Written constitutions have often been viewed as a bridle for unchecked political majoritarianism, as a restraint on government, and hence as a limiting device rather than form of democratic political expression. Breaking with that tradition, this article sets out a democratic case for a written constitution and contrasts it with the rights-based and clarity-based cases. It then proceeds to show why the case against written constitutions – which is broadly located in a conservative critique, an anti-rationalist critique and an anti-judicialisation critique – is misguided. Nevertheless, a democratic case for a written constitution necessarily raises challenging questions about how the constitution would be enacted, and how rigidly entrenched it should be. In relation to the former, the author argues for a constituent assembly consisting of party and direct citizen representation. As for the latter, he defends a model of entrenchment that permits amendment through a simple majoritarian parliamentary procedure in conjunction with a referendum, and, most controversially, a provision requiring a new constitutional convention about once in a generation. This is the type of democratic constitution, in the author’s view, that accommodates the need for the United Kingdom constitutional order to take both rights and democracy seriously.

中文翻译：

---

书面宪法的民主案例

成文宪法常常被视为不受约束的政治多数主义的缰绳，是对政府的约束，因此是一种限制手段，而不是民主政治表达的形式。本文打破了这一传统，为成文宪法提出了民主案例，并将其与基于权利和基于清晰度的案例进行了对比。然后它继续说明为什么反对成文宪法的案例——广泛地位于保守主义批判、反理性主义批判和反司法化批判——是被误导的。然而，成文宪法的民主案例必然会引发关于宪法将如何制定以及宪法应该如何严格根深蒂固的挑战性问题。相对于前者，提交人主张由政党和公民直接代表组成的制宪会议。至于后者，他为一种巩固模式辩护，该模式允许通过简单的多数议会程序与全民投票相结合进行修正，并且最具争议的是，一项规定要求每隔一代举行一次新的制宪会议。在作者看来，这是一种民主宪法，它满足了英国宪法秩序认真对待权利和民主的需要。要求每隔一代举行一次新制宪会议的规定。在作者看来，这是一种民主宪法，它满足了英国宪法秩序认真对待权利和民主的需要。要求每隔一代举行一次新制宪会议的规定。在作者看来，这是一种民主宪法，它满足了英国宪法秩序认真对待权利和民主的需要。