On Tuesday 24 March at 3.00pm in the Neil MacCormick Room (ground floor, Old College) Dr Brian Christopher Jones, Postdoctoral researcher, Institutum Iurisprudentiae, Academia Sinica, Taiwan, will give a talk to mark the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, titled:
‘Preliminary Warnings on ‘Constitutional’ Idolatry’
Prof. Chris Himsworth, Professor Emeritus of Administrative Law at Edinburgh Law School, will provide some brief commentary as discussant, followed by open Q&A.
All are welcome
Abstract: Contemporary societies covet the notion of a written constitution. Yet should Britain choose to draft one, can I offer this important suggestion: please, call it anything but a “Constitution”. This statement is only slightly made in jest; in fact, it is quite serious. Constitutional fetishism, constitutional worship or “constitutional idolatry”, as Michael Klarman refers to it, is nothing to take lightly. While there has been a copious amount of commentary on the prospects and potential form of a UK written constitution, in addition to its history and evolution, the possibility of constitutional fetishism or constitutional idolatry becoming a significant factor throughout the citizenry, in the political arena, and especially in constitutional review and adjudication, appears to have been left out of the discussion. This is unfortunate, because the enactment of a codified Constitution will have an impact upon all these aspects in one way or another, and the potential development of some form of constitutional worship should be further discussed and debated before any action is taken.
Although it is acknowledged that enacting any type of foundational document, whatever called, encompasses particular implications, this piece contends that attaching the word “constitution” to a foundational document enhances such consequences, leading to a more distinctive “constitutional” fetishism. Difficulties arise because over centuries the word “constitution” has evolved from a largely structure-based meaning into a widely expansive symbolic meaning. Beyond merely delineating the structure of a state, the word now carries a variety of connotations. Some see it as the ultimate illustration of “we the people” popular sovereignty or as a vindication of the rule of law, while others see it as the completion or ultimate formation of a state or a government. Indeed contemporary constitutions, and especially Constitutions, serve highly symbolic functions that can manifest into significant issues for law, politics and the wider democratic state. Nowadays the word “constitution” is often used as a legal, political, and psychological truncheon: it has been employed to have ordinary documents masquerade as constitutions, been brazenly used to hollow out jurisdiction, and also been applied to have legislators think in legal, as opposed to political, terms. Given some of the rhetoric in the UK surrounding the possibility of a written constitution coming into being (i.e., “A New Magna Carta”, “Constitution Carnival”), this article concentrates on a few acute examples of “constitutional” fetishism the US is currently grappling with; problems which could become substantially more relevant if a founding British document is enacted.