The Lockean Constitution: Separation of Powers and the Limits of Prerogative

David Jenkins
{"title":"The Lockean Constitution: Separation of Powers and the Limits of Prerogative","authors":"David Jenkins","doi":"10.7202/1005132AR","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the post-9/11 era, many legal scholars have advanced theories of constitutional law that make allowance for unreviewable discretionary decision making by the executive branch, particularly in the context of the “war on terror”. Drawing on Lockean constitutional theory for normative support, the author develops an alternative constitutional model that addresses the problem of discretionary executive power. Locke’s constitution divides political power between the executive and the legislature, with the latter checking and balancing the former. Both the executive and the legislature have a fiduciary trust to act for the public good. Locke closely links the public good and the constitution such that any breach of the constitution is per se a breach of the public good. Therefore, unreviewable decision making by the executive always violates its trust because it is a breach of the constitution. After setting out Locke’s theory of separation of powers, the author presents a modified model that makes the judiciary, in addition to the legislature, responsible for the accountability of executive decision makers. Although the executive retains its prerogative power, it must always remain accountable to the legislature and the courts, even in emergencies.","PeriodicalId":284892,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: Constitutions eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Institutions: Constitutions eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7202/1005132AR","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

In the post-9/11 era, many legal scholars have advanced theories of constitutional law that make allowance for unreviewable discretionary decision making by the executive branch, particularly in the context of the “war on terror”. Drawing on Lockean constitutional theory for normative support, the author develops an alternative constitutional model that addresses the problem of discretionary executive power. Locke’s constitution divides political power between the executive and the legislature, with the latter checking and balancing the former. Both the executive and the legislature have a fiduciary trust to act for the public good. Locke closely links the public good and the constitution such that any breach of the constitution is per se a breach of the public good. Therefore, unreviewable decision making by the executive always violates its trust because it is a breach of the constitution. After setting out Locke’s theory of separation of powers, the author presents a modified model that makes the judiciary, in addition to the legislature, responsible for the accountability of executive decision makers. Although the executive retains its prerogative power, it must always remain accountable to the legislature and the courts, even in emergencies.
洛克式宪法:三权分立与特权限制
在后9/11时代,许多法律学者提出了先进的宪法理论,为行政部门不可审查的自由裁量决策留有余地,尤其是在“反恐战争”的背景下。在洛克宪法理论的规范支持下,作者发展了另一种宪法模型来解决自由裁量行政权力的问题。洛克的宪法将政治权力划分为行政和立法机构,后者对前者进行制衡。行政机关和立法机关都负有为公众利益行事的受托责任。洛克将公共利益和宪法紧密地联系在一起,因此任何违反宪法的行为本身就是对公共利益的违反。因此,行政部门不可审查的决策总是违背了它的信任,因为它违反了宪法。在阐述了洛克的三权分立理论之后,作者提出了一个修正后的模型,即除了立法机关之外,司法机关还要对行政决策者负责。虽然行政机关保留其特权,但它必须始终对立法机关和法院负责,即使在紧急情况下也是如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信