Ernst-Wolfgang Bӧckenfӧrde on Constitutional Judging in a Democracy

This Article explores Ernst-Wolfgang Bӧckenfӧrde’s views about constitutional judging in a democracy. It offers three ideal types of constitutional judging, each drawn from the extra-judicial writings of prominent constitutional judges who represent it. The three types are: (1) the prophet, who views the constitution as visionary and value-laden, and who entertains an expansive view of the judge’s role in giving voice and validity to that vision and those values; (2) the essayist, who shares the prophet’s sense of the vast scope and myriad resources of constitutional judging, but who, lacking the prophet’s confidence in getting such bewilderingly difficult questions right, approaches constitutional judging cautiously, skeptically, and deferentially; and (3) the executor, who views constitutional judging as the effort to discern the constitution’s concrete, limited content, and to enforce that content unflinchingly. Bӧckenfӧrde, the Article argues, was an executor-one who shared many interpretive commitments with the two most prominent executors in the American constitutional tradition: Hugo Black and, especially, the late Antonin Scalia.