Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Common Good Constitutionalism and Constitutional Design: Continuity and Evolution in Vermeule’s Thought
|
Wednesday, July 06, 2022
Common Good Constitutionalism and Constitutional Design: Continuity and Evolution in Vermeule’s Thought
Guest Blogger
For the Balkinization symposium on Adrian Vermeule, Common Good Constitutionalism (Polity Press 2022). I have not been shy about my enthusiasm for the revival of the classical tradition in public law thought. It will come as no surprise,
then, that I regard Professor Vermeule’s Common Good Constitutionalism (Polity
2022) as one of the most important works of legal theory of the last
several decades. I say this by way of justification for the approach I
am going to take with my contribution, which is to not focus on the book as a
standalone work. I will avoid doing this as I think it would be profoundly
boring for the readers of the blog if I were to merely register agreement with
the book’s premises and the application of the classical tradition to core questions
of public law. Instead, I think it would be more interesting to try
and set this work within Vermeule’s broader public law corpus. I want to offer
a brief constructive interpretation of Vermeule’s thought on constitutional
design by putting his previous work on these issues in conversation with his recent
embrace of the classical legal tradition so prominently on display in Common
Good Constitutionalism. What emerges, I suggest, is a picture of both
evolution and, perhaps more interestingly, striking continuity. Vermeule on Constitutional Design Pre-Common Good
Constitutionalism A central strand running through Vermeule’s work has
been critique for a certain mode of thinking about constitutional design, one
he dubbed ‘precautionary constitutionalism’. Namely, the view that the main or primary purpose of
constitutionalism is to prevent, or minimize to a large degree, the risk public
power will be abused, and that the priorities of constitutional designers and
regulators should flow accordingly. One objection advanced by Vermeule was that this way
of thinking could cause severe tunnel vision about a whole range of other risks,
that are closely linked to the extent a state is hamstrung in its ability to
project public power. For example, focusing on curbing the risks of state
abuses of power can lead to comparative neglect of preventing abuses of private
power that can come from being hurt or subordinated by market forces or
employment exploitation, and the vagaries of ill-health, poverty, and
pollution. Vermeule suggested proponents of precautionary constitutionalism had
a blind spot for how legal power can be seriously abused by individuals and corporations
using common law or constitutional rights to things like property and contract
– often enforceable via Courts - to impede the human flourishing of others. A related objection, advanced in the Constitution of Risk, Publius Paradox, and Law’s Abnegation is that seriously hamstringing the state’s power to respond
robustly to social and economic issues of great concern to the polity, based on
a fear it will otherwise act in an abusive fashion, threatens sparking
impatience and contempt for constitutional institutions perceived as a
chokepoint to effective political action, risking demand for extraconstitutional
Caesarism. Much
of Vermeule’s work also emphasised the inevitably high degree of choice permeating
decisions about interpretive method. From early on, Vermeule consistently argued
that there is nothing legal interpretation just is that self-evidently
flowed from the enterprise of trying to faithfully interpret posited law.
Rather, choices must be made and defended at both a highly theoretical level -
about the aims or ends of interpretation – and subsequently at a more retail
level about the kind of doctrine rules and tools that best conduce to securing
these ends. Courts, said Vermeule, must “choose
interpretive doctrines on largely empirical grounds, under
conditions of severe empirical uncertainty, often without the luxury of
postponing their decisions.” In terms of his positive treatment of constitutional
design questions, Vermeule advocated for an optimizing approach, one that approached designing rules and allocating
authority following fulsome and rounded assessment of the risks and harms both
avoided, and exacerbated by, different constitutional rules. For Vermeule, such
an analysis generally yielded the rule of thumb that constitutionalism should
be treated like a “loosely-fitting garment, giving government ample
powers adaptable to the vicissitudes of future crises” and stream of unpredictable events facing
contemporary polity’s. More specifically, in works like Law and the Limits of Reason, The Executive Unbound and Law’s Abnegation he defended a combination of a robust
executive-led administrative state that would drive policymaking, a legislature
with considerable authority over constitutional interpretation, and a modest
judiciary geared to policing the outer bounds of executive and
legislative authority. Vermeule
defended this
configuration in polity’s like the United States (amongst others) on the basis
that without an evolution to executive-centred government, a state’s capacity
to regulate socio-economic life, and respond flexibly to policy issues for the
general welfare and public interest, would be seriously dented. The impressive expansion of the administrative state
and its discretionary authority represented, in Vermeule’s eyes, a reasonable
and non-myopic set of political/legal judgments about how to best ensure
constitutional institutions remained aptly structured to pursue the general
welfare. For
Vermeule, judges should play a modest reviewing role over legislation and
agency action, because of their relative institutional unsuitability for
competently subjecting the work of the political branches to searching reasonableness review, or
second-guessing the trade-offs between values like legality, technocratic
competence, and democratic accountability that these actors make when
issuing ordinances. Much of
Vermeule’s prescriptions for the judicial role were rooted in skepticism about
how far their institutional capacities could be stretched when reviewing
political branch action. In respect of authority to interpret statutes for
instance, Vermeule advocated for judicial deference to agency interpretation of
statutes and regulations where they are ambiguous, based on institutional
arguments about the “specialized competence and relative
accountability” of executive-supervised
agencies relative to courts. When taking a first cut at interpretation, he
urged judges to opt for doctrines, rules, presumptions and canons that reduced
the risk of legal uncertainty and litigation, which for Vermeule cashed out in
a tentative defence of a formalist presumptive rule-bound textualism, and
rejection of more capacious purposive approaches. When it came to constitutional
interpretation, Vermeule’s preference
was that judges adopt a disposition of Thayerian deference to Congress. In
other words, that they should reserve to themselves a relatively modest, but
still important, role in policing the outer bounds of congressional
interpretive authority by curbing clearly mistaken or bad faith interpretations
of the Constitution. Here, Vermeule argued that legislators’ advantages in “numbers, professional
diversity, intra-institutional specialization, and sheer information” make them better suited for having the primary say
over the interpretation of vague, open-ended, and deeply morally laden text
than a small group of professionally homogenous, epistemically constrained, and
unelected lawyers. Statutes
encoding interpretive choices about the Constitution should, for these reasons,
receive judicial deference whenever the Constitution is vague, general,
aspirational, or ambiguous, which Vermeule accepted was frequently. Embracing the Classical Tradition: Continuity and
Evolution Vermeule’s
rich constitutional critiques and insights were accompanied by a measure of
ambiguity about his own ultimate normative commitments. To be sure, Vermeule’s
antipathy to classical liberalism and libertarianism were plain to see for a
long time, given his frequent references to the importance of governmental
pursuit of “welfare” and the “public interest”, and the importance of the
provision of goods conducive to these ends such poverty relief,
healthcare, labour rights, environmentalism, social security, and consumer
protection. It was these same ends Vermeule considered structurally ill-served
by a constitutional system with a weak executive, modest administrative state,
powerful Courts, and policy-driving legislature. But aside from a clear
commitment to positive constitutionalism and a high-level communitarian concern
for the general welfare, the precise normative yardstick Vermeule measured his
constitutional insights against remained somewhat under-determinate. That is,
until his embrace of the classical legal tradition. Aristotle observed in his Politics that he who would “duly inquire about the best form
of state ought first to determine which is the most eligible life; while this
remains uncertain the best form of the state must also be uncertain”. In Common
Good Constitutional Vermeule offered his most emphatic account yet of the “most
eligible” form of political life by embracing an Aristotelian-Thomist
understanding of the purpose of law and political authority. For Vermeule,
the ultimate genuinely common good of political life is the happiness and
flourishing of the community, the well-ordered life in the polis. It is the
structural political, economic, and social conditions which allow communities
to secure the genuine human flourishing of its members. It is not the sum of subjective
individual goods, nor a utilitarian view of the general welfare, but the
indivisible good of a community enjoying goods of peace, good order, and
justice that belongs jointly to all and severally to each and are not
diminished in being shared (pp. 7-15). Vermeule now regards all posited law as
part of a wider juridical ordering of the polity to the common good. In the classical legal tradition law is
understood, as St Thomas Aquinas famously framed it, as an ordinance of reason promulgated by political authorities for
the common good. To count as law in this
focal sense, a posited law of a public authority must rationally conduce to the
good of the community for which the lawmaker has a duty and privilege of care. The natural law offers a skeleton law to communities
which determines what posited arrangements are just and right, but to enjoy
concrete existence it requires the sinew, flesh, and muscle provided by
positive law enacted through human creativity and discretion. This is what
Aquinas dubs “determination”, a process whereby a political community specifies
how to respect the open-ended and broad precepts of natural law and to promote
human flourishing prudently in light of concrete circumstances and needs (pp. 9-11). Even with this new normative core at the
heart of his work, it is interesting to note the high level of continuity present
in Common Good Constitutionalism. For example, in some respects,
Vermeule’s embrace of the natural law tradition has only subtlety impacted his basic approach to legal
interpretation in a large run of scenarios. As noted, Vermeule previously
argued for a form of formalist rule bound textualism due to its conduciveness
to goods of political morality linked to legal stability and predictability. A flavor
of this argument remains in Common Good Constitutionalism. The classical tradition entirely accepts
that legal interpretation will not involve all-things-considered moral
arguments from first principles by all officials. Vermeule accepts that
technical interpretive rules and standards which channel and constrain legal
interpretation – for example forms of textualism or judicial deference to
reasonable agency interpretations of law – are entirely consistent with the
classical tradition. Echoing his previous arguments on interpretive choice, Vermeule
argues that classical lawyers should regard interpretive rules as determinations
justified through appeals to goods of political morality internal to law
which conduce to the common good when adhered to by political authorities. On
this basis, Vermeule continues to argue a presumptive form of textualism may be
justified, for the ordinary run of easy cases, by appeal to goods like
stability, predictability, and respect for legitimate authority. Another continuity is that Vermeule continues to caution
against myopia in constitutional design. Design
of constitutional institutions and the allocation of authority between and
among them in any given polity will be within a wide scope of reasonable
determination (pp.9-11). Such decisions should ideally follow what
Vermeule and I refer to in Myths of Common Good Constitutionalism as “painstaking and non-myopic analysis of the
tradeoffs between different political risks” that different
institutional structures entail, and which form is most apt for securing the
constitutive conditions of the common good in a particular polity. Yet
another element of continuity is that Vermeule continues to argue that there
are forms of constitutional ordering – centered on robust executive government
– that are likely to be particularly prudent and conducive to pursuing
the common good under contemporary socio-economic conditions in polities like
the United States. For Vermeule, the core advantage of an executive-led separation of
powers, above other ways of allocating authority, is that it can allow the
executive to better infuse the technocratic work of the administrative state with an explicit
political vision oriented to the common good, aligning its extensive regulatory
outputs to goals conducive to this end. In other words, the political executive is the actor best placed (over
judges or legislators) to steer the potent capacity of contemporary
administrative states - their welter of adjudicative, advisory, rulemaking, and
investigative powers - toward valuable ends of peace, justice, and abundance. The
largest evolution in Vermeule’s constitutional thought is perhaps the
significant modification he makes to his approach to constitutional and
statutory interpretation in respect of hard cases. While Vermeule remains
agnostic to the allocation of interpretive authority between constitutional actors,
he is emphatic that whatever stripe of official is engaged in
interpretation, must recognize that principles of ius and political
morality can never be entirely excluded from interpretation of legal
materials. Common Good Constitutionalism demonstrates (pp.75-76) a
considerable loss of belief in the possibility of complete formalism in legal
interpretation, and greater appreciation of the Thomistic insight that the
limits of lawmaker’s foresight may require recourse to ius in unusual
cases to ensure posited ordinances remain reasoned and oriented to the common
good. While a form of presumptive
textualism may be suitable for a great run of cases, there will inevitably be
questions about the proper meaning of lex where it is ambiguous, can be
read at multiple levels of generality, or where on a plain meaning would not
track the common good and thus misfire as a reasoned ordinance. For Vermeule, in
such cases posited law – statutes and constitutional text – ought to be
harmonized with background general principles of natural law themselves ipso
jure part of the legal system (respect for life, health, the family,
solidarity, subsidiarity etc) where at all possible. Conclusion Vermeule’s embrace of the classical legal tradition
has not entailed a repudiation of the core thrust of much of his previous public
law works. Instead, Common Good Constitutionalism is better read as both
providing a retroactive coherence - a compelling narrative arc and unifying
thread - to his arguments concerning constitutional design and, from the
perspective of a natural lawyer at least, a far more robust normative anchor. Conor Casey is an Assistant Professor at the
University of Liverpool School of Law & Social Justice. Conor can be
reached at conor.casey@liverpool.ac.uk.
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |