ABSTRACT
Stephen L.Elkin argues that mainstream constitutional thinking is centered around either constitutional law (as practiced in American politics), or in comparative law (as in the analysis of written constitutions and other legal documents, as was common in pre-1960s comparative politics) (Elkin 1933-34). Whereas, Elkin argues, these forms of constitutional thinking are superior to either typical positivist social science, or traditional political philosophy in adding to our understanding of regimes, all remain “empirically bereft and normatively weak” (Elkin 1934).
