Constitutional Directives: Morally‐Committed Political Constitutionalism

Tarunabh Khaitan
{"title":"Constitutional Directives: Morally‐Committed Political Constitutionalism","authors":"Tarunabh Khaitan","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12423","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"About 37 state constitutions around the world feature non‐justiciable thick moral commitments (‘constitutional directives’). These directives typically oblige the state to redistribute income and wealth, guarantee social minimums, or forge a religious or secular identity for the state. They have largely been ignored in a constitutional scholarship defined by its obsession with the legitimacy of judicial review and hostility to constitutionalising thick moral commitments other than basic rights. This article presents constitutional directives as obligatory telic norms, addressed primarily to the political state, which constitutionalise thick moral objectives. Their full realisation—through increasingly sophisticated mechanisms designed to ensure their political enforcement—is deferred to a future date. They are weakly contrajudicative in that these duties are not directly enforced by courts. Functionally, they help shape the discourse over a state's constitutional identity, and regulate its political and judicial organs. Properly understood, they are a key tool to realise a morally‐committed conception of political constitutionalism.","PeriodicalId":142986,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law eJournal","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Private Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12423","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

About 37 state constitutions around the world feature non‐justiciable thick moral commitments (‘constitutional directives’). These directives typically oblige the state to redistribute income and wealth, guarantee social minimums, or forge a religious or secular identity for the state. They have largely been ignored in a constitutional scholarship defined by its obsession with the legitimacy of judicial review and hostility to constitutionalising thick moral commitments other than basic rights. This article presents constitutional directives as obligatory telic norms, addressed primarily to the political state, which constitutionalise thick moral objectives. Their full realisation—through increasingly sophisticated mechanisms designed to ensure their political enforcement—is deferred to a future date. They are weakly contrajudicative in that these duties are not directly enforced by courts. Functionally, they help shape the discourse over a state's constitutional identity, and regulate its political and judicial organs. Properly understood, they are a key tool to realise a morally‐committed conception of political constitutionalism.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
宪法指令:道德上承诺的政治宪政
世界上大约有37个州的宪法以非可诉性的道德承诺(宪法指令)为特征。这些指令通常要求国家重新分配收入和财富,保障社会最低标准,或为国家建立宗教或世俗身份。它们在很大程度上被宪法学术所忽视,其定义是执迷于司法审查的合法性,敌视将厚重的道德承诺(而非基本权利)宪法化。本文将宪法指令视为强制性的telic规范,主要针对政治国家,将厚重的道德目标宪法化。通过旨在确保其政治执行的日益复杂的机制,将其充分实现推迟到未来的日期。由于这些义务不是由法院直接执行的,因此它们的矛盾性很弱。在功能上,它们有助于塑造关于国家宪法认同的话语,并规范其政治和司法机构。正确理解,它们是实现政治宪政的道德承诺概念的关键工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Disability, Reasonable Accommodation and the Employer's Obligations: Nano Nagle School V Daly ‘Reasonable Offers’ as a Defence to Unfair Prejudice Petitions: Prescott v Potamianos The Problematic Development of the Stalking Protection Order Equal Civil Partnerships, Discrimination and the Indulgence of Time: R (on the Application of Steinfeld and Keidan) V Secretary of State for International Development Reason‐Giving in Administrative Law: Where are We and Why Have the Courts Not Embraced the ‘General Common Law Duty to Give Reasons’?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1