Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Dialogue: Clarified And Reconsidered, Rainer Knopff, Rhonda Evans, Dennis Baker, Dave Snow
Dialogue: Clarified And Reconsidered, Rainer Knopff, Rhonda Evans, Dennis Baker, Dave Snow
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
Controversies about constitutional “dialogue” often stem from disagreement over the concept itself. The metaphor’s meaning and attendant consequences differ depending on whether it reflects the assumptions of judicial interpretive supremacy or coordinate interpretation. By combining that distinction with the contrast between weak-form and strong-form rights review, this article creates an integrated framework for clarifying dialogic variation across such jurisdictions as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia. We apply this framework most intensely to the Canadian case and bring differences between several dialogic forms—especially the difference between “clarification dialogue” and “reconsideration dialogue”—into sharper relief than is …
Rethinking Manner And Form: From Parliamentary Sovereignty To Constitutional Values, R. Elliot
Rethinking Manner And Form: From Parliamentary Sovereignty To Constitutional Values, R. Elliot
Osgoode Hall Law Journal
The issue of whether a legislative body in a democratic society can bind itself on matters relating to the procedures by which the legislation is to be enacted, amended or repealed has, to this point, tended to dissolve into the question of which of two contending formulations of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty one prefers, Dicey's traditional formulation or the "new view" by Jennings and others. The author argues that, regardless of how one formulates it, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty provides an unsound basis upon which to resolve this issue, and that an alternative basis is therefore needed. That …