We diagnose a paradox said to exist for liberal constitutionalism. Constitutional rules seemed to fail to constrain in times of expediency or under conditions of necessity, occasions when constraints might be most needed. From this failure, a form of rule skepticism seems to undermine liberal constitutionalism's claims to govern and constrain official behavior, especially during times of emergency. On closer inspection, we identify three different forms this purported rule skepticism might take: contestation over rule applications, skepticism about rule determinations, or rule cynicism. We resolve the apparent paradox by demonstrating how rule skepticism is either unwarranted or cynically deployed, but in neither case raises a legitimate challenge to liberal constitutionalism.

中文翻译：

---

宪法、规则遵循和约束危机

我们诊断出一个据说存在于自由宪政主义的悖论。在权宜之计或必要条件下，可能最需要限制的情况下，宪法规则似乎未能加以限制。从这次失败中，某种形式的规则怀疑主义似乎破坏了自由宪政主义关于治理和约束官方行为的主张，尤其是在紧急情况下。仔细观察，我们确定了这种所谓的规则怀疑主义可能采取的三种不同形式：对规则应用的争论、对规则确定的怀疑或对规则的怀疑。我们通过展示规则怀疑论是如何无根据或愤世嫉俗地部署来解决明显的悖论，但在任何情况下都不会对自由宪政主义提出合法挑战。