Pros And Cons Of Transnationalism

Kemuel Clyde M. Belderol
2012-44642
2587 words (2500 + 10%=2750)
CONSTITUTIONAL PARADOX From the Hobbesian idea of the sovereign Leviathan state directing its citizens on their preordained duties, into Rousseau’s social contract and the added distinction of natural and legal rights, and many others prior to and therein after; many have tried (some spectacularly failing) at governing, conditioning, and controlling the metaphysical concept known as “human nature” whether it’d be in accordance with good or evil. Of course, some argue that we as a species have already achieved such an amazing feat as guiding and limiting this relatively volatile concept through the supposed ‘rule of law’ that binds most modern societies which, more or less, is

Whether they are written as in the US constitution or instilled into the psyche of a nation’s citizens, it cannot be argued otherwise that these “ideal” and binding laws have had a huge impact in the process of modernization which has led to the contemporary societies we know today, in particular liberal democratic states. It is rather an unfortunate paradox then that these very same constitutions are under the threat of their own creation, modern states. With the advent of modernity and transnationalism, albeit there being non-statutory agreements known as international laws, constitutions are placed at a crossroad of whether or not they continue to uphold legitimate “truth” when it comes to bringing about justice across all levels of human association, from the individual to

1, 1996) and as designers (pp. 3, 1996). As a summary, he argues that despite the weaknesses of orignalism, their must’ve been a reason why people followed the doctrines for so long; he states that “we respect their opinions…that the framers’ advocated a particular idea…that merely did not reflect the will of the majority” (pp. 3, 1996). The way Barnett articulates his arguments is that unlike most laws wherein most of the time the “will of the majority” is taken into account, the US constitution itself cannot be a testament to the 1789 population because the doctrines continue to hold relevance even today (pp. 3, 1996). This is connected to his second view of framers as designers where he points to constitutions as blueprints for the state-machinery; he implies that similar to a sausage-making machine, the constitution (machine) checks whether each law (sausage) is suitable for consumption (pp. 4, 1996). Thus the implication for this allows constitutions to be relevant throughout history, although not necessarily as binding constructs, but as a tool of authority for law-making. Following this framework, we return again to Pildes who introduced the basic role of a constitution as discussed above. The manner in which Pildes defends constitutional