论文部分内容阅读
“自由的”与“政治的”立宪主义之争的一个显著特征是它的精英取向。法院与立法机关常被讨论，目的是确定各自在宪法生成与变革过程中的恰当角色。但这项工作经常被视为一种零和游戏。虽然可以声称，公民与这种权力斗争毫不相关，但对于公民是否应该以及如何可能在宪法的创制中扮演直接角色的详细阐发，即便有过的话，也很少摆在台面上。讨论了这种争论的精英取向，质疑这种争论在规范的措辞上是否可接受，在经验的措辞上是否可信，特别是当人们考虑到，过去30年间在诸多国家，全民公投已经成为宪法变革的一种重要机制。“,”One notable feature about the debate between“liberal” and“political” constitutionalism has been its elite focus.The courts and the legislature are discussed in efforts to determine the appropriate role of each in processes of constitution-framing and changing.But this task is often set up implicitly as a zero-sum game.Although it might be claimed that citizens are tangentially relevant to this power struggle, a detailed account of whether citizens should, and how they might, play a direct role in constitutional authorship is seldom, if ever, placed on the table.This paper considers the elite orientation of this debate, questioning whether this is in normative terms acceptable, and in empiri-cal terms credible, particularly as we consider how, over the past three decades, the referendum has emerged as an important vehicle for constitutional change in so many states.