Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T00:43:11.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutional Design and the Politics of Constitutional Modification: Understanding Amendment Failure in the United States and Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Christopher P. Manfredi
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This article examines the recent failure of formal constitutional amendments in the United States and Canada by closely analyzing the institutional environment in which constitutional modification takes place. I focus first on the instrumental objectives of constitutional reform to develop an institutional design model of constitutional modification and identify the structural factors that affect the level of controversy generated by proposed amendments. I then revisit the failed ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to demonstrate more explicitly how these institutional factors affected the amendment's fate. Finally, I extend the analysis by undertaking a comparative case study of the recent politics of constitutional modification in Canada. In particular, I focus on the failure of comprehensive constitutional change between 1987 and 1992. I argue that the same institutional design model, which focuses on institutional rigidity, interpretive flexibility, and litigation potential, enhances our ability to understand both the U.S. and Canadian cases of amendment failure.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , 1997 , pp. 111 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by The Law and Society Association.

Footnotes

I am grateful for the financial support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. I also thank Michael P. Lusztig and the participants in workshops at McGill University, the University of Calgary, and Iowa State University for their input into the development of this project. Finally, I thank the Review's anonymous referees for their invaluable comments.

References

References

Atcheson, M. Elizabeth, Eberts, Mary, & Symes, Beth (1984) Women and Legal Action: Precedents, Resources and Strategies for the Future. Ottawa: Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.Google Scholar
Berry, Mary Frances (1986) Why ERA Failed: Politics, Women's Rights, and the Amending Process of the Constitution. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Behiels, Michael D., ed. (1989) The Meech Lake Primer: Conflicting Views of the 1987 Constitutional Accord. Ottawa: Univ. of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Boles, Janet K. (1979) The Politics of the Equal Rights Amendment: Conflict and the Decision Process. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Breton, Raymond (1992) Why Meech Failed: Lessons for Canadian Constitutionmaking. Toronto: C. D. Howe Institute.Google Scholar
Brodie, Ian (1996) “The Market For Political Status,” 28 Comparative Politics 253.Google Scholar
Brodsky, Gwen, & Day, Shelagh (1989) Canadian Charter Equality Rights for Women: One Step Forward or Two Steps Back? Ottawa: Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.Google Scholar
Brown, Barbara A., Folk, Gail, Freedman, Ann E., & Emerson, Thomas I. (1971) “The Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women,” 80 Yale Law J. 871.Google Scholar
Cook, Curtis, ed. (1994) Constitutional Predicament: Canada after the Referendum of 1992. Montreal: McGill-Queen's Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberts, Mary (1986) “A Strategy for Equality Litigation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” in Weiler, J. M. & Elliott, R. M., eds., Litigating the Values of a Nation: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Toronto: Carswell.Google Scholar
Eberts, Mary (1989) “The Constitution, The Charter, and the Distinct Society Clause: Why Are Women Being Ignored?” in Behiels 1989.Google Scholar
Freeman, Jo (1975) The Politics of Women's Liberation. New York: David McKay Co.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc (1974) “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change,” 9 Law & Society Rev. 95.Google Scholar
Griffin, Stephen M. (1995) “Constitutionalism in the United States: From Theory to Politics,” in Levinson 1995.Google Scholar
Hausegger, Lori, & Knopff, Rainer (1994) “The Effectiveness of Interest-Group Litigation: An Assessment of LEAF's Participation in Supreme Court Cases.” Presented to Annual Meeting, Canadian Political Science Association, 12–14 June.Google Scholar
Heard, Andrew (1991) Canadian Constitutional Conventions: The Marriage of Law and Politics. Toronto: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Hogg, Peter W. (1992) Constitutional Law of Canada, 3d ed.. Toronto: Carswell.Google Scholar
Holmes, Stephen, & Sunstein, Cass R., (1995) “The Politics of Constitutional Revision in Eastern Europe,” in Levinson 1995.Google Scholar
Kluger, Richard (1977) Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America's Struggle for Equality. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Kome, Penney (1983) The Taking of Twenty-Eight: Women Challenge the Constitution. Toronto: Women's Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Sanford, ed. (1995) Responding to Imperfection: The Theory and Practice of Constitutional Amendment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusztig, Michael (1994) “Constitutional Paralysis: Why Canadian Constitutional Initiatives Are Doomed To Fail,” 27 Canadian J. of Political Science 747.Google Scholar
Lutz, Donald S. (1994) “Toward A Theory of Constitutional Amendment,” 88 American Political Science Rev. 355.Google Scholar
Manfredi, Christopher P. (1993) Judicial Power and the Charter: Canada and the Paradox of Liberal Constitutionalism. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.Google Scholar
Manfredi, Christopher P. (1997) “The Judicialization of Politics: Rights and Public Policy in Canada and the United States,” in Banting, K., Simeon, R., & Hoberg, G., eds., Degrees of Freedom: Canada and the United States in a Changing Global Context. Montreal: McGill-Queen's Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Manfredi, Christopher P., & Lusztig, Michael (1996) “Amendment Overload: The Politics of Constitutional Pluralism.” Presented to Canadian Political Science Association Annual Meeting, 2–4 June.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane (1986) Why We Lost the ERA. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McRoberts, Kenneth, & Monahan, Patrick, eds. (1993) The Charlottetown Accord, the Referendum, and the Future of Canada. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monahan, Patrick (1987) Politics and the Constitution: The Charter, Federalism and the Supreme Court of Canada. Toronto: Carswell/Methuen.Google Scholar
Monahan, Patrick (1991) Meech Lake: The Inside Story. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Morton, F. L., & Allen, Avril (1996) “Feminists and the Courts in Canada: Measuring Interest Group Success.” Presented to American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, 29 Aug.–1 Sept.Google Scholar
O'Brien, David M. (1990) Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics. 2d ed. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Karen (1980) Women's Organizations' Use of the Courts. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Olson, Susan M. (1990) “Interest Group Litigation in Federal District Courts: Beyond the Political Disadvantage Theory,” 52 J. of Politics 854.Google Scholar
Pal, Leslie A. (1993) Interests of State: The Politics of Language, Multiculturalism, and Feminism in Canada. Montreal: McGill-Queen's Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Razack, Sherene (1991) Canadian Feminism and the Law: The Women's Legal Education and Action Fund and the Pursuit of Equality. Toronto: Second Story Press.Google Scholar
Romanow, Roy, Whyte, John, & Leeson, Howard (1984) Canada Notwithstanding: The Making of the Constitution, 1976–1982. Toronto: Carswell/Methuen.Google Scholar
Russell, Peter H. (1987) The Judiciary in Canada: The Third Branch of Government. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.Google Scholar
Russell, Peter H. (1993) Constitutional Odyssey: Can Canadians Be a Sovereign People? Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Scheppele, Kim Lane, & Walker, Jack L. Jr. (1991) “The Litigation Strategies of Interest Groups,” in Jack L. Walker, Jr. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions and Social Movements. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Simeon, Richard (1990) “Why Did the Meech Lake Accord Fail?” in Watts, Ronald L. & Brown, Douglas M., eds., Canada: The State of the Federation, 1990 Kingston, Ont.: Queen's Univ. Institute of Intergovernmental Relations.Google Scholar
Steiner, Gilbert Yale (1985) Constitutional Inequality: The Political Fortunes of the Equal Rights Amendment. Washington: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Tribe, Laurence (1978) American Constitutional Law. Mineola, NY: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George (1990) Nested Games: Rational Choice in Comparative Politics. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
Vickers, Jill, Rankin, Pauline, & Appelle, Christine (1993) Politics as If Women Mattered: A Political Analysis of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vose, Clement E. (1959) Caucasians Only: The Supreme Court, the NAACP, and the Restrictive Covenant Cases. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yale Law Journal (1973) “The Legality of Homosexual Marriage,” 82 Yale Law J. 573.Google Scholar
Yarborough, Tinsley E. (1985) “The Political World of Federal Judges as Managers,” 45 Public Administration Rev. 660.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

A.-G. Manitoba v. A.-G. Canada (Patriation Reference), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753.Google Scholar
A.-G. Quebec v. A.-G. Canada (Quebec Veto Reference), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 793.Google Scholar
Bliss v. A.-G. Canada, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183.Google Scholar
Borowski v. A.-G. Canada, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342.Google Scholar
Brooks v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1224.Google Scholar
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Google Scholar
Edwards v. A.-G. Canada, [1930] A.C. 124.Google Scholar
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973).Google Scholar
Lavell v. A.-G. Canada, [1974] S.C.R. 1349.Google Scholar
Law Society of British Columbia v. Andrews and Kinersley, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143.Google Scholar
Morgentaler, Smoling, & Scott v. R., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30.Google Scholar
R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 474.Google Scholar
R. v. O'Connor (1995), 130 D.L.R. (4th) 235 (SCC).Google Scholar
Reference re Legislative Authority of Parliament to Alter or Replace the Senate, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 54.Google Scholar
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
Schacter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 695.Google Scholar
Seaboyer v. R., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577.Google Scholar
Symes v. Canada, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695.Google Scholar
Thibaudeau v. Canada, (1995) 124 D.LR. (4th) 449 (SCC).Google Scholar
Tremblay v. Daigle, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 552.Google Scholar