How the Constitution stopped being an experiment

 Corey Brettschneider's The Presidents and the People is fundamentally a book about how Americans come to understand their own democracy. The Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams offer the clearest early illustration, and to me, it exposed that the American constitutional order is not a fixed inheritance but a paradigm, one that gets revised precisely when it is most threatened.

When Adams signed the Sedition Act, there was no settled constitutional consensus that prohibited it. The legal architecture we now take for granted—robust First Amendment protections, the illegitimacy of suppressing political opposition—did not exist as codified doctrine. What changed was not the text of the Constitution but the American people's understanding of what it meant and demanded. Thomas Cooper, prosecuted under the act, "Despite losing [his case,]... succeeded in his wider ambitions" (41). Cooper and the editors who rallied around him were the budding of America's first constitutional constituency, fighting not just for an acquittal but for popular sovereignty as the source of presidential power such that the people's rights cannot be brushed aside in the name of presidential dignity.

Before the Adams crisis, American democracy was an experiment—a new institutional form whose durability was unknown. Jefferson's election and the repudiation of the Sedition Act demonstrated that the model could survive authoritarian overreach, and in surviving, what had been a provisional political arrangement hardened into something approaching an American political ideology grounded in the constitution. The constitutional principles Americans treat as self-evident today—that political speech cannot be criminalized, that opposition cannot be silenced by the state, or even that the constitution is the foundation of American political life—were not inherited but produced and shaped by the very crises that forced them to be defended. Jefferson believed judges held no monopoly on constitutional meaning; the citizens, through the sedition trials, "showed that the constitution was there to interpret" (48).

This is a bottom up approach to constitutional change. Constitutional democratic constituencies work not because elites graciously extend rights downward, but because people—mobilized around convictions they already hold—force those convictions into institutional recognition. The editors covering Cooper's trial built a public norm so entrenched that Jefferson could not renew the Sedition Act even had he wanted to; "despite Jefferson's private inclinations, the public norms his supporters had helped instantiate in the nation's conscience made it unthinkable" (62).

The Alien and Sedition crisis illustrates a pattern running through Brettschneider's account. American democracy survives because people fight for it, and in fighting, they remake what it means.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We're all separate but equal

During my tutorial with Dylan yesterday, he brought up the SCOTUS case Brown vs. Board of Education in our discussion of a minimal state. Whilst reading Marx, I realized that both the legal implication (state according rights to individuals) and the societal implication (abolishment of the 'separate but equal' doctrine) of the case are relevant to the claims Marx is making.  Marx delineates between two societies -- political and civil -- and further between the two lives one leads in each -- public and private. In a political society, man is entitled to the liberties given to him by the state, and considers himself a member of a functional community. Marx hints at the mirage of political society, writing that man is “the imaginary member of an imaginary sovereignty, divested of his real, individual life, and infused with an unreal universality” (34). In such a society, he leads a public life, one in which the state can establish political equality by abolishing “the distinctio...
Read more

What Brettschneider Ought to Admit: Democracy Is Substantive

Although Corey Brettschneider presents his value theory of democracy as a third way between pure proceduralism and outcome-based accounts, his framework collapses into substantivism. Despite insisting that democracy cannot be reduced to “procedure-independent evaluations of outcomes,”(2) he explicitly grounds democratic legitimacy in substantive rights that “limit those policy outcomes that would fail to respect citizens as rulers.” (20). Legitimacy therefore hinges not merely on fair participation but on conformity to three independently specified values—equality of interests, political autonomy, and reciprocity. These values operate as external normative standards against which democratic decisions are judged. Brettschneider treats policies such as ex post facto laws or vote buying as democratically illegitimate regardless of procedural authorization, making clear that outcomes remain subject to direct moral assessment. This is not procedural democracy supplemented by rights; it is ...
Read more

'Enough and as Good' for Whom?

 Both Hobbes and Locke describe a state of nature grounded in equality and natural law. Yet, they reach sharply different conclusions about property. Hobbes denies any possibility of owning property in the state of nature. Locke, by contrast, argues that individuals may aquire private property prior to any government by mixing their labor with common resources. By allowing pre-political appropriation, Locke commits himself to moral constraints on ownership.  Locke introduces these limits through two provisos. The Spoiling proviso requires that an individual only claim ownership over land/natural resources to what one can use before it spoils, critizicing waste as a violation of natural law: "Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy" (21). To me, this limit is relatively clear and intuitive.  More demanding, however, is Locke's second proviso, claiming that appropriation is only legitimate if "enough, and as good" is left in common for others. At first...
Read more