This week’s reading is the one with the biggest ambition so far. I don’t possess the ability to provide an intro that does this article justice. It’s a very tough cookie (it may not be the best idea to leave this one for Wednesday afternoon), but nonetheless interesting, and provides answers, at least partial, to the questions which were created by the texts preceding.

These are the questions to consider for Wednesday’s discussion –

• How do you feel about the text? (this one is a given at this point I think)
• Rosenfeld, same as cloots, differentiates between national and constitutional identity Analogously, the collectivity of strangers that become encompassed within the same constitutional order must also construct an ‘imagined community’. That latter community produces a constitutional identity that though related to, must remain distinct from, its corresponding national identity. Do you agree? Did Rosenfeld make a stronger argument than Cloots? (considering there was a significant antiCloots voice in the group) Were the goals of their articles the same?
• Can you say which states treat their constitutional identities with an originalist fashion, and ones which have a nonoriginalist approach? Can this also correlate with the national identity of the state? If yes, is it right?
• Do you think Rosenfeld did a good job explaining constitutional identity? What is constitutional identity according to him?
• Who is the constitutional subject?
• What purpose do negation, metaphor and metonymy serve? (individually and as a whole)
• Do you think negation can be set as a general development stage for every constitution? Can a state that hasn’t undergone the negation stage have a fully functional constitution?
• Has the Czech (or Slovak) constitutional identity undergone the metonymy phase?

Hopefully we’ll be able to go through all of the questions (it’s not going to happen, is it). I’m looking forward to the fruitful discussion on Wednesday 😊

Martin