Against sovereignty: A cautionary note on the normative power of the actual

Notre Dame Law Review

Volumn 82, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 181-225

  Brennan, Patrick McKinley ^a  

^a VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846599255     PISSN: 07453515     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (277)

1. Kenneth C. Cole, The Theory of the State as a Sovereign Juristic Person, 42 AM. POL. SCI. REV. 16, 31 (1948).
2. HIDEAKI SHINODA, RE-EXAMINING SOVEREIGNTY 11 (2000).
3. 1 MICHAEL MANN, THE SOURCES OF SOCIAL POWER 39-40, 47-49, 67-69, 105-27 (1986).
4. CHRISTOPHER PIERSON, THE MODERN STATE 63 (1996).
5. 517 U.S. 44, 47 (1996).
6. WILLIAM P. MARSHALL, The Battle Over State Immunity, in THE RENQUIST LEGACY 240 (Craig M. Bradley ed., 2006).
7. "Particularly in the Court's Eleventh Amendment immunity-from-suit cases, one frequently encounters the image of the States as metaphysical, almost mystical, entities, as demiurges in a kind of constitutional creation 'myth.' The States are, a narrow majority of Justices continues to insist, the kinds of things that simply cannot be treated, or acted upon, in certain ways." Richard W. Garnett, The New Federalism, The Spending Power, and Federal Criminal Law, 89 CORNELL L. REV. 1, 16 (2003).
8. Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 713 (1999).
9. F.H. HINSLEY, SOVEREIGNTY 1 (2d ed., 1986).
10. See Steven G. Gey, The Myth of State Sovereignty, 63 OHIO ST. L.J. 1601, 1603-04 (2002) ("Does the absence of a coherent rationale doom the new state-sovereignty decisions to a short, ignominious life, or are these inconsistent decisions simply preparation for a truly radical return to real state sovereignty, in which fifty different parochial sovereigns can control their own destinies in certain areas free of any coordination or control by the national government? This question cannot be answered until the Court's majority decides for itself which path it wants to take.").
11. A new majority is now poised to "decide[] for itself." Id. at 1604
12. For my reasons for denying that even local control of the sort adumbrated by Gey would not yield "fifty different parochial sovereigns," see infra text accompanying notes 144-66 and 177-227.
13. Chief Justice Roberts joined Justice Thomas's dissent from a holding that, acting under the Bankruptcy Clause of Art. I, Congress can abrogate state sovereign immunity. Cent. Va. Cmty. Coll. v. Katz, 126 S. Ct. 990, 1005 (2006) (Thomas, J., dissenting).
14. Fed. Mar. Comm'n v. S.C. State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743, 760-61 (2002);
15. Alden, 527 U.S. at 714-15 (1999);
16. Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996);
17. Blatchford v. Native Vill. of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775, 780-81 (1991).
18. 527 U.S. 706.
19. Id. at 714-15 (citations omitted).
20. At least, that is, if we leave God out of the picture, though it must also be said that humans have done the most barbaric things on the coattails of the sovereign God.
21. Paul W. Kahn, The Question of Sovereignty, 40 STAN. J. INT'L L. 259, 263 (2004).
22. Although my proximate focus here is domestic sovereignty as it is being claimed within and on behalf of the United States, the emergence of positive sovereignty, such as the Court claims on behalf of the fifty states and of the United States collectively, is of course conceptually and historically related to the worldwide emergence of a positive right of free determination on the part of "the nation state." See PIERSON, supra note 4, at 5-63.
23. On how the world came to be organized into "sovereign states," see generally DANIEL PHILPOTT, REVOLUTIONS IN SOVEREIGNTY 75-96 (2001).
24. For discussion of Bodin and Hobbes, see infra text accompanying notes 149-57.
25. Cf. DONALD L. DOERNBERG, SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY OR THE RULE OF LAW 210 (2005) (arguing that the Constitution embodies a Lockean commitment to a theory of sovereignty that cannot tolerate sovereign immunity, because government must be answerable to its own laws).
26. Doernberg's mistake, in my estimation, is to exaggerate the Founders' commitment to the universal availability of individually adequate remediation of legal wrongs. See infra text accompanying note 115.
27. What the Founders did repudiate was the proposition that our states are "sovereign" in the sense in which that term has generally been understood since the early seventeenth century. See infra text accompanying notes 163-68.
28. ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION art. II.
29. Fed. Mar. Comm'n. v. S.C. State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743, 760 (2002).
30. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 748 (1999)).
31. For insightful commentary on this rhetoric, see Ann Althouse, On Dignity and Deference: The Supreme Court's New Federalism, 68 U. CIN. L. REV. 245 (2000).
32. See ALEXANDER M. BICKEL, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE IDEA OF PROGRESS 176-81 (1970).
33. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 794 (1995).
34. See Joseph Vining, Is There an Implicit Theology in the Practice of Ordinary Law?, 53 MERCER L. REV. 1047, 1047 (2002).
35. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 454 (1793) (Wilson, J.).
36. Id. at 453.
37. Id. (Blair, J.);
38. id. at 466 (Wilson, J);
39. id. at 469 (Cushins, J.);
40. id. at 479 (Jay, C.J.).
41. U.S. CONST, art. III, § 2.
42. Id.
43. Calvin R. Massey, State Sovereignty and the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments, 56 U. CHI. L. REV. 61, 116 (1989) (discussing controversy over whether the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is self-executing).
44. Chisholm, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) at 432 (Iredell, J.).
45. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 11 (1890).
46. U.S. CONST, amend. XI.
47. Blatchford v. Native Vill. of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775, 779 (1991), quoted in Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 713 (1999) and Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 150 (1996).
48. Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. 44.
49. Id. at 72.
50. Alden, 527 U.S. 706.
51. Id. at 713
52. (quoting Seminale Tribe, 517 U.S. at 71 n.15).
53. Id. at 713-14.
54. 535 U.S. 743 (2002).
55. Id. at 767 n.18.
56. Id. at 746.
57. Daniel J. Meltzer, State Sovereign Immunity: Five Authors in Search of a Theory, 75 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1011, 1011 (2000).
58. 126 S. Ct. 990 (2006).
59. Id. at 1004
60. (quoting U.S. CONST, art I, § 8, cl. 4).
61. Id. at 996.
62. See, e.g., Richard Lieb, State Sovereign Immunity: Bankruptcy is Special, 14 AM. BANKR. INST. L. REV. 200, 202-03 (2006).
63. Katz, 126 S. Ct. at 1005-06 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
64. N. Ins. Co. v. Chatham County, 126 S. Ct. 1689, 1693 (2006).
65. Id. at 1692.
66. 226 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2000).
67. Id. at 226 (citations omitted).
68. Id.
69. 527 U.S. 706, 712-13 (1999).
70. Chatham County, 126 S. Ct. at 1693.
71. Alden, 527 U.S. at 714.
72. Id. at 715
73. (quoting THE FEDERALIST No. 39 (James Madison)).
74. Id. at 714.
75. Id. at 715.
76. JOHN T. NOONAN, JR., NARROWING THE NATION'S POWER 2 (2002).
77. Id.
78. Steven D. Smith, Nonsense and Natural Law, in AGAINST THE LAW 100, 101-02 (Paul F. Campos et al. eds., 1996).
79. STEVEN D. SMITH, LAW'S QUANDARY 14-15 (2004).
80. Ernest A. Young, Alden v. Maine and the Jurisprudence of Structure, 41 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1601, 1604 (2000).
81. 426 U.S. 833 (1976).
82. Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 715 (1999).
83. See THE FEDERALIST No. 82 (Alexander Hamilton).
84. RUSSELL HITTINGER, THE FIRST GRACE 137 (2003).
85. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992).
86. Indeed, such a conflating claim would likely have bedeviled the medieval mind, fascinated as it was with distinguishing, without separating, such realities and concepts. See ERNST H. KANTOROWICZ, THE KING'S TWO BODIES 372-82 (1957).
87. Meltzer, supra 43, at 1040.
88. JACQUES MARITAIN, MAN AND THE STATE 13 (1951).
89. Erwin Chemerinsky, Against Sovereign Immunity, 53 STAN. L. REV. 1201, 1213-15 (2001).
90. The exigence of starting law and politics from an accurate grasp of the human person is a topic I have been pursuing, from a range of angles and applications, in a number of recent writings. See Patrick McKinley Brennan, Asking the Right Questions: Harnessing the Insights of Bernard Lonergan for the Rule of Law, 21 J.L. & RELIGION 1 (2006);
91. Patrick McKinley Brennan, Law and Who We Are Becoming, 50 VILL. L. REV. 189 (2005);
92. Patrick McKinley Brennan, Law, Natural Law, and Human Intelligence: Living the Correlation, 55 CATH. U. L. REV. 731 (2006);
93. Patrick McKinley Brennan, Locating Authority in Law, [hereinafter Brennan, locating Authority] in AFTER AUTHORITY (Patrick McKinley Brennan ed., forthcoming 2007);
94. Patrick McKinley Brennan, Meaning's Edge, Love's Priority, 101 MICH. L. REV. 2060 (2003) [hereinafter Brennan, Meaning's Edge]
95. (reviewing JAMES BOYE WHITE, THE EDGE OF MEANING (2001));
96. Patrick McKinley Brennan, On What Sin (and Grace) Can Teach Crime, 5 PUNISHMENT & SOC'Y 347 (2002) (editing performed by Patrick Brennan and Jeffrie Murphy);
97. Patrick McKinley Brennan, Realizing the Rule of Law in the Human Subject, 43 B.C. L. REV. 227 (2002);
98. Patrick McKinley Brennan, Sovereign States? The State of the Question from a Catholic Perspective, in FAITH AND LAW: How RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS FROM CALVINISM TO ISLAM VIEW AMERICAN LAW (Robert F. Cochran, Jr. ed., forthcoming 2007);
99. Patrick McKinley Brennan, The "Right" of Religious Liberty of the Child: Its Meaning, Measure, and Justification, 20 EMORY INT'L L. REV. 129 (2006);
100. see also JOHN E. COONS & PATRICK M. BRENNAN, BY NATURE EQUAL 136-41 (1999) (discussing the nature and meaning of human equality).
101. JOSEPH VINING, FROM NEWTON'S SLEEP 128 (1995).
102. CHARLES FRIED, SAYING WHAT THE LAW IS 35 (2004).
103. Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 752 (1999).
104. Id. at 732.
105. Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U.S. 1, 5 (1989) (plurality opinion).
106. 427 U.S. 445 (1976).
107. Id. at 447-48.
108. Alden, 527 U.S. at 756.
109. Id. (citing Fitzpatrick, 427 U.S. at 456).
110. 521 U.S. 507 (1997).
111. 527 U.S. 627 (1999).
112. 529 U.S. 598 (2000).
113. 528 U.S. 62 (2000).
114. That power was reaffirmed during the last term in an opinion by Justice Scalia for a unanimous Court. United States v. Georgia, 126 S. Ct. 877, 878 (2006).
115. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 5.
116. 469 U.S. 528 (1985).
117. Id. at 546-50.
118. Id. at 555-57.
119. RICHARD H. FALLON JR., DANIEL J. METZLER & DAVID L. SHAPIRO, HART AND WECHSLER'S THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM 1061 (5th ed. 2003).
120. 209 U.S. 123 (1908).
121. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
122. It should be noted in passing that both the scope of Ex parte Young and the power of the Court to create Bivens-type actions have recently received skeptical treatment from the Court. See FALLON ET AL., supra note 93, at 816-21, 1027-28.
123. See, e.g., United States v. Texas, 143 U.S. 621 (1892).
124. See FRIED, supra note 76, at 37.
125. See Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 759-60 (1999);
126. FRIED, supra note 76, at 37.
127. Alden, 527 U.S. at 810 (Souter, J., dissenting) ("One hopes that...voluntary compliance will prove more popular than it has in Maine, for there is no reason to suspect today that enforcement by the Secretary of Labor alone would likely prove adequate to assure compliance with this federal law in the multifarious circumstances of some 4.7 million employees of the 50 States of the Union.").
128. 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (2000).
129. See FRIED, supra note 76, at 32-45.
130. Vt. Agency of Natural Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 787 (2000)
131. (quoting Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 348 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring)).
132. 527 U.S. at 813 n.43 (Souter, J., dissenting).
133. William L. Prosser, Book Review, 27 CORNELL L.Q. 292, 294 (1942).
134. Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 669-70 (1999).
135. See Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Mich. Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 385-86 (1884).
136. See, e.g., Wis. Dep't. of Corr. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 393 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring);
137. Patsy v. Bd. of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 515-16 n.19 (1982).
138. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 168-204 (1908) (Harlan,J., dissenting).
139. Fla. Dep't of State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc., 458 U.S. 670, 685 (1982).
140. Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe, 521 U.S. 261, 270 (1997).
141. David P. Currie, Sovereign Immunity and Suits Against Government Officers, 1984 SUP. CT. REV. 149, 151 n.11.
142. Keeping Up Appearances (BBC television series 1990-1995).
143. 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 147 (1803).
144. Richard H. Fallon, Jr. & Daniel J. Meltzer, New Law, Non-Retroactivity, and Constitutional Remedies, 104 HARV. L. REV. 1731, 1778-79 (1991).
145. Jesse H. Choper & John C. Yoo, Who's Afraid of the Eleventh Amendment? The Limited Impact of the Court's Sovereign Immunity Rulings. 106 COLUM. L. REV. 213, 213-17 (2006).
146. Bartlett v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 695, 719-20 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (Bork, J., dissenting).
147. NOONAN, supra note 60, at 143-56.
148. See, e.g., Ernest A. Young, Is the Sky Falling on the Federal Government? State Sovereign Immunity, the Section Five Power, and the Federal Balance, 81 TEX. L. REV. 1551 (2003)
149. (reviewing NOONAN, supra note 60).
150. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 175 (1908) (Harlan, J., dissenting).
151. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Ball.) 419, 430-33 (1793) (Iredell, J.).
152. U.S. CONST. amend. XI.
153. 134 U.S. 1 (1890).
154. See Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 84 (1996).
155. I say "even," because whatever one thinks of the result in Hans, few are heard to admire Justice Bradley's majority opinion in the case.
156. Hans, 134 U.S. at 1.
157. Id. at 3.
158. Id. at 10.
159. Id. at 12.
160. John Paul Stevens, "Two Questions About Justice," 2003 U. ILL. L. REV. 821, 824.
161. 256 U.S. 490 (1921).
162. 292 U.S. 313 (1934).
163. Massey, supra note 30, at 68.
164. Id.
165. Monaco, 292 U.S. at 331.
166. U.S. CONST. amend. XI.
167. Id. at 322.
168. See generally CHARLES HOWARD MCILWAIN, CONSTITUTIONALISM (rev. ed. 1947) (tracing the history of constitutionalism in written and unwritten form);
169. JAMES R. STONER, JR., COMMON LAW AND LIBERAL THEORY (1992) (discussing the development and influence of unwritten common law on American constitutional tradition).
170. Massey, supra note 30, at 62.
171. Id.
172. JOHN V. ORTH, THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES 28 (1987).
173. Fed. Mar. Comm'n v. S.C. State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743, 760 (2002).
174. W. J. Rees, The Theory of Sovereignty Restated, in PHILOSOPHY, POLITICS AND SOCIETY 56, 56-61 (Peter Laslett ed., 1956).
175. Id.;
176. cf. W. J. STANKIEWICZ, ASPECTS OF POLITICAL THEORY 47-95 (1976) (defending, against criticism sounding in terms of "hierarchy," a conception of sovereignty rooted in authority).
177. JEFFREY STOUT, THE FLIGHT FROM AUTHORITY 2-3 (1981).
178. See KENNETH PENNINGTON, THE PRINCE AND THE LAW 1200-1600, at 284-88 (1993);
179. see also MANLIO BELLOMO, THE COMMON LEGAL PAST OF EUROPE 1000-1800, at 149-59 (Lydia G. Cochrane trans., 1995) (discussing how European society operated under both particularized law and ius commune);
180. HAROLD J. BERMAN, LAW AND REVOLUTION 288-94 (1983) (noting that sovereignty was an outgrowth of the Roman concept of iurisdictio and that numerous state and religious officials would have varying degrees of iurisdictio over a matter).
181. PENNINGTON, supra note 146, at 283.
182. See HARVEY C. MANSFIELD, JR., TAMING THE PRINCE 151 (1989).
183. See PENNINGTON, supra note 146, at 271-72.
184. Id. at 277-78.
185. MARITAIN, supra note 72, at 34.
186. Id. at 37-38.
187. Id. at 38.
188. Id.
189. Id.
190. THOMAS HOBBES, LEVIATHAN 114 (J.C.A. Gaskin ed., Oxford Univ. Press 1996).
191. GORDON S. WOOD, THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 1776-1787, at 348 (1969).
192. GIANFRANCO POGGI, THE STATE: ITS NATURE, DEVELOPMENT AND PROSPECTS 44 (1990) (emphasis added).
193. MARITAIN, supra note 72, at 38.
194. PENNINGTON, supra note 146, at 285.
195. A.V. DICEY, INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION 63 (10th ed. 1959).
196. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 838 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
197. WOOD, supra note 157, at 345.
198. Id.
199. Id. at 528.
200. Id. at 530.
201. Id. at 599
202. (quoting JAMES WILSON, Comparison of The Constitution of the United States, with that of Great Britain, in THE WORKS OF JAMES WILSON 309, 317 (Robert Green McCloskey ed., 1967)).
203. Id. at 599-600.
204. Meltzer, supra note 43, at 1038.
205. Id. at 1039.
206. Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996)
207. (quoting THE FEDERALIST No. 81 (Alexander Hamilton));
208. Fed. Mar. Comm'n v. S.C. State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743, (2002)
209. (quoting THE FEDERALIST No. 81 (Alexander Hamilton)).
210. See supra text accompanying note 69.
211. See, e.g., ANTONIN SCALIA, A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION 23-25 (1997).
212. Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U.S. 313, 322 (1934).
213. N. Ins. Co. v. Chatham County, 126 S. Ct. 1689, 1693 (2006).
214. FRANÇOIS LA ROCHEFOUCAULD, MAXIMS 43 (Stuart D. Warner and Stéphane Douard, trans., 2001).
215. See Brennan, Meaning's Edge, supra note 74, at 2068.
216. DANIEL FARBER, LINCOLN'S CONSTITUTION 33 (2003). Farber's immediate referent is "popular sovereignty," but on his ontological inventory, there is no reason to think that any other possible sort of "sovereignty" would fare better. Farber opines that the dispute over sovereignty "is reminiscent of medieval disputes about the nature of the Trinity.
217. It is not in any real sense a question of fact or even one of law." Id. at 29. One can be grateful to learn, from a book concerned with something as terrestrial as the U.S. Constitution and costing just $27.50 (plus tax), the priceless and lofty truth that there is no matter of fact about the Trinity.
218. See, e.g., SMITH, supra note 63;
219. JOSEPH VINING, THE AUTHORITATIVE AND THE AUTHORITARIAN (1986) [hereninafter VINING, AUTHORITATIVE];
220. VINING, supra note 75;
221. JOSEPH VINING, THE SONG SPARROW AND THE CHILD (2004) [hereninafter VINING, SONG SPARROW];
222. Smith, supra note 62;
223. Vining, supra note 24;
224. Joseph Vining, Legal Affinities, 23 GA. L. REV. 1035 (1989).
225. 304 U.S. 64 (1938).
226. 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1 (1842).
227. See SMITH, supra note 63, at 61-62.
228. J.L. MACKIE, ETHICS 38-42 (1977).
229. H. JEFFERSON POWELL, A COMMUNITY BUILT ON WORDS 35 (2002) (quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.).
230. See FERNANDO R. TESON, A PHILOSOPHY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 39-47, 57-66 (1998).
231. VINING, SONG SPARROW, supra note 179.
232. Id. at 114
233. (quoting JOHN R. SEARLE, THE REDISCOVERY OF THE MIND 86-87 (1994)).
234. See id. at 12-21.
235. See MARITAIN, supra note 72, at 12-19.
236. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 2, cl. 1.
237. MARITAIN, supra note 72, at 17 (explaining the absolutist notion that the State "is a whole unto itself, the very political whole in its supreme degree of unity and individuality").
238. Id. at 23.
239. See id. at 9-12.
240. Id. at 19.
241. Richard H. Pildes, Why Rights Are Not Trumps: Social Meanings, Expressive Harms, and Constitutionalism, 27 J. LEGAL STUD. 725, 747-50, 755-60 (1998).
242. Id. at 725, 755.
243. See, e.g., Evan Caminker, Judicial Solicitude for State Dignity, 574 ANNALS AM. ACAD. POL. & SOC. 81 (2001).
244. Pildes, supra note 195, at 747-50.
245. Caminker, supra note 197, at 85.
246. Fed. Mar. Comm'n v. S.C. State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743, 765 (2002).
247. See Walter Brueggemann, The Endless Task of Interpretation, 53 MERCER L. REV. 1019, 1025-26 (2002).
248. Id. at 1025.
249. 505 U.S. 144 (1992).
250. 521 U.S. 898 (1997).
251. Caminker, supra note 197, at 84-87.
252. Id. at 87.
253. Cf. Judith Resnik & Julie Chi-hye Suk, Adding Insult to Injury: Questioning the Role of Dignity in Conceptions of Sovereignty, 55 STAN. L. REV. 1921, 1927-28 (2003) (considering the contextual value of "role dignity" assigned to groups, including states).
254. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 454-55 (1793) (Wilson, J.).
255. Cf. NOONAN, supra note 60, at 80-84, 138-40 (discussing the different meanings of the term "sovereignty" used by the Founders and in contemporary society).
256. MARITAIN, supra note 72, at 53.
257. Id. at 49.
258. BERNARD LONERGAN, INSIGHT 632 (1978).
259. James Boyd White, Meaning What You Say, in LAW IN THE LIBERAL ARTS 109, 127-33 (Austin Sarat ed., 2004).
260. See supra text accompanying notes 210-11.
261. Daniel A. Farber, Pledging a New Allegiance: An Essay on Sovereignty and the New Federalism, 75 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1133, 1144 (2000) ("In the end, the Court seems left only with its faith in the innate sovereign dignity of state governments. This veneration of state governments-rather than history, precedent, or policy-is the mainstay of the New Federalism. The inherent dignity of state governments is not an intuitive truth for all of us. But apparently it is an intuitive matter-more than that, a matter of faith-for five Justices.").
262. Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 715 (1999).
263. On authority, rather than sovereignty, as an aim and necessary condition of just law and politics, see Brennan, Locating Authority, supra note 74.
264. See Ernest A. Young, The Rehnquist Court's Two Federalisms, 83 TEX. L. REV. 1, 13-15 (2004) (arguing for state "autonomy" instead of state "sovereignty");
265. see also Andrzej Rapaczynski, From Sovereignty to Process: The Jurisprudence of Federalism After Garda, 1985 SUP. CT. REV. 341, 400 ("[T] he model of participatory government, which goes back as far as Aristotle, views political activity not as instrumental toward achieving a proportionate share in the distribution of available resources, to be used in a variety of private pursuits, but rather as a good in itself, something essentially implicated in the very concept of human freedom.").
266. See also Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 77-78 (1938) (suggesting "injustice," "confusion" and "unconstitutionality" as justifications for overruling established court doctrine);
267. cf. Suzanna Sherry, The Eleventh Amendment and Stare Decisis: Overruling Hans v. Louisiana, 57 U. CHI. L. REV. 1260, 1271 (1990) ("[D]epartures from stare decisis are justified either where changed circumstances have so undermined the prior case as to deprive it of its legitimacy, or where later cases have revealed glaring inconsistencies in the law.").
268. Vining, supra note 179, at 1050.
269. VINING, AUTHORITATIVE, supra note 179, at 218.
270. See STONER, supra note 138, at 36 ("Instead of saying that obedience is mandated only in that regime whose laws conform to a universal standard of goodness, [Lord Coke's view] makes obedience to a particular government the first instance of a man's obedience to law.").
271. For an account that brings together, in a way consistent with the argument advanced here, the elements of sovereignty, authority, democracy, and law, see YVES R. SIMON, PHILOSOPHY OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT 144-94 (1993).
272. MARITAIN, supra note 72, at 25.
273. See JOHN T. NOONAN, JR., THE LUSTRE OF OUR COUNTRY 2 (1998).
274. See id. at 2, 68;
275. see also Patrick McKinley Brennan, Free, Exercise! Following Conscience, Developing Doctrine, and Opening Politics, 74 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 933 (1999)
276. (reviewing NOONAN, supra note 225).
277. Catholic social thought of the last hundred years has been concerned to deny or limit claims of sovereignty; the Catholic model is one of plural social authorities in healthy competition with one another under a state limited by and guided by the principle of subsidiarity (as understood in the papal encyclicals), (e.g., family, churches, schools, etc.). See Russell Hittinger, Social Pluralism and Subsidiarity in Catholic Social Doctrine, 7 PROVIDENCE 52, 54 (2002).