Isn't thins a simple case of the subject-transitive verb-direct
object-object complement pattern with the object complement in this case
preceding the direct object?  We do often explain that pattern as implying
(derived from) a "to be" between the direct object and the object
complement:  The judge declared the law (to be) unconstitutional.  ANd we
sometimes reverse the pattern, especially when the direct object with its
modifiers is long:  The judge declared unconstitutional the law
prohibiting billboards within the city limits.

On Sun, 13 Sep 1998, Dick Veit, UNCW English Dept. wrote:

> Further response to:
> >In the last few days, I have been seeing the statement,
> >"The Congress will make public the report." . . .
>
> This may be considered a reduced infinitive:
>
>         Congress will make the report (to be) public
>
> That is, it derives from the structure underlying both those sentences;
> approximately:
>
>         Congress will make [the report be public]
>
> But such constructions don't work with just any adjectives.  Some
> adjectives will work with following complement clauses ("make certain that
> the truth is told") but not with simple direct objects (*"make certain the
> outcome"), and many work with neither simple direct objects (*"make famous
> the report) nor complements (*"make famous that the report is presented").
> The "make public" construction belongs to a small class of exceptions or
> idioms that act like verb-particle constructions such as "look up the
> answer/look the answer up," "turn on," "think over," "figure out," etc.
>
> A similar expression, "put forward," seems even more idiomatic.  We can
> say, "The candidate put forward her name for the election" or "The
> candidate put her name forward for the election."  It may have originally
> derived from an infinitive, but the sentence "The candidate put her name to
> be forward for the election" sounds especially odd.
>
> Dick Veit
> Dept. of English
> University of North Carolina at Wilmington
>