Constitutional Paideia
Constitutional paideia designates a form of constitutionalism that construes a nation’s constitution essentially in terms of ongoing processes of collective self-formation. This paper explores the notion of constitutional paideia as formulated by Hegel, who explicitly defines constitutionalism with categories of Bildung. The paper’s strategy is to present Hegel’ position in light of questions that can be raised about it. The paper advances three central theses: (1) in spite (and perhaps because) of his historico-culturist approach to law, Hegel is a theoretician of constitutional paideia; (2) despite construing constitutionalism in terms of ongoing processes of popular self-interpretation, Hegel does not vitiate the distinction between law and politics deemed so central to constitutional theory; and (3) despite construing constitutionalism in terms of self-formative processes of a particular culture, Hegel does not jettison the normativity and trans-contextualism long associated with modern constitutional theory. The paper concludes with some observations on the contemporary significance of Hegelian constitutionalism.
Constitutional paideia is a term I shall use to designate a form of constitutionalism that construes a nation's constitution essentially in terms of ongoing processes of collective self-formation.(1) As such, it is markedly distinct from competing models. It is distinct from liberal models, notably represented today by John Rawls, for whom a constitution must "guarantee certain basic political rights and liberties and establish democratic procedures for moderating the political rivalry, and for determining issues of social policy."(2) While constitutional paideia is not chary of liberal concern for legal and moral constraints, it rejects the latter's commitment to entrenched rights and a fixed sense of a nation's legal-political identity. It is likewise distinct from communitarian models, represented however ambiguously by Frank Michelman. While sharing with such models a focus on communal identity, its commitment to processes of self-formation renders constitutional inhospitable to a theory keyed to a set of preexisting cultural values—that "more encompassing common life, bearing the imprint of a common past."(3) Constitutional paideia is distinct further from republican models, represented equally ambiguously by Hannah Arendt. Although it shares with republicanism the notion that constitutionalism must be sensitive to principles of public virtue, collective power, and civic commitment to a shared enterprise, it places special emphasis on the conditions for constituting collective identity and nationhood itself.(4) Constitutional paideia is also distinct from deliberative models, represented notably by Jürgen Habermas, for whom "the constitution establishes political procedures according to which citizens, in the exercise of their right to self-determination, successfully pursue the cooperative project of establishing just (or more just) conditions of life.
The reasoning behind the Constitution of the United States is presented as 'based upon the philosophy of Hobbes and the religion of Calvin. It assumes the natural state of mankind in a state of war, and that the carnal mind is at enmity with God.' Throughout, the struggle between democracy and tyranny is discussed as the Founding Fathers who envisioned the Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787 believed not in total democracy, but instead saw common man as selfish and contemptuous, and therefore in need of a 'a good political constitution to control him.' Being a largely propertied body, with the exception of William Few, who was the only one who could honestly be said to represent the majority yeoman farmer class, the highly privileged classes were fearful of granting man his due rights, as the belief that 'man was an unregenerate rebel who has to be controlled' reverberated.
Since its very conception, the Constitution of the United States has while holding great reverence, been a great topic of debate amongst the political scholars left to analyze it in all its ambiguity. Two such scholars, John Roche and Charles Beard, in their analyses of the Constitution aim to tackle a layer of the uncertainty: how democratic the Framers truly intended the Constitution to be. John Roche speaks in unquestionably high regard of the Framers in advocating that they so evidently compromised their own values in order to create a democratic document that would strengthen the US as a whole. Charles Beard conversely insists that as the economic elite of their time, the Framers were influenced primarily by their private interests to
The United States Constitution begins with the simple phrase “We the People”. Yet, with three simple words, the ideology it stands for has shaped the entire country (O’Connor et al., 2011). The short phrase signifies that the document, and thus, the government, is based upon the people themselves. The Constitution reflects the culture and ideologies of its citizens. Similarly, state constitutions reflect the people, albeit in a more specific locality. The key differences between the United States Constitution and that of local states are due to the distinctions between the scope and characteristics of the people they govern.
After the American Revolution, America had earned it’s freedom from Britain. In order to govern this new country the Articles of Confederation was created. This document was flawed by the colonists fear of putting too much power into a central government. Knowing the document needed to be fixed a constitutional convention was called. The document created at this convention has been our constitution ever since. But even the Constitution was meet with criticism. One major concern when writing the constitution was how to protect the citizens rights. The Constitution did this through the preamble, the legislative process, the limit of presidential terms, the judicial branch, and the bill of rights.
The constitution of the UK is very unique compared to the constitutions in other European countries. In this essay, I will talk about the features of the UK constitution, the sources of the constitution and the principles, which guide it. This essay will also include key points about the uncodified nature of the constitution, and the advantages and disadvantages that come along with it. A topic of discussion has been whether or not the uncodified nature of the constitution of the UK should remain the same, or if, it should be codified. I will further discuss these ideas in this essay and highlight the pros and cons from both sides – codified and uncodified.
The Articles of Confederation was America’s first constitution. The Articles of Confederation failed to create a strong central government, however. With the demise of the states in sight, the need for a stronger and more structured central government became apparent. An invitation was sent to all thirteen states in February 1787 by the Confederation Congress to resolve the matter. The events that took place over the next several months would create the United States Constitution. Going down in history as a revolutionary form of government, the U.S. Constitution would give life to a country that is still running strong over 200 years later.
Mays, Kelly. “The Historical Significance of a Raisin in the Sun.” The Norton Introduction to
The constitution was a document that embodies the fundamental laws and principles by which the U.S is governed. The constitution states basic rights for its citizens. Delegates signed the constitution on September 17, 1787. There is a total of 27 constitutional amendments. The reasoning for writing it was for a stronger federal government - legislative, executive and judicial. The constitution was a break with a past of ‘unfair’ taxes, wars and ‘unfair’ treatment.
Darien is a patient who possibly displays comorbidity. His symptoms lead me to believe that he could possibly be diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. Darien’s symptoms that point to OCD are that he has rituals he must complete and if he does not he becomes anxious and is unable to continue with his day. He is however aware that these rituals are not actually helping him but he cannot stop doing them. He also reports feeling anxious most of the day, especially if he cannot perform his rituals, and that he is becoming increasingly more anxious. He is also unable to keep himself from worrying and feeling anxious.
John Dewey and Freidrich Hayek both give compelling accounts of what they view as “free” political association. Hayek gives an account of a state where liberal principles are used and freedom is freedom from the coercion of others; while in contrast Dewey gives an account of a society where both liberal and democratic principles are used and where freedom is much more complex. The difference in the views of Hayek and Dewey on what they perceive to be a free society stems from difference’s they have on liberalism and democracy, freedom, and on the way a “free state” is created. Dewey offers a much more compelling view with his argument that liberalism and democracy cannot be separated, his view of freedom being much more diverse, and his rejection of spontaneous order. This allows for greater interpretation and creates a grey, middle ground that Hayek’s view does not.
Between 1787 and 1791 the Framers of the US Constitution established a system of government upon principles that had been discussed and partially implemented in many countries over the course of several centuries, but never before in such a pure and complete design, which we call a constitutional republic. Since then, the design has often been imitated, but important principles have often been ignored in those imitations, with the result that their governments fall short of being true republics or truly constitutional. The Framers of the Constitution tried very hard to design a system that would not allow any one person or group within the government to gain too much power. Personally, I think they succeeded. In order to guard against what one of the Founding Fathers called an "excess of democracy," the Constitution was built with many ways to limit the government's power. Among these methods were separating the three branches, splitting the legislature so laws are carefully considered, and requiring members of Congress to meet certain criteria to qualify for office. The Founders did leave a few problems along with their system.
Lorraine Hansberry’s play “A Raisin in the Sun” invokes the idea of “anger” and early feminism by expressing the struggles of grasping the American dream during the late 1950s. Characters like Walter Lee and Beneatha Younger symbolize these themes throughout the play. Walter, a husband, and a businessman is struggling to grasp that idea of the American Dream by conveying his authority in the household. However, characters like Beneatha expresses her ideas of becoming a doctor by providing her role of being self-orientated and independent. In many ways, this play initially reads off as an “angry” deposit of the working class family that is struggling to make it in Southside Chicago. Walter often shows what it's like to overcome class inequality, his character is often positioned as an “angry”
The Author of The Jade Peony uses several conflicts to display different kinds of relationships and friendships in the world. Looking back to that time, the political issue was the main reason which caused so much tragedy to happen. People have their own right to find love; the real meaning of love is making life better. This is the message that Wayson Choy wants to tell readers through the novel.
While an uncodified constitution has the advantages of dynamic, adaptability and flexibility to meet the ever-changing needs of the society , it poses much difficulty in pinpointing the ultimate constitutional principle that should provide legitimacy in the British constitution. This results in a battle between two broad schools of thought––political constitutionalism and legal constitutionalism.
The social philosophy of Jurgen Habermas, outstanding philosopher and master dialectician of our time, has an immediate appeal to American philosophers, educated in the history of the Protestant migrations to the New World in search of religious freedom; educated also in the Founding Fathers who drew up a constitution for a modern republic heralded by Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence proclaiming the universality of human equality and natural rights; educated as well in the social philosophy of American pragmatism, in which Enlightenment principles of democracy and science become normative social processes.