Ackerman's Constitutional Moments: Legitimate Amendments

Bruce Ackerman's theory of constitutional moments posits that significant constitutional changes occur during periods of heightened concern and deliberation about the Constitution, facilitated by popular sovereignty and critical dialogues about national identity and governance. These moments can lead to constitutional amendments without following the textually prescribed procedures outlined in Article V. Ackerman's framework challenges the notion of substantial continuity in American constitutional history, acknowledging informal constitutional transformations that carry the same weight as written amendments. While some critics argue that constitutional moments lack the certainty and indicia of quality conferred by the amendment process, Ackerman's theory highlights the role of judges in interpreting the Constitution and synthesizing its various amendments and moments.

Explore related products

Constitutional Revolution

$11.2 $72

Comparative Administrative Law: Second Edition (Research Handbooks in Comparative Law series)

$82.45 $407

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $14.95

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

The Constitution of the United States: And All Its Amendments

$6.97 $6.97

Constitutional Amendments: Making, Breaking, and Changing Constitutions

$92.7 $130

Ackerman's theory of constitutional moments is one of many alternatives to originalism

Originalism is a legal theory in the United States that bases constitutional, judicial, and statutory interpretation of text on the original understanding at the time of its adoption. Originalists believe that the constitutional text should be interpreted according to the original public meaning that it would have had when it became law. This meaning can be discerned from dictionaries, grammar books, and other legal documents. Originalism emerged in the 1980s and has significantly influenced American legal culture, practice, and academia. Jurist Robert Bork proposed the first modern theory of originalism in his 1971 law review article, "Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems".

In contrast, Bruce Ackerman, a prominent student of comparative constitutionalism, offers an alternative theory of constitutional interpretation with his concept of "constitutional moments". Ackerman's theory acknowledges that America's constitutional development has undergone significant and dramatic changes that seem to have occurred outside the formally prescribed procedures for amendment. These "constitutional moments" are transitional periods marked by a unique pattern of interaction between America's governing institutions and the public. Ackerman argues that these moments represent a practical response to the limited capacity of citizens in a modern democracy to engage in democratic self-government. He suggests that it is only during these moments that the American people have truly spoken, and they offer a path out of the countermajoritarian objection to judicial review.

Another alternative perspective to originalism is offered by Justice William Brennan, who rejected the idea that the original intent of the Founding Fathers was discernible, claiming that the text could only be understood in present terms. Similarly, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, a frequent critic of conservative originalism, argues that some aspects of the constitution were intentionally broad and vague to allow for future generations to interpret them. These alternative theories highlight the evolving nature of constitutional interpretation and the ongoing debate between originalism and more dynamic approaches.

Legality is a sufficient criterion for legitimacy, according to Ackerman

Bruce Ackerman, a renowned constitutional law professor at Yale Law School, has proposed a unique theory of "constitutional moments". This theory offers an alternative perspective to originalism, suggesting that the Constitution can be changed without strictly adhering to Article V, the traditional amendment process. Ackerman identifies three constitutional moments in American history: the country's founding, Reconstruction, and the New Deal.

Ackerman's theory of constitutional moments is based on the concept of higher lawmaking, which recognises that constitutional change can occur through processes other than formal amendment. During these moments of heightened concern and deliberation about the Constitution, the requirements of higher lawmaking were met, providing a legal basis for legitimation. Ackerman's model has attracted significant attention, with some critics questioning its descriptive accuracy and normative desirability.

According to Ackerman, legality is a sufficient criterion for legitimacy. This means that any constitutional change brought about without following legal procedures would be considered illegitimate. He worries that accepting the revolutionary and extralegal nature of regime changes during Reconstruction and the New Deal could undermine the legitimacy of those transformations. Ackerman's concern extends to the potential illegitimacy of entire constitutional regimes launched during moments of gross illegality.

Ackerman's interpretation of constitutional moments as constitutional failures highlights his agenda for constitutional design. He emphasises the indispensable role of rules governing constitutional amendment in ensuring the legitimacy and stability of a constitutional order. The absence of such rules or their excessive complexity could pose a threat to the survival of a constitutional system. Thus, Ackerman's theory grapples with the challenges posed by illegal constitutional change and its implications for the legitimacy of the American constitutional order.

In conclusion, Ackerman's assertion that legality is a sufficient criterion for legitimacy underscores his belief in the primacy of legal procedures in effecting constitutional change. By acknowledging the impact of major constitutional "moments," he highlights the delicate balance between legality and legitimacy in shaping the constitutional landscape.

Ackerman's model has been criticised for its descriptive accuracy and normative desirability

Bruce Ackerman, a professor of constitutional law at Yale Law School, has developed a theory of "constitutional moments". This theory suggests that the Constitution can be legitimately amended outside of the textually prescribed procedures for constitutional amendment, such as Article V. Ackerman identifies periods of heightened concern and deliberation about the Constitution, where one political party proposes enactments of statutes that are not permitted by the current interpretation of the Constitution. If the people then vote this party into power and the opposition party acquiesces when they come to power, the Constitution has effectively been changed without going through the official amendment process.

In addition, it is unclear why a constitutional moment should have a binding force equivalent to the Constitution when circumstances change and the Court must determine the constitutionality of new statutes. For example, in the case of Shelby County, Ackerman's theory does not account for changed circumstances between the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 2006, which are relevant to determining the constitutionality of new statutes. Furthermore, some critics argue that the greatest problem for African Americans after Reconstruction was not that the Reconstruction Amendments were inadequate but that they were not enforced according to their original meaning to protect equal voting rights and civil rights.

Despite these criticisms, Ackerman's model offers a valuable contribution to the field of constitutional theory. By reframing constitutional theory to account for illegal constitutional change, Ackerman poses important questions about why and how it has occurred and what challenges it presents for the legitimacy of the contemporary American constitutional order. His theory also has practical applications, as demonstrated by the example of a student who successfully used the Ackerman Model to negotiate a rent cut with their landlord.

Explore related products

The Pocket Size Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights: Including the Declaration of Independence, All Amendments, Historical Timeline, Index, and Glossary

$9.99 $9.99

The U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights with Amendments: Pocket Size (Annotated)

$7.49

The People’s Constitution: 200 Years, 27 Amendments, and the Promise of a More Perfect Union

$18.4 $45

The Constitution of the United States of America, Extended Edition: A Complete Reference Guide with Detailed Explanations of the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights

$29.99 $19.99

The Constitutional Amendments: 1789 To the Present

$136.39 $149

The U.S. Constitution for Everyone: Features All 27 Amendments (Perigee Book)

$11 $24

Ackerman's theory justifies the transformation of federal government powers during the New Deal

Bruce Ackerman, a renowned constitutional law professor at Yale Law School, offers a unique perspective on the nation's constitutional evolution and its implications for the future. His most notable contribution is the concept of "constitutional moments," which challenges traditional interpretations of how the Constitution can be amended.

Ackerman's theory of constitutional moments recognises that the Constitution is not static but rather evolves through periods of heightened concern and deliberation, such as the New Deal. During these moments, the interpretation and application of constitutional principles undergo significant transformations.

The New Deal, implemented during the Great Depression, marked a significant expansion of federal government powers. It involved the enactment of various economic and social programs aimed at addressing the nation's pressing challenges. Ackerman's theory justifies this transformation of federal government powers during the New Deal by recognising it as a legitimate constitutional moment.

Ackerman's argument centres around the idea that constitutional moments are characterised by a self-conscious understanding of higher lawmaking. In other words, citizens and institutional actors recognise that they are engaging in a process of constitutional amendment, even if it falls outside the traditional amendment process outlined in Article V. This higher lawmaking system, according to Ackerman, provides a legal basis for legitimising the changes brought about during the New Deal.

However, Ackerman's theory has faced significant criticism. Some argue that it fails to provide the same certainty and indicia of quality as the formal amendment process. Additionally, there is a concern that accepting the revolutionary nature of constitutional moments, such as the New Deal, could undermine the legitimacy of the changes themselves. This is because Ackerman views legality as a crucial criterion for legitimacy, and constitutional moments are characterised by their extralegal nature.

Despite the criticisms, Ackerman's theory offers a novel interpretation of constitutional change and encourages a nuanced understanding of the relationship between popular sovereignty and constitutional evolution.

Ackerman's reinterpretation of constitutional moments furthers his agenda for constitutional design

Bruce Ackerman, a prominent constitutional law professor, offers a unique perspective on America's constitutional evolution. His theory of "constitutional moments" suggests that significant constitutional changes can occur outside the formal amendment process, driven by popular sovereignty and critical dialogues about national identity and governance. Ackerman identifies three pivotal periods in American history—the 1780s, 1860s, and 1930s—when constitutional transformations took place without adhering to prescribed procedures. Ackerman's reinterpretation of these constitutional moments is integral to his agenda for constitutional design, challenging the notion of substantial continuity in American constitutional history.

Ackerman's agenda for constitutional design revolves around synthesizing various layers and periods of constitutional law. He argues that judges must interpret the Constitution while considering the impact of amendments and major constitutional moments. By acknowledging the dynamic nature of constitutional interpretation, Ackerman's agenda emphasizes the importance of adapting to changing circumstances. This reinterpretation of constitutional moments highlights the role of citizen mobilization and their engagement in fundamental debates, marking a departure from traditional elite-driven constitutional changes.

The concept of "signaling" in Ackerman's theory underscores the role of popular movements in demanding scrutiny and proposing constitutional reforms. This idea challenges the exclusivity of Article V as the sole means of constitutional amendment. Ackerman's reinterpretation of constitutional moments, therefore, legitimizes alternative paths to constitutional change, provided they are backed by popular sovereignty and critical national dialogues. This aspect of his agenda promotes a more inclusive and responsive constitutional design process.

Ackerman's work also integrates themes from American history, political science, and philosophy, offering a nuanced understanding of popular sovereignty. By examining the roles of Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court during constitutional moments, Ackerman showcases how Americans have forged a unique form of constitutional democracy. This reinterpretation underscores the value Americans place on gaining the consent of the people for new governing principles, even if it deviates from established amendment procedures.

Furthermore, Ackerman's reinterpretation of constitutional moments extends beyond American borders, finding relevance in other geographical contexts, including the European Union. This cross-contextual applicability suggests that his agenda for constitutional design has broader implications for understanding and shaping democratic processes globally. Ackerman's work invites a critical examination of the relationship between constitutional moments, populism, and the dual nature of constitutional democracy as both a threat and a legitimizing force.

Frequently asked questions