We the People, Volume 1: Foundations

We the People #1

by Bruce Ackerman

Bruce Ackerman offers a sweeping reinterpretation of our nation’s constitutional experience and its promise for the future. Integrating themes from American history, political science, and philosophy, We the People confronts the past, present, and future of popular sovereignty in America. Only this distinguished scholar could present such an insightful view of the role of the Supreme Court. Rejecting arguments of judicial activists, proceduralists, and neoconservatives, Ackerman proposes a new model of judicial interpretation that would synthesize the constitutional contributions of many generations into a coherent whole. The author ranges from examining the origins of the dualist tradition in the Federalist Papers to reflecting upon recent, historic constitutional decisions. The latest revolutions in civil rights, and the right to privacy, are integrated into the fabric of constitutionalism. Today’s Constitution can best be seen as the product of three great exercises in popular sovereignty, led by the Founding Federalists in the 1780s, the Reconstruction Republicans in the 1860s, and the New Deal Democrats in the 1930s.

Ackerman examines the roles played during each of these periods by the Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. He shows that Americans have built a distinctive type of constitutional democracy, unlike any prevailing in Europe. It is a dualist democracy, characterized by its continuing effort to distinguish between two kinds of normal politics, in which organized interest groups try to influence democratically elected representatives; and constitutional politics, in which the mass of citizens mobilize to debate matters of fundamental principle. Although American history is dominated by normal politics, our tradition places a higher value on mobilized efforts to gain the consent of the people to new governing principles. In a dualist democracy, the rare triumphs of constitutional politics determine the course of normal politics.

More than a decade in the making, and the first of three volumes, We the People, Volume 1: Foundations speaks to all who seek to renew and redefine our civic commitments in the decades ahead.

Genres: Law, History, American History, Philosophy, Academic, Nonfiction, Politics

432 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1991

Reviews

[Sathyanarayanan D · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a student came across Bruce Ackerman with Princeton University's prescribed reading list on Public Law. Started with We the People Foundations - Volume I. It totally makes sense. It explains as to who has the legitimacy to play and settle Doctrines in Constitutional Thought and Politics - The Politicians? The Supreme Court? or The Private Citizens? Bruce separates Higher Law making from regular Legislation. He deprecates the Europeanization of American Constitutional Thought and practice, because it does not reflect the experience of Americans and it is also unsuitable for the Polity of America. The prose of Bruce is remarkably simple and comprehensible to an ordinary citizen. This is clearly written by keeping in mind the regular American Citizen. The argument is that since the founding there has been serious breaks from the Original Position in Constitution - like Civil War, New Deal and Republican Reconstruction. All changes to the American Constitution after such breaks are essentially called as Higher Law Making, this is to differentiate the regular legislation from Higher Law making. The Judiciary has always been sitting on the fence, otherwise there is no explanation of perpetuation of Racism through its judgements. The central theme is that as long as there is no active participation of American People in effecting a constitutional change, "We the People" will always be used by an articulate politician who would resort to that term for his personal interest. The Concept of Dualist democracy and Higher Law making must be read together. Bruce explains what ticks Private Citizen. There is a good chapter on Private Citizens and what makes them feel that it is worthwhile their involvement in movements for constitutional changes. What has been the reaction of Supreme Court to Higher Law Making, has been clearly explained in this work. All in all it is a great scholarship. If a student of Public Law skips this book from his reading, then he is missing a lot. There are two more volumes in this series and I have to lay my hands on it. Though I have some mild objections to the way Bruce attempts to convince his fellow Americans that though the founding fathers talked about loft ideals, they have been talking only with Christian White Males in their minds. But still it is not a reason to either hate or reject the American Constitution. Only because of the Framework provided in the founding document by founding fathers the emancipation of Blacks was possible. After all, Bruce is an American Patriot, that is exactly what he would say. But, in my view it is only partially true. In fact the combination of efforts of "True Liberals" in white population in America and the combined suffering of Blacks have ushered in the Higher Law making and grand Constitutional Changes.
On to Volume 2 - Transformations now.

[Mauni · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lucky enough to have studied under him at Yale. The big idea here is that we (Americans) should forego European models of governance, whether it be the British "monist" system or the German "foundationalist" system. Monism emphasizes popular sovereignty over and against fundamental rights, and thus tends to equate popular sovereignty with parliamentary supremacy on a British model. Rights foundationalism challenges the primacy of popular sovereignty, stressing constraints imposed by deeper commitments to fundamental rights on a German model.. (No Nazi signs, for example. This wouldn't survive a 1st A. challenge stateside..)

Ackerman admonishes the academy for turning to Europe and suggests we look inward to rediscover our distinctive constitutional scheme - dualist democracy. Dualism distinguishes between the constituent power of We the People, expressed in the higher law of the Constitution, and the ordinary power of officers of government, expressed in the ordinary law of legislation. Dualism preserves, against encroachment by ordinary law, the fundamental rights ordained and established by We the People in the higher law.

Ackerman argues that our dualist democracy has undergone three great constitutional "moments" of higher lawmaking: the Founding, Reconstruction, and the New Deal. On his view, the criteria for legitimate constitutional revision are not limited to the formal rules prescribed in Article V, but include the criteria elaborated in his five-stage model of constitutional transformation that are premised on the Founding precedent (see pauline maier on ratification) and other great precedents in our constitutional history (most importantly, Reconstruction and the New Deal).

There is lots of history in this book, some political science, a little philosophy-but these interdisciplinary excursions are in the service of a constitutional enterprise: ...If Americans wish to revise their Constitution, what are the legal alternatives they may legitimately pursue? A must for applied historians of the constitutional type.

[Zahreen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Prof. Ackerman, and I am not the first one to say this, is one of the best constitutional scholars in the country - and he proves this in his book series, which I have been able to read as part of his class. These books are both easy to read, but still provide challenging material to think about - and he provides an ideal narrative behind his living constitution theory. Even though I am reading this for a class, I would definitely recommend picking up this book just to read for pleasure, because it's that enjoyable to read.

[Chris K · Rating 4 out of 5]

Essential for any student of the American Constitution, but the last third or so, when the author's argument becomes less descriptive, grounded in the literature and in history, and more prescriptive, is a real chore. You could skip Chapters 9 and 10, and even a lot of the concluding chapter, and close the book much more satisfied with the experience. Maybe those chapters are important segues to the later volumes, I can't say.

[Leonardo]

Bruce Ackerman propone una periodización de los tres primeros regímenes o fases de la historia constitucional de Estados Unidos. en particular pp. 58-80.

Imperio Pág.128

[Rick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great insight into all of the thinking behind the thinking about what went into our Constitutional foundation.

[Ben · Rating 3 out of 5]

http://terrafirma.typepad.com/my-blog...