Search results

The recent Supreme Court decision in Saenz v. Roe struck down a California welfare law that imposed residency requirements on recent arrivals to the state. In vindicating the mobility rights of migrants, the Court breathed new life into the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause. This Article suggests that, however misconceived the decision might appear from the perspective of welfare law, it usefully serves to promote a common American identity on which nationalist sentiments crucially depend. The core nationalist symbol for Americans is the idea of constitutionally-protected liberties that I call liberal nationalism A liberal nationalist understanding of the Privileges or Immunities Clause has four implications for constitutional interpretation. First, it suggests that the mobility rights the Saenz court upheld deserve the high degree of protection they received in that case. Second, the argument from nationalism offers an explanation for cases where the Supreme Court has been faulted for failing to protect national symbols such as the flag. More than the flag, constitutional liberties are a national symbol for Americans, and in upholding the right to deface the flag on free speech grounds, the Court has merely preferred one patriotic symbol to another. Third, a nationalist perspective suggests that basic liberties should enjoy constitutional protection at the national level and should not be entirely returned to the states. But for the argument from nationalism, a strong case could be made for a very thin set of national constitutional liberties, or even for state opt-out rights. Finally, nationalist concerns suggest a need for caution before removing contentious issues from political deliberation by turning them into constitutional rights. In politics, there are only winners and losers, and there is no great shame in being a loser; but in American constitutional law the losers can be faulted for a want of loyalty to core American values, and this must weaken American nationalism.

Draws upon examples from Australia, Canada, & New Zealand to explore the nature of indigenous nationalism. A theoretical understanding of indigenous nationalism is developed in relation to three dimensions: democratic self determination; internal democracy (the right to choose how & by whom one will be governed); & shared rule in state institutions. Distinctions are made between normative & empirical-institutional dimensions of indigenous nationalism, noting that the normative dimension explains why the indigenous claim to self-determination deserves respect & how it differs from claims of other minorities. Attention is called to the very different empirical characteristics & circumstance of indigenous communities. An examination of the pragmatic political implications of the normative framework of indigenous nationalism considers the kinds of communities that will exercise the right to self-determination & the range of potentially viable options for institutional design. These understandings of indigenous nationalism serve to alleviate charges of empirical inaccuracy & irrelevance while simultaneously sustaining the insight needed for the negotiation of just & lasting indigenous-state relations. 80 References. n. Lindroth

[Nationalism and multiculturalism] In order to assess the different argumentative strategies designed to reconcile nationalism and multiculturalism, this article considers in turn the two following possibilities: to take as a starting-point the civic-vs.-ethnic-nationalism division and settle for the civic/political variety supposedly embodied by the U.S. and French models of citizenship and their - otherwise sharply distinct - ways of managing cultural heterogeneity; or to disaggregate the notion of 'multiculturalism' by demonstrating that in fact, the political claims generally advanced under this rubric either aim at promoting the integration of ethnocultural minorities into mainstream national institutions, or can best be understood as competing, nationalist demands. It ends up concluding that for as long as national identity alone may provide the sense of common membership on which the antidiscrimination project and, more generally, the promotion of social justice ultimately rest, defenders of 'multiculturalism' probably ought to refrain from denouncing the uniformity-enhancing, oppressive nature of nationalism - if only on strategic grounds. ; Pour évaluer les arguments stratégiquement avancés par certains acteurs en vue de concilier nationalisme et multiculturalisme, cet article examine successivement les deux possibilités suivantes : prendre pour point de départ l'opposition entre nationalisme civique et nationalisme ethnique et trancher en faveur de la variété civique/politique, que sont censés incarner les modèles américain et français de citoyenneté avec leurs méthodes de gestion de l'hétérogénéité culturelle pourtant très différentes ; ou procéder au démontage de la notion de " multiculturalisme " en montrant qu'en réalité les revendications politiques généralement avancées sous cette appellation soit visent à promouvoir l'intégration des minorités ethno-culturelles au sein des institutions nationales du pays englobant, soit s'interprètent comme des revendications concurrentes, nationalistes. Il en ...

[Nationalism and multiculturalism] In order to assess the different argumentative strategies designed to reconcile nationalism and multiculturalism, this article considers in turn the two following possibilities: to take as a starting-point the civic-vs.-ethnic-nationalism division and settle for the civic/political variety supposedly embodied by the U.S. and French models of citizenship and their - otherwise sharply distinct - ways of managing cultural heterogeneity; or to disaggregate the notion of 'multiculturalism' by demonstrating that in fact, the political claims generally advanced under this rubric either aim at promoting the integration of ethnocultural minorities into mainstream national institutions, or can best be understood as competing, nationalist demands. It ends up concluding that for as long as national identity alone may provide the sense of common membership on which the antidiscrimination project and, more generally, the promotion of social justice ultimately rest, defenders of 'multiculturalism' probably ought to refrain from denouncing the uniformity-enhancing, oppressive nature of nationalism - if only on strategic grounds. ; Pour évaluer les arguments stratégiquement avancés par certains acteurs en vue de concilier nationalisme et multiculturalisme, cet article examine successivement les deux possibilités suivantes : prendre pour point de départ l'opposition entre nationalisme civique et nationalisme ethnique et trancher en faveur de la variété civique/politique, que sont censés incarner les modèles américain et français de citoyenneté avec leurs méthodes de gestion de l'hétérogénéité culturelle pourtant très différentes ; ou procéder au démontage de la notion de " multiculturalisme " en montrant qu'en réalité les revendications politiques généralement avancées sous cette appellation soit visent à promouvoir l'intégration des minorités ethno-culturelles au sein des institutions nationales du pays englobant, soit s'interprètent comme des revendications concurrentes, nationalistes. Il en conclut que, aussi longtemps que l'identité nationale est la seule à pouvoir fournir un sentiment d'appartenance commune sur laquelle repose en définitive le projet antidiscriminatoire comme, plus généralement, la promotion de la justice sociale, le partisans du "multiculturalisme" feraient sans doute mieux de s'abstenir de dénoncer le caractère uniformisateur et oppresseur du nationalisme, ne serait-ce que pour des raisons stratégiques.