This article examines the relationships between constitutionalism and public administration through a comparative textual analysis of the constitutions of the Fifth French Republic and the United States. Particular emphasis is placed on the exceptional powers of the presidents of the two countries, the influence of the executive power on the respective legislative processes, and the practical significance of the divided executive power in France compared to the formally unified American executive. These diverse comparisons are brought together by the theme of how the constitutional traditions in the two countries both promote and inhibit the capacity for action of the administrative state.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Blrhier, T. (1990, 29 March). Les embuches politiques d'une réforme de la constitution. Le Monde.
2.
Chatelain, J. (1987a). Article 3. In F. Luchaire & G. Conac (Eds.), La constitution de la république française (2nd ed., pp. 179-207). Paris: Economica.
3.
Chatelain, J. (1987b). Article 16. In F. Luchaire & G. Conac (Eds.), La constitution de la république française (2nd ed., pp. 541-553). Paris: Economica.
4.
Comité national chargé de la publication des travaux préparatoires des institutions de la Ve république. (1987, 1989, 1991). Documents pour servir a l'histoire de l'élaboration de la constitution du 4 octobre 1958 (3 vols.). Paris: La Documentation Française.
5.
Conac, G. (1989). Article 20. In F. Luchaire & G. Conac, Le Droit constitutionnel de la cohabitation (pp. 142-157). Paris. Economica.
6.
Cooke, J. E. (Ed.). (1961). The Federalist. Middleton, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
7.
Cooper, P. (1986). By order of the president: Administration by executive order and proclamation. Administration & Society, 18, 233-262.
8.
Cooper, P. (1988). Public law and public administration (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
9.
Conseil constitutionnel. (1961, April 23).
10.
Conseil constitutionnel. (1971, July 16), 71-44.
11.
Conseil constitutionnel. (1982, July 30), 82-143.
12.
Cutler, L. N. (1980). To form a government. Foreign Affairs, 59, 126-143.
13.
Davis, M. H. (1987). A government of judges: An historical review. American Journal of Comparative Law, 35, 559-580.
14.
Debre, M. (1959). La nouvelle constitution. Revue française de science politique, 9, 7-29.
15.
Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951).
16.
Duhamel, O. (1990, 15-16 July). Déni de justice constitutionelle. Le Monde.
17.
Duhamel, O. , & Parodi, J-L. (1988). A l'épreuve de la cohabitation. In O. Duhamel & J-L Parodi (Eds.), La constitution de la cinquième république (pp. 541-550). Paris: Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques.
18.
Farrand, M. (1966). The records of the Federal Conventon of 1787 (5 vols.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. (Original work published 1911)
19.
Favoreu, L. (1978). In Actes du colloque d'Aix-en-Provence. Paris: PUF.
20.
Favoreu, L. , & Philip, L. (1989). Les grandes decisions du Conseil constitutionnel (5th ed.). Paris: Sirey.
21.
Feigenbaum, H. (1990). Recent evolution of the French executive. Governance, 3, 264-278.
22.
Génévois, B. (1988). La jurisprudence du conseil constitutionnel. Paris: Les Editions STH.
23.
Guillien, R. , & Vmcent, J. (1990). Léxique de termes juridiques (8th ed.). Paris: Dalloz.
24.
Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1980).
25.
Hamon, L. (1987a). Article 42. In F. Luchaire & G. Conac (Eds.), La constitution de la république française (2nd ed., pp. 839-842). Paris: Economica.
26.
Hamon, L. (1987b). Article 43. In F. Luchaire & G. Conac (Eds.), La constitution de la république française (2nd ed., pp. 843-858). Paris: Economica.
27.
Hamon, L. (1988). La loi et réglement: Articles 34, 37, et 38 de la constitution de 19S8. Paris: La Documentation Française.
28.
Hoagland, J. (1990, October 23). President Bush needs a prime minister. Washington Post, p. 17.
29.
Kaminsky, E. B-Z. (1989). The contemporary French executive: Stable governments, unstable institutions. Atlanta, GA: American Political Science Association.
30.
Kelly, A. H. , Harbison, W. A., & Belz, H. (1983). The American Constitution: Its origins and development (6th ed.). New York: Norton.
31.
Lamarque, J. (1961), L'article 16. Revue de droit public et de la science politique, pp. 613ff.
32.
Lavigne, P. (1987). Article 13. In F. Luchaire & G. Conac (Eds.), La constitution de la république française (2nd ed., pp. 519-525). Paris: Economica.
33.
Luchaire, F. (1987a). Article 37. In F. Luchaire & G. Conac (Eds.), La constitution de la république française (pp. 787-794). Paris: Economica.
34.
Luchaire, F. (1987b). Introduction. In F. Luchaire & G. Conac (Eds.), La constitution de la république française (pp. 35-45). Paris: Economica.
35.
Luchaire, F. , & Conac, G. (Eds). (1987). La constitution de la reépublique française (2nd ed.). Paris: Economica.
36.
Luchaire, F. , & Conac, G. (1989). Le droit constitutionnel de la cohabitation. Paris: Economica.
37.
Maddox, G. (1982). A note on the meaning of "constitution."American Political Science Review, 76, 805-809.
38.
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803).
39.
Marshall, T. (Ed.). (1992, forthcoming). Théorie et pratique du gouvernement constitutionnel. Paris: Editions de l'Espace Européen.
40.
Maus, D. (1987). Article 44. In F. Luchaire & G. Conac (Eds.), La constitution de la république française (pp. 859-885). Paris: Economica.
41.
Maus, D. (1988). La constitution jugee par sa pratique. In O. Duhamel & J-L Parodi (Eds.), La constitution de la cinquiècme république (pp. 295-329). Paris: Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques.
42.
McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819).
43.
Meny, Y. (1989). Textes constitutionnels et documents politiques. Paris: Monchrestien.
44.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 63 (1986).
45.
Morrison v. Olson, 108 S. CL 2597 (1988).
46.
Passeron, A. (1990, December 18). Crise des institutions. Le Monde, p. 9.
47.
Pezant, J-L. (1988). Loi/réglement: La constitution d'un nouvel équilibre. In O. Duhamel & J-L Parodi (Eds.), La constitution de la cinquème république (pp. 342-374). Paris: Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques.
48.
Philip, L. (1988). Bilan et effets de la saisine du conseil constitutionnel. In O. Duhamel & J-L Parodi (Eds.), La constitution de la cinquème république (pp. 408-421). Paris: Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques.
49.
Poulard, J. V. (1990). The French double executive and the experience of cohabitation. Political Science Quarterly, 105, 243-267.
50.
Prelot, M. (1952). Précis de droit constitutionnel. Paris: Dalloz.
51.
Quermonne, J-L. (1988). Bilan juridique: Introduction. In O. Duhamel & J-L. Parodi (Eds.), La constitution de la cinquième république (pp. 283-294). Paris: Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques.
52.
Robert-Diard, P. (1990, 8 December). En attendant la VIe république. Le Monde, p. 8.
53.
Rohr, J. A. (1986). To run a constitution: The legitinacy of Jthe administrative state. Lawrence:University Press of Kansas.
54.
Rohr, J. A. (1989). Public administration, executive power, and constitutional confusion. Public Administration Review, 49, 108-115.
55.
Safran, W. (1991). The French polity (3rd ed.). New York. Longman.
56.
Servent, P. (1990, December 25). Les députés rêvent de moderniser la république. Le Monde, p.7.
57.
Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944).
58.
Sorenson, T. (1984). A different kind of presidency. New York: Harper & Row.
59.
Vedel, G. (1990, April 6). Réforme de la constitution: Ni gadget ni révolution. Le Monde.
60.
Vile, M.J.C. (1967). Constitutionalism and the separation of powers. London: Oxford University Press.
61.
Wiener, C. (1970). Recherches sur le pouvoir réglmentaire des ministres. Pads: Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence: R. Pichon et R. Durand-Auzias.
