Thomas Jefferson and the Living Constitution

Brennan, Timothy A

doi:10.1086/690947

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…12 Still, Madison saw stability as leading (rightly) to veneration, whereas Jefferson saw frequent updating as leading (rightly) to greater perceived legitimacy—and it is this tension between Madisonian “veneration” and Jeffersonian “legitimacy” that we explore. Both cared deeply about constitutions and how those constitutions would be seen by the public, but each man emphasized different paths for the documents to gain the respect of the people, a point that has sometimes been obscured in people’s rush to condemn Jefferson’s plans for revised documents, plans that probably should be taken more seriously (Brennan, 2017).…”

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lutz (1994) applauds states’ flexible procedures: “Any people who believe in constitutionalism will amend their constitution when needed, as opposed to using extraconstitutional means” (p. 357) like judicial reinterpretation. And as Brennan (2017) reminds us, states indeed rely less than the federal government on extraconstitutional judicial interpretation precisely because they provide workable amendment procedures.…”

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring and Manipulating Constitutional Evaluations in the States: Legitimacy Versus Veneration

Brown

Pope

2018

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

American civil religion places the U.S. Constitution on a pedestal. Although this veneration is well-documented, it is unclear where it originates and why other constitutions do not attract the same reverence. We develop a measure of constitutional respect and conduct a randomized survey experiment testing whether new information can change respondents’ evaluations of their state or national constitutions. We find that people do respond to new information about state constitutions, but not to information about the national document, suggesting that Americans view the U.S. Constitution with the sort of veneration and reverence James Madison advocated, while viewing their state constitutions through a more Jeffersonian lens of legitimacy, one that favors continually revising these constitutions to meet the living generation’s needs.

show abstract

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring and Manipulating Constitutional Evaluations in the States: Legitimacy Versus Veneration

Brown

Pope

2018

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While these studies suggest several factors that influence an individual's specific support, none incorporate a constitution's susceptibility to change into their modeling -and none directly aim to explore a constitution's diffuse support (loyalty). Legal scholars and political theorists, meantime, have debated the merits of periodic conventions and explored their internal organizations, initiating referenda, and outputs, but there have been no empirical studies examining the law's (or a constitution's) susceptibility to change and how that awareness influences individuals' support (for a discussion, see Brennan 2017). This dissertation seeks to fill the gaps.…”

Section: Why This Mattersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Jefferson, meantime, advocated for periodic conventions as a means for succeeding generations to conduct "periodic repairs" and consciously reevaluate the status quo every generation (or every 19 years by his calculation). Thus, by holding periodic conventions to scrutinize the Constitution, Jefferson believed future generations can give explicit consent by affirmatively endorsing the status quo, revising the social contract, and/or redressing suboptimal institutions (Brennan 2017;Levinson 2012).…”

Section: Periodic Conventions and Constitutional Loyalty: A Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Periodic Conventions in Generating and Undermining Constitutional Loyalty

Lorentz

2019

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much like raising a child, a dissertation takes a village. I would like to thank my villagers, as it were, whom offered various kinds of support and assistance during this long process. First, I owe a great deal of gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Brady Baybeck, and my dissertation committee members: Dr. Mary Herring, Dr. Jeff Grynaviski, and Professor Justin Long. Each provided thoughtful commentary and mentoring from the prospectus through the defense that not only improved this dissertation but also made me a better scholar. In particular, Dr. Baybeck's constant guidance helped me stay focused, and his words of encouragement were often the way out of seemingly dead-ends. He embodies the traits that every mentee wants in a mentor, and I am ever thankful he agreed to see me through this journey. Second, I want to thank my family, who have provided immeasurable love and support my entire graduate career. My parents, Judy and Kevin, Sr., never gave up on me, and their faith and encouragement have been the fuel that finished this dissertation. My sister, Amanda, played the role of constant cheerleader well, as every little sibling should aspire to. Last, but certainly not least, the love of my life, Dr. Nicholas Timmer, who was my constant companion during my trials-both good and bad. His love and support have meant the world to me and make finishing this journey all the merrier. Third, to my friends, whose support have been critical over the past several years. Many of you served as sounding boards for ideas and, more commonly, frustrations and fears. When I needed encouragement, insights, or just someone to slack off with, you all went above and beyond. While I cannot list you all here, I want to particularly thank Rebecca Idzikowski, Kim Saks-McManaway, Sylvia Gancheva, Cody Melcher, and Connor Sutton. iv Finally, I want to thank my political science colleagues and mentors here at Wayne State University and elsewhere. Numerous professors deserve special recognition for taking me under their wings and molding me into the scholar I am today, especially Drs. Erik Trump, Julie Keil, Cherie Strachan, and Mary Herring. I also want to extend my deepest thanks to the Wayne State University political science faculty, graduate teaching assistants, and students who welcomed me into their classes, providing me with the data I needed to finish this project. Without you, this dissertation would never have gotten off the ground. v TABLE OF CONTENTS

show abstract

“…Failure to update the U.S. Constitution has kept it silent on many major issues—privacy, abortion, assault weapons, transgender rights, electronic surveillance, antiterrorist interrogation techniques, campaign contributions, corporate personhood—forcing the U.S. Supreme Court to work out how an 18th-century document relates to twenty-first-century problems. We can hardly wonder, then, that the U.S. Constitution—updated far less frequently than any state constitution—inspires such vigorous debate between those who favor a living approach and those who favor an originalist or textualist approach (Brennan 2017).…”

Section: Theory and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Constitutional Features in Judicial Review

Brown

2018

State Politics Policy Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

American state constitutions vary tremendously in their length, amendment rate, and age. These three variables—especially the first two—strongly influence the rate at which state supreme courts strike down state actions for violating the state constitution. Longer, more detailed constitutions reduce policy flexibility, increasing judicial invalidations; rarely updated constitutions may fail to address modern concerns, increasing invalidations; and recently adopted constitutions may contain fragile logrolls and similar shortcomings, also increasing invalidations. These findings add new considerations to a rich literature on judicial review in state supreme courts.

show abstract

Thomas Jefferson and the Living Constitution

Cited by 3 publications

References 16 publications

Measuring and Manipulating Constitutional Evaluations in the States: Legitimacy Versus Veneration

Measuring and Manipulating Constitutional Evaluations in the States: Legitimacy Versus Veneration

The Role of Periodic Conventions in Generating and Undermining Constitutional Loyalty

The Role of Constitutional Features in Judicial Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About