¹ See Somek, Alexander, The Cosmopolitan Constitution 179 (2014).Google Scholar

² See id. at 17–18, 23, 179–80.Google Scholar

³ See id. at 1–2.Google Scholar

⁴ See id. at 1, 65–66, 79–80.Google Scholar

⁵ See id. at 92, 95, 109–10.Google Scholar

⁶ See id. at 16.Google Scholar

⁷ See id . at 16–17, 82–84.Google Scholar

⁸ See id. at 7–8, 16–17, 81–84, 106–07.Google Scholar

⁹ See id. at 1, 282.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See id. at vii.Google Scholar

¹¹ See id. at 86.Google Scholar

¹² Dani, Marco, Una traiettoria teorica del costituzionalismo modern, 4 Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto Pubblico 887, 890–91 (2017) (raising a similar critique).Google Scholar

¹³ Somek, supra note 1, at 9.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ackerman, Bruce, We the People Ii: Transformations 279–311, 383–422 (1998).Google Scholar

¹⁵ See, e.g., Rossiter, Clinton, constitutional dictatorship: crisis government in the modern democracies 255–314 (1948).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Somek, supra note 1, at 17, 94–97; Carl Schmitt, Legality and Legitimacy 4–5, 8, 53 (Jeffrey Seitzer trans., 2004).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Somek, supra note 1, at 87.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ackerman, Bruce, We The People I: Foundations 67, 75, 80, 83–85, 105 et seq. (1991); Ackerman, supra note 14, at 18, 25, 279–311, 383–422; see also Rossiter, supra note 15, at 211–314.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Somek, supra note 1, at 271.Google Scholar

²⁰ Somek, Alexander, Replica, 4 Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto Pubblico 927, 927 (2017).Google Scholar

²¹ Id. Google Scholar

²² Kant, Immanuel, Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (1795).Google Scholar

²³ Habermas, Jürgen, The Crisis Of The European Union: A Response (Ciaran Cronin trans., 2012).Google Scholar

²⁴ Itzcovich, Giulio, Libertà sociale e stato nazione: una relazione problematica, 4 Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto Pubblico 919, 923 (2017).Google Scholar

²⁵ Bickerton, Christopher, European Integration: From Nation-States to Member States 12 (2012).Google Scholar

²⁶ Id. at 13, 74–112.Google Scholar

²⁷ Somek, supra note 1, at vii.Google Scholar

²⁸ See Wilkinson, Michael A., Constitutional Pluralism: Chronicle of a Death Foretold? 23 Eur. L.J. 213 (2017); Michael A. Wilkinson, The Reconstitution of Postwar Europe, in Constitutionalism Beyond Liberalism 38 (Michael W. Dowdle & Michael A. Wilkinson eds., 2017).Google Scholar

²⁹ Milward, Alan, The European Rescue Of The Nation-State 4 (1992).Google Scholar

³⁰ Id. at 3.Google Scholar

³¹ Somek, supra note 1, at 84.Google Scholar

³² Id. at 1.Google Scholar

³³ Id. at 78, 96. Somek stresses the passive nature of the constituent power in this shift. While this arguably is the case for Germany, it is not the case for many other states belonging to the ideal type of 2.0. On the contrary, many of the states belonging of the ideal type of 2.0 have been the most active and inclusive constitution making process. See Andrew Arato, Post Sovereign Constitution Making: Learning and Legitimacy (2016).Google Scholar

³⁴ Grundgesetz [GG] [Basic Law] pmbl.Google Scholar

³⁵ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] [Federal Constitutional Court], June 30, 2009, 2 BvE 2/08, para. 222 [hereinafter Judgement of June 30, 2009]. Google Scholar

³⁶ Id. at para. 225.Google Scholar

³⁷ Id. at paras. 219–25. With reference to the Italian Constitution, Andrea Gauzzarotti has raised a similar critique, see Andrea Guazzarotti, Rafforzare il costituzionalismo al di là della geopolitica, 4 RiVIsta Trimestrale di Diritto PubbLIco 907, 909 (2017).Google Scholar

³⁸ Somek, supra note 1, at 10, 155–57.Google Scholar

³⁹ Müller, Jan-Werner, Contesting Democracy: Political Ideas in Twentieth-Century Europe 148 (2013).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Müller, Jan-Werner, Beyond Militant Democracy?, 73 New Left Rev. 39, 43 (2012).Google Scholar

⁴¹ The main exceptions are arguably the Scandinavian countries and the United Kingdom, neither of which seem to fall within Somek's 2.0 ideal type.Google Scholar

⁴² Fursdon, Edward, The European Defence Community: A History 41–47, 64–5, 81–99 (1980).Google Scholar

⁴³ See Syntagama [Syn.] [Constitution] art. 2(1) (Greece) (“Respect and protection of the value of the human being constitute the primary obligations of the State.”); Constitution of the Republic of Portugal, art. 1 (“Portugal is a sovereign Republic, based on the dignity of the human person and the will of the people, and committed to building a free and fair society that unites in solidarity.”); C.E., B.O.E. n. 1, Dec. 29, 1978 (Spain) (“The dignity of the person, the inviolable rights which are inherent, the free development of the personality, the respect for the law and for the rights of others are the foundation of political order and social peace.”).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Royo, Sebastián, Lessons from Spain and Portugal in the European Union After 20 Years, 26 Pôle Sud 1 (2007); Laurence Whitehead, Democracy by Convergence and Southern Europe: A Comparative Politics Perspective, in Encouraging Democracy: The International Context Of Regime Transition In Southern Europe 45–61 (Geoffrey Pridham ed., 1991); Dusan Sidjanski, Transition to Democracy and European Integration: The Role of Interest Groups in Southern Europe, in Encouraging Democracy: The International Context Of Regime Transition In Southern Europe 195–211 (Geoffrey Pridham ed., 1991); Geoffrey Pridham, The Politics of the European Community, Transnational Networks and Democratic Transition in Southern Europe, in Encouraging Democracy: The International Context Of Regime Transition In Southern Europe 212–245 (Geoffrey Pridham ed., 1991); Eirini Karamouzi, A Strategy for Greece: Democratization and European Integration, 1974-1975, in 90 Cahiers De la Méditerranée: Democratic Transition/Ardengo Soffici 1, 4–6, 8–9 (2015).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Sío-López, Cristina Blanco, Reconditioning the “Return to Europe”: The Influence of Spanish Accession in Shaping the EU's Eastern Enlargement Process, in The Crisis of EU Enlargement: Special Report 26 (2013).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Přibáň, Jiří, Legal Symbolism: On law, Time And European Identity 94 (2007); Marise Cremona, Introduction to The Enlargements Of The European Union 2 (Marise Cremona ed., 2003); Milada Anna Vachudova, Europe Undivided: Democracy, Leverage, and Integration After Communism (2005).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Přibáň, supra note 46, at 94.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Habermas, Jürgen, What Does Socialism Mean Today? The Rectifying Revolution and the Need for New Thinking on the Left, I/183 New Left Rev. 3 (1990).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Whether this was actually the case is irrelevant. The point is that the emergence of 2.0 was intrinsically linked to 3.0 in the constitutional imagination of these states.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ With the notable exception of the UK and Scandinavia.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Somek, supra note 1, at 202.Google Scholar

⁵² Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art. 21, May 9, 2008 O.J. (C 115) 47 [hereinafter TFEU].Google Scholar

⁵³ Id. art. 18.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Somek, supra note 1, at 202.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Id. at 203–05, 260–61.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Id. at 205–10.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Schönberger, Christoph, Unionsbürger: Europas Föderales Bürgerrecht in Vergleichender Sicht (2005).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Schönberger, Christoph, Die Europäische Union als Bund, 129(1) Archiv des Offentlichen Rechts 113, 113–17 (2004); Christoph Schönberger, European Citizenship as Federal Citizenship, Some Citizenship Lessons of Comparative Federalism, 19(1) Eur. Rev. of Pub. L. 63, 68–69 (2007).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Schönberger, supra note 58, at 74–75.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Id. at 72.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Id. at 71, 74.Google Scholar

⁶² Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941).Google Scholar

⁶³ Schönberger, supra note 58, at 71. See also Arthur E. Sutherland, Commerce, Transportation and Customs, in Studies in Federalism 297 (Carl J. Friedrich & Robert R. Bowie eds., 1954).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Schönberger, supra note 58, at 71.Google Scholar