3 Varieties of Constitutionalism

3.1 Legal and Political ConstitutionalismThe modern debate is between two guardians of limits:PointLegal constitutionalismPolitical constitutionalismGuardian of limitsCourts, especially via judicial review and rights adjudicationDemocratic politics — elections, parliament, publicity, party competitionCore claimRights and limits must be legalized — removed from ordinary politics and enforced by independent judges against majoritiesLimits are best kept political — a sovereign people and their representatives deliberate; judicial supremacy is counter-majoritarian and undemocraticModel institutionsBill of rights, constitutional court, strong judicial review (Germany, USA, India; Nepal's rights jurisdiction)Parliamentary sovereignty, political questions, deference doctrines (the classic British tradition before rights jurisprudence; Commonwealth conventions)StrengthPointLegal constitutionalismPolitical constitutionalismHard protection for minorities and rights against transient majoritiesDemocratic legitimacy, flexibility, accountability of the protectors themselvesWeakness"Government by judiciary" — unelected judges deciding value questions; legalization of politicsMajoritarian danger to minorities; limits melt under panic or populismThe mature position (and the safe examination answer) is complementarity: political constitutionalism generates and legitimates the limits; legal constitutionalism enforces them when politics fails. Nepal's design is predominantly legal-constitutionalist (enforceable rights, robust review), resting on political-constitutionalist foundations (elected constituent assembly, parliamentary responsibility, referendum provision under Article 275) — the balance shifts with each era's court-legislature relations.3.2 Liberal ConstitutionalismThe classical model: individual freedom as the end, limited government as the means. Elements: rights to life, liberty, property and expression; equality before law; consent of the governed; neutrality of the state…