A simple analytical move: before judging the legality of a law, assess whether it violates the 'substantive norms' that underpin a polity (norms that pre‑exist written constitutions). If a legislature enacts measures that contradict those foundational norms, the law may be legally valid yet politically illegitimate — a distinction that changes how publics and institutions respond.
— Making this distinction explicit reframes debates about constitutionality, protest, emergency powers, and when extra‑legal resistance or extraordinary remedial measures become defensible in democracies.
Adam Mastroianni
2026.05.12
86% relevant
The article’s core claim — that written rules don’t matter unless people treat them as meaningful — directly echoes the 'Legitimacy‑First Test for Laws' concept: it uses the Soviet constitution vs. Stalinist purges and concrete replication‑crisis examples (the 2023 rigor paper retraction; low clinical‑trial reporting; outcome‑switching rates) to show that formal regulation without social legitimacy or enforcement fails.
Charles Haywood
2026.05.11
100% relevant
Carl Schmitt’s central question in Legality and Legitimacy — whether a legislature can change the core norms underlying the constitution — is the concrete element from the article that exemplifies the idea.
← Back to all ideas