Citations (5)


Footnotes (456)



A Textual and Historical Case Against a Global Constitution

Andrew Kent

Fordham University School of Law

Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 95, p. 463, 2007

The emerging conventional wisdom in the legal academy is that individual rights under the U.S. Constitution should be extended to noncitizens outside the United States. This claim - called globalism in my article - has been advanced with increasing vigor in recent years, most notably in response to legal positions taken by the Bush administration during the war on terror. Against a Global Constitution challenges the textual and historical grounds advanced to support the globalist conventional wisdom and demonstrates that they have remarkably little support. At the same time, the article adduces textual and historical evidence that noncitizens were among the intended beneficiaries of important provisions and structures in the Constitution. But in contrast to globalism's desire to deploy a judicially enforced Bill of Rights abroad, Against a Global Constitution shows that, as a textual and historical matter, noncitizens are to be protected through diplomacy, enforcement of international law by the U.S. government, and nonconstitutional policy choices of the political branches.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 78

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: April 7, 2006  

Suggested Citation

Kent, Andrew, A Textual and Historical Case Against a Global Constitution. Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 95, p. 463, 2007. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=888602

Contact Information

Andrew Kent (Contact Author)
Fordham University School of Law ( email )
140 West 62nd Street
New York, NY 10023
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 3,473
Downloads: 421
Download Rank: 46,319
Citations:  5
Footnotes:  456

© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 1.860 seconds