Dear Ruth,
Yes and no:
>do you think that
>there is a meaningful distinction to be made in your convesations about
>states between consitutitional and non-consitutional geo-political schemas
>in D and G?.
I'm not really going to be saying "D&G say", but its a good place to start?
Constitutions are very important Order Word documents? Though we can easily
see that it does not have to have a Constitition to be a state, it is harder
to see that tribes and packs also have "constitutions", and that every
state, "Constitutional" or not, has a "constitution". Def(?): A Constitution
is a written set of foundational laws. What is writing? Where is the
writing? The question of archewriting and the matter of the full body is
abosultely pertinent to the sort of socius we are looking at, but does not
help us very much with 'what is a Constitution" unless we say "Only
Civilized societies can have a Constitution (because it must be written in
ink on paper, and sealed by the legitimate govenment of the land, who must
be civilized institutions). But even here we get blurry. A Constitution is
also written into the land itself, and into the flesh of those who dwell
there. Barbarians typically record their constitution in the body of the
monarch. high barbarians on the verge of "republicanism" record it in a
second, ghostly body, that symbolizes the continuity of national sovereignty
(cf. *The Queen's Two Bodies*). So where's the full body of money that can
let us say: "Our constitution is written in money not in blood. Money =
number? Is the full body of money symbolized in the people of the republic
(shudder!)? The civilized constitution rides above the people, even as it
dwells in the "hearts of men" by which we mean *orders the psyche with the
duties of citizenship uppermost*. It is written on paper, not on land or
bodies? In the Roman alphabet, not in savage rites, etc." Constitution (ME),
from "constitutio" (L). 1. The act of constututing. 2. The action of
decreeance, law or regulation; spec. in Roman law. 5a. The physical nature
or character of the body in regard to healthiness, strength, vitality,
vigor, etc. 6. The mode in which a state is organized (1610). 7. The system
or body of fundamental principles according to which a state , or body
politic, is constituted and governed (1735). How can we talk of
constitutions, without, as Machiavelli rightly does, speaking of Rome?
Why does Machiavelli say that the Roman Constitution was the best: that it
is best, like Rome, to have a Constitution and that the Roman Constitution
was the best Constitution? Because it guaranteed that the plebs would have
the power to appoint their Tribune who would have the legal right to act
saveguard the liberties of the plebs, enabling civil war to be shunted into
protest and heated debate, and tending to create a system where the plebs
will fight the enemies of Rome instead of the Roman aristocrats or the Roman
Emperor. So what if Machiavelli was wrong in detail? That's what Machiavelli
says. And he does defend his view by way of modern "historical" arguments.
In any case, the ideal is there: division of powers promoting liberty and
hence organic state functionality. This pressages Locke, and hence
Jefferson, and hence the American Constitution, which - since USA is the New
Rome - is now the standard with or against which all civilized Constitutions
must be written or judged.
A consitution does have to lay down its aggregate of
>destination in an explicit way and would seem to be the target of critique
>in AO.
Yes. Because of the teleology? You are undoubtedly most correct! But also
because of the territorialization implicit in the Order Words (and that
teleology)?
The Uk by contrast has no constitution, the people are still,
>technically, monarchial subjects and get compulsory religious education
>instead of politics. Nevertheless, political sovereignty doesn't lie with
>the monarchy but with the manifesto of whichever gov gets in. While there
>is
>no consitution, each plays to underlying pre-existing assumptions of what
>'englishness' is imagined to be which seems everybit as amenable to
>critique
>as a written document ( I'm refering to Benerdict Anderson's work on
>imagined communtites here)
You might be aware that here in Oz we recently had a referendum in which the
Ozzies voted to keep the Queen as Head of State. Prior to that we had a
"Constitutional Conference" in which the various parties and lobbies
proposed and counterproposed and eventually popped out a half-formed
quasimodel for an Australian Constitution. Then John Howard, the right
dishonorable, and Les - I'm an Ozzie and proud - Murray wrote a "draft
Preamble" (that should have been rejected on aesthetic grounds alone). Now
that big deal was whther the Preamble - which has no legal force - should
pay lip service to Aboriginal stuff (prior occupancy, traditional
stewardship of the land, ancient traditions, etc.). my feeling is that a
modern nation should be conscious enough not to have a preamble. Just make
the "right" laws and keep your sublated ideological crap out of my face. I
mean either make geographical zones of absolute Aboriginal sovereignty or
admit that you are hypocrites. This empty lip service is insulting. The
other big issue (supposedly), which should not have been an issue, given
that the proposed head of state that the draft constitition suggests has NO
significant legal powers (unkile our present Governor General), was that
this top-hat-on-a-body is to be elected by 66% majority of the lower house,
not by general plebescite. Personally, I think if you are going to elect an
effigy, you may as well do it as cheaply as possible (and 66% of the lower
house looks pretty conservative). But the people, bless them all (salt of
the earth) said ***NO to the "Politician's Republic"*** probably because:
1. They really love the Queen but are afraid to admit it (so they used the
*participatory democracy rhetoric* as a hide for their monarchical
jingoism).
2. They do not understand that this "President" will NOT have the powers of
Governor General (this IMPORTANT POINT has been curiously overlooked in our
media).
3. They want to play elections: its a fun game.
4. They are too dim to see that what they think of as *participatory
democrtacy* (i.e. voting on a "leader") is NOT participatory democracy.
5. They do not like being told that they are stupid, which is what those who
supported the 66% of elected pollies will appoint Mr Hat (or Mrs Hat)
because it looked like *Elitism* (they think we'll elect kylie Minogue) and
the Ozzie larrikinism - thanx to its Celtic origins (ha ha) will not brook
"Elitism" (we are the Egalitarian country of the "Fair Go").
But to the more interesting issue. Does Common Law count as a de facto
constitition? Like the brain itself, where does the "Constitition" stop.
What's the status of a Charter? These are all tricky legal problems and
quite impossible to deal with as philosophical problems?
What is the status of a warband that says: "It is written"? Or one that
says: "The king, descended of the god, must have uncut hair" (Merovingian
tribal law). Or one that says a person of moiety x cannot do y. These do not
seem to us to be "Constitutions" (or even "written")? But what else are
they? How can we think about the importance of having a constitution per
stable government qua Machiavelli if we do not deny that the savages (or the
British, for that matter, whose government looks conservativa dnd hence
stable?) have a "Constitution". The ozzie politicians and demogogues who
went to the Constitutional Convention, like Machiavelli, saw having a
Constitition as an important guarantor of certain powers and rights and thus
a promotor of stable government. Leave it aside that they only disscussed
how to make Mr Hat and DID NOT WANT a Lockean division of powers between Mr
Hat and the Prime Minister & his/her crew. Leave it aside that the Ozzie
voter votes Democrats in the Senate because they are so dim as to want to
load the whole principle of division of powers onto a swing-voting Senate
(failing to understand that there is a big difference between the way the
chess pieces happen to be deployed at any given moment and the rules of
Chess as laid out by our illustious foreparents). I am, in the end, led to
suspect that Constitutions are worth having if you are in a condition of
instabliity or crisis. Constitutions that make radical changes always come
out of wars? But the Constitution made in peace is redundant, because you
are not in crisis, and that's why you can make this conservative document of
self-congratualtion. What sort of drumbeating force must be applied to make
a Constitution in crisis so that it will last, written as it is in the blood
of patriots? On the other hand, here in Oz, what sort of wheedling force
must be applied so as to squirm a document of diminished freedom past the
voters and make it law?
So I am in two minds. Hence my "yes and no". On one hand I can hardly
understand what a Constitution is (even in terms of what it does) with
respect to pointong to those who "aint got one". On the other hand I am
still led to feel that Machiavelli (and Locke, et al.) have a sound point.
Sorry I could not be more help.
:) Chris
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com
