caa a22 4500 388080264 CHVBK 20180307125212.0 cr unu---uuuuu 161130e199912 xx s 000 0 eng 10.2307/2586116 doi S0003055400219126 pii (NATIONALLICENCE)cambridge-10.2307/2586116 Hammons Christopher W. Houston Baptist University Was James Madison Wrong? Rethinking the American Preference for Short, Framework-Oriented Constitutions [Elektronische Daten] [Christopher W. Hammons] American constitutional thought has long held that short, framework-oriented constitutions last longer than lengthy, statute-oriented constitutions. The longevity of the U.S. Constitution contributes heavily to this assumption. Not surprisingly, political scientists criticize state constitutions for their greater length and tendency to address issues better dealt with through ordinary statute law. These "defects” are frequently cited as responsible for the shorter lifespan of state constitutions. An examination of the 145 constitutions used by the American states since 1776, however, reveals a relationship among content, length, and durability that refutes the assumption that the design of the national constitution is necessarily superior. To the contrary, the analysis here reveals that longer and more detailed design of state constitutions actually enhances rather than reduces their longevity. Copyright © American Political Science Association 1999 American Political Science Review Cambridge University Press 93/4(1999-12), 837-849 0003-0554 93:4<837 1999 93 PSR https://doi.org/10.2307/2586116 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI 1 research-article jats NATIONALLICENCE 856 40 https://doi.org/10.2307/2586116 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI NATIONALLICENCE 100 1- Hammons Christopher W. Houston Baptist University NATIONALLICENCE 773 0- American Political Science Review Cambridge University Press 93/4(1999-12), 837-849 0003-0554 93:4<837 1999 93 PSR CC0 http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0 nationallicence BK010053 XK010053 XK010000 NATIONALLICENCE NATIONALLICENCE NL-cambridge