Not in for a Pound – In for a Penny? Must a Majoritarian Democrat Treat All Constitutional Judicial Review as Equally Egregious?
King's Law Journal, Vol. 21, 2010
University of Queensland TC Beirne School of Law Research Paper No. 10-31
25 Pages Posted: 1 Sep 2010 Last revised: 21 Sep 2010
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: 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
Feedback
Feedback to SSRN
If you need immediate assistance, call 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 212 448 2500 outside of the United States, 8:30AM to 6:00PM U.S. Eastern, Monday - Friday.