Skip Navigation


International Journal of Constitutional Law Advance Access originally published online on October 7, 2009
International Journal of Constitutional Law 2009 7(4):683-714; doi:10.1093/icon/mop024
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
7/4/683    most recent
mop024v2
mop024v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kuo, M.-S.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Oxford University Press and New York University School of Law. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Cutting the Gordian knot of legitimacy theory? An anatomy of Frank Michelman's presentist critique of constitutional authorship

Ming-Sung Kuo*

* Visiting researcher, Yale Law School


   Abstract

The question of legitimacy occupies center stage in debates on various constitutional developments. For as long as constitutional scholars cannot settle on a theory of legitimacy, the specter of a legitimacy deficit will continue to haunt the practitioners of constitutional law. Constitutional scholar Frank Michelman engages different schools of constitutional theory, seeking the definitive answer to the legitimacy question. He classifies theories of legitimacy into three categories, premised on notions of contract, acceptance, or authorship. Arguing that contract-based and acceptance-oriented legitimacy theories assume the notion of authorship, he distinguishes constitutional authorship in terms of its presumed transtemporal character and abandons it because of this character. To cut this Gordian knot, Michelman proposes a presentist view of legitimacy. Through an analysis of his theoretical engagement, this article argues that his effort to abandon authorship-based theories fails. A commonly chosen, authoritative dispute-settling institution, in line with Michelman's presentist alternative, cannot stand without assuming a transtemporal concept of constitutional authorship. Thus the Gordian knot remains.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.