Ulrike Müßig – författare

This second volume of ReConFort, published open access, addresses the decisive role of constitutional normativity, and focuses on discourses concerning the legal role of constitutional norms.

This open access book can be downloaded from link.springer.comLegal studies and consequently legal history focus on constitutional documents, believing in a nominalist autonomy of constitutional semantics. Reconsidering Constitutional Formation in the late 18th and 19th century, kept historic constitutions from being simply log-books for political experts through a functional approach to the interdependencies between constitution and public discourse. Sovereignty had to be ‘believed’ by the subjects and the political élites. Such a communicative orientation of constitutional processes became palpable in the ‘religious’ affinities of the constitutional preambles. They were held as ‘creeds’ of a new order, not only due to their occasional recourse to divine authority, but rather due to the claim for eternal validity contexts of constitutional guarantees. The communication dependency of constitutions was of less concern in terms of the preamble than the constituents’ big worries about government organisation. Their indecisiveness between monarchical and popular sovereignty was established through the discrediting of the Republic in the Jacobean reign of terror and the ‘renaissance’ of the monarchy in the military resistance against the French revolutionary and later Napoleonic campaigns. The constitutional formation as a legal act of constituting could therefore defend the monarchy from the threat of the people (Albertine Statute 1848), could be a legal decision of a national constituent assembly (Belgian Constitution 1831), could borrow from the old liberties (Polish May Constitution 1791) or try to remain in between by referring to the Nation as sovereign (French September Constitution 1791, Cádiz Constitution 1812). Common to all contexts is the use of national sovereignty as a legal starting point. The consequent differentiation between constituent and constituted power manages to justify the self-commitmentof political power in legal terms. National sovereignty is the synonym for the juridification of sovereignty by means of the constitution. The novelty of the constitutions of the late 18th and 19th century is the normativity, the positivity of the constitutional law as one unified law, to be the measure for the legality of all other law. Therefore ReConFort will continue with the precedence of constitution. (www.reconfort.eu)

This second volume of ReConFort, published open access, addresses the decisive role of constitutional normativity, and focuses on discourses concerning the legal role of constitutional norms.

This open access book can be downloaded from link.springer.comLegal studies and consequently legal history focus on constitutional documents, believing in a nominalist autonomy of constitutional semantics. Reconsidering Constitutional Formation in the late 18th and 19th century, kept historic constitutions from being simply log-books for political experts through a functional approach to the interdependencies between constitution and public discourse. Sovereignty had to be ‘believed’ by the subjects and the political élites. Such a communicative orientation of constitutional processes became palpable in the ‘religious’ affinities of the constitutional preambles. They were held as ‘creeds’ of a new order, not only due to their occasional recourse to divine authority, but rather due to the claim for eternal validity contexts of constitutional guarantees. The communication dependency of constitutions was of less concern in terms of the preamble than the constituents’ big worries about government organisation. Their indecisiveness between monarchical and popular sovereignty was established through the discrediting of the Republic in the Jacobean reign of terror and the ‘renaissance’ of the monarchy in the military resistance against the French revolutionary and later Napoleonic campaigns. The constitutional formation as a legal act of constituting could therefore defend the monarchy from the threat of the people (Albertine Statute 1848), could be a legal decision of a national constituent assembly (Belgian Constitution 1831), could borrow from the old liberties (Polish May Constitution 1791) or try to remain in between by referring to the Nation as sovereign (French September Constitution 1791, Cádiz Constitution 1812). Common to all contexts is the use of national sovereignty as a legal starting point. The consequent differentiation between constituent and constituted power manages to justify the self-commitmentof political power in legal terms. National sovereignty is the synonym for the juridification of sovereignty by means of the constitution. The novelty of the constitutions of the late 18th and 19th century is the normativity, the positivity of the constitutional law as one unified law, to be the measure for the legality of all other law. Therefore ReConFort will continue with the precedence of constitution. (www.reconfort.eu)

Throughout Europe, the exercise of justice rests on judicial independence by impartiality. In Reason and Fairness Ulrike Müßig reveals the combination of ordinary judicial competences with procedural rationality, together with the complementarity of procedural and substantive justice, as the foundation for the ‘rule of law’ in court constitution, far earlier than the advent of liberal constitutionalism. The ECHR fair trial guarantee reads as the historically-grown consensus of the functional judicial independence. Both before historical and contemporary courts, justice is done and seen to be done by means of judgements, whose legal requirements combine the equation of ‘fair’ and ‘legal’ with that of ‘legal’ and ‘rational.’ This legal determinability of the judge’s fair attitude amounts to the specific (rational) European idea of justice.

Der Konstitutionalismus des 19. Jahrhunderts war geprägt von der Inkompatibilität des Festhaltens an der monarchischen Machtvollkommenheit und der Mitwirkung der Untertanen am Gesetzgebungsverfahren und an der Etatgestaltung. Verweigerte die Volksvertretung ihre Zustimmung zum Budget, fehlten der monarchischen Exekutive die Mittel, die Staatsaufgaben zu erfüllen und die Gesetze durchzuführen. Sowohl in Kurhessen 1850 als auch in Preußen 1862 entstand daraus ein Verfassungskonflikt, der einen verfassungsrechtlichen und politisch-praktischen Ausnahmezustand schuf. Durchsetzen konnte sich in der systemimmanenten Pattsituation derjenige, welcher auch im Ausnahmezustand den Zugriff auf die Machtmittel der Exekutive, namentlich auf das Militär, hatte, also der Monarch. Die Rechtfertigung der machtpolitischen Konfliktlösung durch den Monarchen mit seiner Position als nicht verantwortlicher Träger der einheitlichen Staatsgewalt hat eine zentrale Bedeutung für das Verständnis der deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte zwischen Konstitutionalismus und Parlamentarismus.

Die Entstehung des modernen Verfassungsbegriffs ist mit den Revolutionen von 1776 und 1789 verbunden. Der Verfassungsdiskurs reflektiert nicht nur die revolutionäre Überwindung der altständischen Gesellschaft, sondern den allgemeinen Verrechtlichungsprozeß staatlicher Herrschaft im Zeichen der Aufklärung.In der Monarchiekonzentration der europäischen Verfassungswelt nach 1800 spiegelt sich der napoleonische Staatsautoritarismus. Ulrike Müßig veranschaulicht in ihrem Ausblick auf den europäischen Konstitutionalismus, daß das Erstarken der Parlamente nach der französischen Julirevolution 1830/31 zu einem fließenden Übergang vom konstitutionellen zum parlamentarischen System bei gleichbleibendem Normenbestand geführt hat: Die Regierung des Monarchen war zwar formal nicht an die parlamentarischen Mehrheitsverhältnisse gebunden, ihre Berücksichtigung war jedoch politische Normalität. Dadurch kam es in Frankreich, Belgien und England zu einem erheblichen Parlamentarisierungsschub, während in der deutschen Verfassungspraxis der repressive bundespolitische Rahmen einen dauerhaften Einfluß der Kammern auf die monarchisch bestimmten Regierungen verhindert hat.Gerade diese Offenheit des Konstitutionalismus im Verhältnis zwischen Monarch und Parlament zeigt, daß es Verfassungsgeschichte nicht mit statischen Ordnungszusammenhängen der Herrschaftsbegründung und -begrenzung zu tun hat. Das Kräfteverhältnis der Verfassungsgrößen ist vielmehr in Bewegung. Dieses evolutionäre Verständnis der Verfassungsgeschichte beherrscht die Studie zur europäischen Verfassungsdiskussion.