hard time with the idea of subsidarity. Devolution and decentralization are not the same as subsidarity.
About that Alabama constitution, I think the same thing happened in Texas. I just happen to have been through several texas history classes. The Texas constitution dates back to 1886 (approximately). Everyone knows that it is a backward looking and obstructionist document. Back then most residents were resentful about being on the losing end of civil war. Therefore they were punished during the “reconstruction”, where the governor and legislature were tightly controlled by the federal government. When the reconstructionists (carpet-baggers)left the South, everyone made sure that the governor and the state legislature didn’t have the authority to do anything on their own initiative. And also that revising the constitution would be more difficult than ever before.
This is how constitional excrement happens. Being a modern american, I’d say that people angry at “yankee agressors” write bad constitutions. But, at the moment, it’s really up to you Europeans to discern the lessons of history.
“When the reconstructionists (carpet-baggers)left the South, everyone made sure that the governor and the state legislature didn’t have the authority to do anything on their own initiative. And also that revising the constitution would be more difficult than ever before.”
Sounds like the same thing that Madison, Jefferson, et al were up to at the Federal level. No single branch of government should have the power to do anything of their own initiative.
I forget who said it, but someone addressed the issue of overspecificity in constitutions by saying “The word ‘asphalt’ should not appear in the constitution”
Mein Hobby ist es Gästebücher zu besuchen. Das ist immer ganz interessant und widerspiegelt so, was die Leute im Internet wirklich denken. War auch interessant bei Dir ! Bis zum nächsten Mal. All The Best OfNew Year. Sorry for my english i’am from Germany.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review