South African Constitutional Doctors with Low Public Support

30 Constitutional Commentary 521 (2015)

20 Pages Posted: 24 Jun 2015 Last revised: 25 Sep 2016

See all articles by Or Bassok

Or Bassok

University of Nottingham - Faculty of Law and Social Sciences

Date Written: January 23, 2015

Abstract

A revolutionary conclusion arises from reading Theunis Roux’s new book on the first ten years of the South African Constitutional Court. Without explicating it in so many words, Roux shows that a national high court does not require public support to function properly. This conclusion contradicts a controlling paradigm in American constitutional theory that has emphasized for many decades that without the sword or the purse, all the Supreme Court has is public support. Without such support, according to this dominant paradigm, the Court cannot function properly. Through a critical reading of Roux’s book, I expose how his research revives Alexander Hamilton’s idea from the Federalist 78th that under certain conditions, the Court can rely on its expertise (“merely judgment”) for its proper function, even without public support.

Keywords: South Africa, expertise, public support, Hamilton

Suggested Citation

Bassok, Or, South African Constitutional Doctors with Low Public Support (January 23, 2015). 30 Constitutional Commentary 521 (2015), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2621512

Or Bassok (Contact Author)

University of Nottingham - Faculty of Law and Social Sciences ( email )

Nottingham, NG8 1BB
United Kingdom

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
69
Abstract Views
693
rank
401,042
PlumX Metrics