The Book · Chapter 27 of 28

Chapter 27The Terms of a Constitutional Settlement

Can constitutional restraint preserve existing authority without foreclosing every possible intelligent or hybrid order?

Summary

Can constitutional restraint preserve existing authority without foreclosing every possible intelligent or hybrid order? This chapter answers by separating unauthorised substitution under a present mandate from the justification required for a different constitutional founding. It compares five settlements: human exclusivity, bounded participation, limited autonomous competence, hybrid authority and coexistence. A common scheduling example reveals how each changes the required act, responsible institution, contested boundary and available response. The inquiry takes seriously the objection that human reservation can protect incumbency, and tests hybrid arrangements through concurrence, deadlock, replication and continuity of responsibility. It defends present institutional limits while withholding endorsement of stronger constitutional claims on the technical and institutional demonstrations examined in Chapters 11–15. The following canons govern derivative and present arrangements, while any stronger constituent settlement would require an expressly defended change addressing membership, recognition, revision and dissent.

• derivative authority
• constituent justification
• bounded participation
• autonomous competence
• hybrid concurrence
• constitutional identity
• coexistence
• protected dissent