Not in for a Pound – In for a Penny? Must a Majoritarian Democrat Treat All Constitutional Judicial Review as Equally Egregious?

25 Pages Posted: 1 Sep 2010 Last revised: 21 Sep 2010

See all articles by James Allan

James Allan

The University of Queensland - T.C. Beirne School of Law

Date Written: August 30, 2010

Abstract

The author defends the position that rights-related judicial review is more democratically egregious than federalist-related judicial review and structural judicial review. He provides an in-depth argument for why the counter-majoritarian difficulty is much worse in the case of rights-related review.

Keywords: majoritarian democrat, rights-related judicial review, federalist-related judicial review, Bills of Rights, democracy, implied rights

Suggested Citation

Allan, James, Not in for a Pound – In for a Penny? Must a Majoritarian Democrat Treat All Constitutional Judicial Review as Equally Egregious? (August 30, 2010). King's Law Journal, Vol. 21, 2010, University of Queensland TC Beirne School of Law Research Paper No. 10-31, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1669043 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1669043

James Allan (Contact Author)

The University of Queensland - T.C. Beirne School of Law ( email )

The University of Queensland
St Lucia
4072 Brisbane, Queensland 4072
Australia

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
129
Abstract Views
802
Rank
397,606
PlumX Metrics