Modern constitutionalism is supported by the principle that national constitutions have supreme authority in their respective states. In practice, it obliges governmental authorities to abide by constitutional norms in each of their decisions and acts. For citizens, the principle means that they must generally accept and comply with governmental decisions if they are constitutional. Moreover, many constitutions are conceived as long-lasting laws and are therefore supposed to survive many generations. But what are the appropriate reasons for upholding (or questioning) the force and authority of a national constitution? This question has two main aspects. First, the content of the constitution: the quality and kind of norms that it contains. Second, constitutionmaking: the process that yielded the current constitution.
During the compact seminar, we will focus on the second aspect, namely, constitution making. We will discuss whether the democratic character of constitution making procedures is a necessary reason to ground the authority of a constitution. That requires engaging with the sub-question of what makes such a process democratic or undemocratic. It will be seen that the answer depends on the stringency of the definition of democracy one uses. The discussion will elicit reflection about well-known cases. Was the US Constitution enacted democratically? How much power should minorities be granted for a constitutionmaking process to be democratic? Is a constitution democratically given if it the process started with a coup but then the text was ratified by citizens? Can the undemocratic character of a constituting process be amended in the future? With the contribution of the participants, many more examples will be considered.- Kursleiter/in: Marco Antonio Toche Zevallos