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

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
107
Abstract Views
609
rank
262,331
PlumX Metrics