Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:41:13.097Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Was James Madison Wrong? Rethinking the American Preference for Short, Framework-Oriented Constitutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Christopher W. Hammons
Christopher W. Hammons*
Affiliation:
Houston Baptist University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

American constitutional thought has long held that short, framework-oriented constitutions last longer than lengthy, statute-oriented constitutions. The longevity of the U.S. Constitution contributes heavily to this assumption. Not surprisingly, political scientists criticize state constitutions for their greater length and tendency to address issues better dealt with through ordinary statute law. These “defects” are frequently cited as responsible for the shorter lifespan of state constitutions. An examination of the 145 constitutions used by the American states since 1776, however, reveals a relationship among content, length, and durability that refutes the assumption that the design of the national constitution is necessarily superior. To the contrary, the analysis here reveals that longer and more detailed design of state constitutions actually enhances rather than reduces their longevity.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 93 , Issue 4 , December 1999 , pp. 837 - 849
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adams, William Paul. 1980. The First American Constitutions. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Antieu, Chester James. 1982. Constitutional Construction. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana.Google Scholar
Blaustein, Albert. 1990. “Contemporary Trends in Constitution-Writing.” In Constitutionalism: The Israeli and American Experiences, ed. Elazar, Daniel J.Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Blossfeld, Hans-Peter; Hamerle, Alfred, and Mayer, Karl Ulrich. 1989. Event History Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Collett, Dave. 1994. Modelling Survival Data in Medical Research. Washington, DC: Chapman & Hall/CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornwell, Elmer E., Goodman, Jay S., and Swanson, Wayne R. 1975. State Constitutional Conventions. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Cox, David Roxbee. 1972. “Regression Models and Life Tables.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Serial B 34 (2): 187–220.Google Scholar
Elazar, Daniel J. 1972. American Federalism. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.Google Scholar
Elazar, Daniel J. 1982. “The Principles and Traditions Underlying State Constitutions.” Publius 12 (Winter): 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elazar, Daniel J. 1990. “Constitution-Making: The Preeminently Political Act.” In Constitutionalism: The Israeli and American Experiences, ed. Elazar, Daniel J.Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Fellman, David. 1960. “What Should a Constitution Contain?” In State Constitutional Revision, ed. Graves, W. Brooke. Chicago: Public Administration Service.Google Scholar
Friedman, Lawrence M. 1988. “State Constitutions in Historical Perspective.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 496 (March): 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves, W. Brooke, ed. 1967. Major Problems in State Constitutional Revision. Chicago: Public Administration Service.Google Scholar
Harrigan, John. 1994. Politics and Policy in States and Communities. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.Google Scholar
Kincaid, John. 1988. “State Constitutions in the Federal System.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 496 (March): 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krippendorff, Klaus. 1980. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Lutz, Donald S. 1982. “The Purposes of American State Constitutions.” Publius 12 (Winter): 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutz, Donald S. 1988. The Origins of American Constitutionalism. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Lutz, Donald S. 1994. “Toward a Theory of Constitutional Amendment.” American Political Science Review 88 (June): 355–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madison, James. [1787] 1865. Letters and Other Writings of James Madison. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott.Google Scholar
Madison, James, Hamilton, Alexander, and Jay, John. [1788] 1990. The Federalist. Ed. Carey, George and McClellan, James. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.Google Scholar
Nagel, Robert F. 1989. Constitutional Cultures. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
National Municipal League. 1968. Model State Constitution. New York: National Municipal League.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam. 1991. Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reform in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutland, Robert A. 1975. “Letter to Thomas Jefferson, Feb. 4, 1790.” The Papers of James Madison, Vol. 13. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Scott, W. A. 1955. “Reliability in Content Analysis: The Case of Nominal Scale Coding.” Public Opinion Quarterly 19 (Fall): 321–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturm, Albert. 1970. Thirty Years of State Constitution-Making: 1938–1968. New York: National Municipal League.Google Scholar
Sturm, Albert. 1982. “The Development of American State Constitutions.” Publius 12 (Winter): 57–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Paul J., and Perry, Barbara A. 1989. Unfounded Fears: Myths and Realities of a Constitutional Convention. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Yamaguchi, Kazuo. 1991. Event History Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.