Constitutional Logic

Timothy A.O. Endicott

University of Oxford - Faculty of Law

July 3, 2008

University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 53, pp. 201-216, 2003

A review article on Mark Elliott, The Constitutional Foundations of Judicial Review (Hart Publishing 2001). I argue against Elliott's view that, as a matter of logic, judges cannot impose duties on the exercise of statutory powers without acting inconsistently with the legislation, unless Parliament intended the imposition. I also argue against the 'ultra vires theory' (the theory that the constitutional justification for judicial review of the exercise of statutory powers is that the courts are giving effect to limitations that were imposed by Parliament when it granted the power). It is the common law of the constitution, and not Parliament, that gives the courts the responsibility of imposing the requirements of the rule of law on the exercise of statutory powers. The ultra vires theory, even in Elliott's sophisticated modification, shows the influence of a popular misconception of the role of Parliament in the United Kingdom constitution.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 14

Keywords: jursiprudence, ultra vires, judicial review

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: July 4, 2008  

Suggested Citation

Endicott, Timothy A.O., Constitutional Logic (July 3, 2008). University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 53, pp. 201-216, 2003. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1155022

Contact Information

Timothy A.O. Endicott (Contact Author)
University of Oxford - Faculty of Law ( email )
St. Cross Building
St. Cross Road
Oxford, OX1 3UJ
United Kingdom
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,490
Downloads: 279
Download Rank: 80,928

© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.188 seconds