John Whyte, the author observes, is committed to the idea that there are moral foundations to Canada's constitutional order and that these foundations are derived from liberal principles. This paper compares Whyte's liberal and organicist constitutionalism to that of the eighteenth century British political thinker, Edmund Burke. Three themes are predominant in Whyte's work: those of liberty and security, unity and diversity, and constitutional change. Drawing out these themes in both Whyte's and Burke's constitutional thought, the author argues that Whyte (...) has a sound historical basis for deriving Canadian constitutional practices from liberal principles ordinarily associated with Burke. The author concludes by asking this question: if Canadian constitutionalism can be reduced to liberalism, what distinguishes Canada from the United States, and more critically, what will prevent Canada from being absorbed into a larger North American political unit? (shrink)

This book provides an important addition to the debate about the nature and normative basis for the United Kingdom's constitutional ordering. It combines a strong argument against moves to adopt forms of "legal constitutionalism" with a defence of the country's existing "political constitution", one sourced in the ideals of republican government. This critical review explores the structure of Tomkins' claims, and raises three questions about how they might apply to certain aspects of the United Kingdom's constitutional order: the place of (...) a republican United Kingdom in an increasingly integrated Europe; the place of the courts in a republican constitutional order; and the role of political parties in a republican parliament. (shrink)

The transformation of international law has provoked a burgeoning literature on various conceptual and normative questions, such as the nature and legitimacy of international authorities. Constitutional and international scholars have so far been attracted to domestic normative theories such as constitutionalism, democratic legitimacy, and the rule of law. This attraction often comes at the expense of a more fundamental and prior question: How best to carry out this normative investigation and which normative theory to put into use in assessing the (...) moral value of international authorities? This “meta-theoretical question” invites us to investigate the methodology of transnational constitutional theorizing by prompting discussions on which normative theory is more suitable for application at the international level. This review article brings into dialogue two recently published books (Sadurski’s Constitutional Public Reason and Mac Amhlaigh’s New Constitutional Horizons) that partially address this meta-theoretical question by prompting us to reflect on how best to conduct transnational constitutional theorizing. (shrink)