Ferrara’s Principles of Constitutional Legitimacy: From Plato to Rawls, and Backwards?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his latest book, Sovereignty Across Generations: Constituent Power and Political Liberalism, Alessandro Ferrara explores the grounds, norms and scope of liberal constitutions’ legitimacy. Specifically, Ferrara develops Rawls’s political liberalism by exploring liberal legitimacy in a constitutional direction. Indeed, while the grounds of constitutions’ legitimacy were not the primary focus of Rawls’s own investigations, Ferrara believes that political liberalism must now be extended in this direction – for both theoretical and political reasons. In this review, we examine Ferrara’s proposal, bearing in mind his project’s Rawlsian roots. Specifically, we examine the relationship between reasonableness and constitutional legitimacy; we suggest that some of Ferrara’s conclusions – especially his intergenerational conception of the people as sovereign – might stand in tension with the Rawlsian framework within which he has drawn them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".