Carl Schmitt, the Arbitrary Character of Constituent Power, and the Tradition of European Public Law

In this comment, I engage with Chapter 3 of Lucia Rubinelli's book, which is an essential contribution to the study of constituent power in the Weimar Republic and the reception of this idea in the work of the controversial jurist Carl Schmitt (1888-1985). My thoughts are organized into two sections. In the first, I summarize Rubinelli's reading of Schmitt’s understanding of constituent power in Weimar. My main criticism concerns Rubinelli’s reading of the arbitrary character of constituent power in Schmitt, which in my view insufficiently reflects Schmitt's distinction between dictatorship and despotism. In the second part, I turn to the historical transition of constituent power that Rubinelli detects between the 19th-century French lawyers and the Weimar Republic. I point out that there is a missing link in Rubinelli's history of Schmitt's constituent power: the dialogue between the languages of German state theory (Staatslehre) and French public law (Droit Public) in the early 20th century.

Extinguishing the Burning Embers: Rubinelli on Sieyès

The research question of 'Constituent Power. A History' is framed in the book‘s introduction as a critical mission in intellectual history, as Rubinelli identifies a major confusion in recent works on the historiography of political thought. A small industry has sprung up in recent years to backdate the advent of constituent power to the middle ages and even to antiquity. Authors claim to have discovered an employment of the concept in texts dating back to before the term became historically available in Emmanuel Sieyès. Rubinelli is surely right to castigate the anachromisms involved, and referring to Aristotle, Marsilius or Machiavelli, Bodin, Spinoza or Hobbes as early adapters to a timeless concept of constituent power seems misguided, but perhaps for other than her stated methodological reason, that we need to attend to the usage of the term because there is no determinate and stable concept of constituent power.

Constituent Power: A Symposium – Introduction

Lucia Rubinelli’s book Constituent Power. A History (Cambridge 2020) is a major contribution to democratic thought, in both method and substance. This Verfassungsblog symposium in the context of the Hamburg DFG-funded project „Reclaiming Constituent Power“ (319145390) arises from a shared interest in the subject matter of the book, the democratic reading of the fundamental lawmaking power of the people, as well as from a shared interest in the authors identified as relevant. The comments are devoted to the successive chapters of the book, on Emmanuel Sieyès (Peter Niesen on chap. 1), on French droit publique and Carl Schmitt (Carlos Perez on chap. 2-3), on the post-WW II lawyers such as Mortati and Böckenförde (Markus Patberg on chap. 4), and on Hannah Arendt (Esther Lea Neuhann on chap. 5).

No Benefit of Hindsight

Austria is currently in the midst of a second hard lockdown. This move came after a somewhat carefree summertime that ended rather chaotic. Since then, the government has reacted late, the public was informed at short notice, coordination of the administration was poor and the enacted legislation and enforcement of measures are constitutionally problematic.

The BBC and Henry VIII’s Heirs

Once again, the BBC is under pressure. Once again, the British Government is briefing hostile newspapers about how both it, and its sister public service broadcaster, Channel 4, are in the firing line. Once again, dark clouds gather over its future, which has been called into question. The licence fee, the hypothecated tax that provides the corporation with its revenue, has been under threat in the past, but this time, it’s proved the lightning rod for more dissent, with a citizen’s campaign to defund the BBC. How did we get here? Where should we go? Where will we go?

Ein Schnellschuss ins rechte Seitenaus

Wenige Tage nach dem Anschlag von Wien am 2. November hat die österreichische Bundesregierung die Leitlinien eines Anti-Terror-Pakets präsentiert. Zwar hätte der Anschlag auch schon mit den derzeitigen juristischen Möglichkeiten zur Überwachung von Gefährder*innen verhindert werden können. Aber ungeachtet dessen sollen im Eilzugstempo (geplant noch im Dezember 2020) rechtliche Verschärfungen beschlossen werden, die massiv in Grund- und Freiheitsrechte eingreifen. Mit einer vernunftgeleiteten Kriminalpolitik, die auch in solchen Zeiten mit Bedacht reagiert und sich nicht vom Boulevard treiben lässt, haben diese Pläne nichts zu tun.

Was verlangen Parlamentsvorbehalt und Bestimmtheitsgebot?

Die Bundesregierung hat einen Gesetzentwurf präsentiert, der die Rechtsgrundlagen der Corona-Schutzmaßnahmen im IfSG präzisieren soll. Der Entwurf wird dem Problem der nicht ausreichenden Rechtsgrundlagen, das seit Monaten bekannt ist, nicht ansatzweise gerecht. Wird er in der jetzigen Form verabschiedet, besteht vielmehr die Gefahr, dass die Verwaltungsgerichte die Änderungen als nicht ausreichend erachten.

Pitfalls of a Precious Opportunity

After forty years, Chile recently expressed the will to no longer being governed by the Constitution bequeathed by Pinochet. And it did so in a resounding manner through a plebiscite. The path that will lead to the election of the Constitutional Convention and then the drafting of the new Constitution seems to be exciting: we are observing how a genuine constituent moment is unfolding. However, the importance of the social question coupled with the new constitution carries the risk of over-constitutionalisation and the lack of leadership in the constitutional process could diminish its perception of legitimacy.

Die Mär vom »Kriegskabinett«

Werden wir von einem „Kriegskabinett“ regiert? Die gestrige Regierungserklärung der Kanzlerin wurde von massiven Zwischenrufen begleitet. In Reaktion darauf betonte der Bundestagspräsident, das am Vortag durchgeführte Treffen zwischen der Kanzlerin und den MinisterpräsidentInnen sei im Grundgesetz so vorgesehen. Das ist natürlich weder richtig noch falsch.

Filling the Power Vacuum

Massive protests broke out after the Kyrgyz parliamentary elections on October 4, 2020. What unfolded in the aftermath is a political saga that nobody could have expected. At the moment, Sadyr Japarov, a convicted criminal, is acting as president and prime minister and moving forward with a number of unconstitutional initiatives. They could erase all positive achievements that Kyrgyzstan was able to reach in the course of the last fifteen years.