Blog of the International Journal of Constitutional Law

Tag: Countermajoritarianism

  • Trapped in the Age of Trump: the American Supreme Court and 21st Century Populism

    —Or Bassok, University of Nottingham [Editor’s Note: This post is part of the joint I-CONnect/Verfassungsblog mini-symposium on populism and constitutional courts. An introduction to the symposium can be found here. The author thanks Shay Levi for his valuable comments.] The American Supreme Court is currently ill-equipped to confront populism.

  • Judges, Democracy and the “New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism”

    —Tom Hickey, Dublin City University Aileen Kavanagh and Joseph Raz are among many supporters of constitutional judicial supremacy who characterise their support as justified despite what they see as its non- or perhaps even anti-democratic nature.[1] They employ the “ends-justifies-the-means” mantra: better to have system that makes “good” outcomes more likely, at the cost of perhaps occasionally thwarting the will of the people, than a perfectly democratic system that more routinely makes for “bad” outcomes.[2]

  • Book Review/Response: Stephen Tierney and Peter Oliver on Constitutional Referendums

    [Editor’s Note: In this installment of I•CONnect’s Book Review/Response Series, Peter Oliver reviews Stephen Tierney’s recent book Constitutional Referendums: The Theory and Practice of Republican Deliberation, just released in paperback. Stephen Tierney then responds to the review.] Review by Peter Oliver –Peter Oliver, Vice Dean, Full Professor and Member of the Public Law Group, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, reviewing Stephen Tierney, Constitutional Referendums: The Theory and Practice of Republican Deliberation (Oxford 2012) Constitutional commentators are divided on whether constitutional referendums are a good thing.

  • Why *Judicial* Review: A Preliminary Typology of Scholarly Arguments

    —Richard Albert, Boston College Law School It was perhaps inevitable that the advent of written constitutionalism would quicken the rise of judicial review. The writtenness of a constitution creates a ready-made argument in favor of judicial review, namely that the constitutional text sets the standard against which the constitutionality of governmental action must be measured, and that any governmental action to the contrary is invalid.