Constitutionalism of the United States has been defined as a complex of ideas, attitudes and patterns elaborating the principle that the authority of government derives from the people, and is limited by a body of fundamental law. These ideas, attitudes and patterns, according to one analyst, derive from "a dynamic political and historical ...
Constitutionalism has prescriptive and descriptive uses. Law...
- Core features
One of the most salient features of constitutionalism is...
Constitutionalism. Constitutionalism is a form of political thought and action that seeks to prevent tyranny including worst result of majority rule and to guarantee the liberty and rights of individuals. Constitutionalism is the conduct of politics in accordance with a constitution. From the eighteenth century the essential element in modern ...
Constitutionalism in the United States is a basic value espoused by political parties, activist groups and individuals across a wide range of the political spectrum, that the powers of federal, state and local governments are limited by the Constitution of the United States and that the civil and political rights of citizens should not be violated.
People also ask
What are the important features of constitutionalism?
What does constitutionalize mean?
What is subnational constitutionalism?
What are examples of unconstitutional laws in the US?
Wiki-constitutionalism is a neologism coined by political analyst Daniel Lansberg-Rodriguez in a 2010 article for The New Republic.The term describes the phenomenon in which national governments, particularly in Latin America, rewrite their constitutions completely every few years, a habit which Lansberg-Rodriguez argues usually leads to overly strengthened executives as other branches of ...
New constitutionalism is derived from the classical neo-liberalism framework and represents a set of political policies that promote a new global order. The goal of new constitutionalism is to separate the democratic and economic practices by shifting economic aims from the regional and national level to the global level through constitutional framework. The purpose of this shift is to create global supremacy and promote a free capitalist system. Central ideas of neoliberalism have been advanced
New constitutionalism formed in the 1980s as the result of a growing world order and the “worldwide market revolution.” The end of the Cold War represented an ideological shift and the need for transformation. This shift was reiterated by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher declaring the depletion of socialism and the rise of conservatism and liberalism. As society progressed it allowed for the evolution of capital mobility, transnational corporation and the expansion of the world market ...
There are four main policies to define new constitutionalism. The first represents the development of a constitutional structure for the global market that dictates the public, private and international powers. These international economic agreements or “constitutions” resemble political constitutions and thus ensure sovereignty. The economic power is being shifted from the national to the international as well as from the public to the private to provide growth and sustainability ...
At the global and regional level institutions are implementing the new constitutionalism framework to advance global governance by upholding the rights of private corporations and promoting a free capitalist society. These institutions policies will ensure economic growth at the global level.
Focus at the global level has resulted in hostility between the public and private realms within nation states. This hostility creates a political struggle between the private sector who safeguard the rights of capital and the public who want to control capitalism politically, democracy and socially. The control is being denationalized and delocalized causing negative repercussions at state level. New constitutionalism lacks political will and can have detrimental effects to global dignity and f
- Eastern Europe
- Adjustments Made on July 16, 2008
- Technical Edits on Dec 11, 2008
- Legicentrism vs. Constitutionalism
- Use in Book
- Biased Article
- Typographical Error
I think this article would be improved by a section or paragraph at least on Eastern Europe or other communist states, all of which had or have constitutions which certainly did not prevent governments acting arbritrarily against their own populations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this word has much currency. I've been reading the New York Times (editorial and op ed), the Wall St. Journal, the Economist, and any number of other pages for decades and I've never heard of "constitutionalists" before the quixotic Ron Paul campaign broke out. It seems to me to be an extension of "strict constructionist"
New to this site! Little C or big C! PubliusDaughter03:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC) I don't believe that it is accurate to have a header "Poland" when the text concerns Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It's even a bit discriminative. --Gytisz (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I edited the constitutionalism entry to move a July 14 change made to the article. The paragraph that was added on the 14th, appeared to propound a prescriptive understanding of constitutionalism. It might be better to place that paragrpah under the heading of Examples of Prescriptive Use of constitutionalism. It would be more useful to a reader to have the general definitions of constitutionalism, as it existed before the July 14 entry. I also sought to add to in this revised version of the entry, supplementing the explanation so as to remove any feared "ambiguity" in the statement of the general concept. It would seems that to use as the first introductory item a rather specific (and not verified) explanation of constitutionalism might do the reader a disservice. In any event, I think that the moved paragraph, which is now located under the Examples of Prescriptive Use of Constitutionalism, should be verified by citation to a reliable source in compliance with Wikipedia policy. I...
I made a number of edits more of a technical nature: First, I struck a reference to Brazilian "Constitutionalist Revolution" that was at the top of the page. Except for using a derivation of the term "constitutional" there is no indication in the materials cross-referenced that the revolution concerned principles of constitutionalism - ideas, attitudes, and patterns of behavior elaborating the principle that the authority of government derives from and is limited by a body of fundamental law -- rather than the movement to adopt a specific constitution. Second, I restored what would today be considered a misspelling. The article quotes historian Gordon S. Wood. Wood was quoting various pamphlets in teh 1790s about the nature of constitutions. The original source Wood quoted referred to the constitution as a "sett of fundamental rules." A later editor edited the term "sett" with what is the appropriate spelling today, "set." Because the passage is quoting the original 1790s text, I re...
Some legal theorists have posited that the opposite of constituionalism is called legicentrism, since it focuses on the rule of law instead of the corporate and evolving functioning of the State. One of the reasons that constitutionalism became more influential after WW2 was aparently because legicentrism made it much easier for authoritarian regimes to remain in power. ADM (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Much of this article has been reproduced in the book now listed at the top of the page, which also copies considerably from Bureaucracy. See Talk:Bureaucracy for more detail. --Moonriddengirl (talk)18:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I just edited the main article because I found a problem in the definition of "American Constitutionalism." It says something about "kuta," which can't possibly be right. I don't know how to report a problem, so I'm just trying to bring someone's attention to this false information. Also, I don't know the actual definition, otherwise I would put it there. Now someone seems to have fixed the error. Thank you to whomever it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
This article reeks of right wing conservative fanaticism. It belongs in the dust heap of garbage. This is sickening how radical trolls are able to steal and dictate new meanings to words in order to promote their political agenda. -- Calif.DonTracy (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the Criticisms section which begins "Constitutions are not just about retraining and limiting power". I believe "retraining" is a typo; that it should read "restraining". I would fix it myself, but here at work my IP address is blocked from editing. Mark Hagerman (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)