Michigan and popular constitutionalism

[RJLipkin at aol.com]

In a message dated 11/10/2006 8:44:14 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
marty.lederman at comcast.net writes:

Scott rights:  "popular constitutionalists  are now trying to distort popular 
constitutionalism b/c they aren't happy  with the popular constitutionalism 
of the people of  Michigan."



I'm not sure to whom  Marty is referring, but any principled popular 
constitutionalist, as any  principle democrat generally, must acknowledge the 
possibility that a popular  constitutional event--referendum, etc.--might result in a 
decision which a  particular popular constitutionalist abhors, even that such 
a  decision constitutes constitutional evil from the perspective of a  
particular popular constitutionalist. The possibility, even the inevitability,  of 
losing in a diverse society where reasonable disagreement--due to the burdens  
of judgment as well as other factors--is always present even for, perhaps  
especially for, the popular constitutionalist.
 
        Popular constitutionalism,  as I understand stand it, does not mean 
that popular constitutionalists cannot  disagree about particular substantive 
results. It just means that in the end the  result that prevails should be 
generated by a certain process.
 
Bobby

Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener  University School of Law
Delaware
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20061110/2efe1fab/attachment.htm