The Constitution as Sovereign

The sovereign is an idea that really hasn't been covered up to this point in our adventure through postmodernism; the original source of power, I feel, has been neglected for the end product of that power, namely structures and institutions within society that have come to manipulate it for their own ends and purposes. These institutions and structures I speak of are things such as the media, MNCs, and political institutions, yet none of these things are sovereign in and of themselves; they all derive their power from something else whether it be money or some idea of power. I want to focus on our sovereign, the Constitution, which I think is either a shining of "the paradox of sovereignty" or one of the few objects that is sovereign, yet lies outside the paradox. "The paradox of sovereignty consists in the fact the sovereign is, at the same time, outside and inside the juridical order." (1) However, in the Constitution's situation, it is the juridical order and it isn't living. Everything our government has the power to do is derived from the Constitution, therefore making it the original sovereign, yet unable to act in and of itself. It is definitely outside the juridical order, yet it really isn't "inside" it as it is the jurdicial order. I thought this might pose an interesting counter argument to Agmben's understanding of the classical sovereign, such as a king or what have you.

But Agamben distinguishes between *constituted* power and *constituting* power, right? Our Constitution is constituted. But where's the *constituting* power from which its authority derives?

I feel that once the constitution was constituted "by the people and for the people" and all that good stuff that it became basically infallible and unwavering, at least in the sense that it will never be "unconstituted". Therefore it has the "constituting power" without ever needing to reference its constituted power. Does that place over and above the the distinction between "constituted" and "constituting" power?

That could make for a good argument, yet my first reaction to this was to resist the notion of the Constitution being the sovereign. Where exactly is this Constitution get its legitimacy? -- it is a good question. The people, the president, the government? Although it doesn't need a reference to make its power constituted, in a way perhaps it does to continue being a legitimate power?

did anyone catch a glimpse of my response to bumpkins? it was so witty and articulate :) ah well...lost to cyberspace.

a much less eloquent overview of my lost comment:
I think it's important to understand what is implicated in stating 'for the people'. "people" seems to refer to citizen, a term which has a range of connotation since the inception of the Constitution (and prior to, needless to say). If it is by this account that the makes up the *constituting* power, then it is inherently exclusionary based on this very condition. The sovereignty of the constitution, Agamben would remind us, is bound up in a politics of exclusion, where by 'noncitizens' (slaves, illegial immigrants, prisoners) may not received the benefits of citizenry but are subject to state law, under the name of Truth and 'goodness' which are naturalized as amorphous and indisputable. ....i've lost the gist of the original comment. oh dear.