Law Commons^™

Historical Evolution And Future Of Natural Resources Law And Policy: The Beginning Of An Argument And Some Modest Predictions, Sally K. Fairfax, Helen Ingram, Leigh Raymond

The Future of Natural Resources Law and Policy (Summer Conference, June 6-8)

8 pages.

Includes bibliographical references

"Sally Fairfax, UC-Berkeley, Helen Ingram, UC-Irvine, and Leigh Raymond, Purdue University" -- Agenda

Taking Dialogue Theory Much Too Seriously (Or Perhaps Charter Dialogue Isn't Such A Good Thing After All), Andrew Petter

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

This article challenges the thesis of Peter W. Hogg, Allison A. Bushell Thornton, and Wade K. Wright (put forth earlier in this issue) that the frequency of legislative responses to Charter decisions striking down laws, which they refer to as "Charter dialogue," provides evidence that Canada has a weaker form of. judicial review than is thought to exist in the United States. This article also critiques their claim that judicial review is justified by the idea that individuals have rights that cannot be taken away by an appeal to the general welfare'. The author maintains that this claim not only …

Imports Or Made-In-China: Comparison Of Two Constitutional Cases In China And The United States, Xiao Li

LLM Theses and Essays

When its economic increase attracts the global attention, China is also looking for a break-through in its judicial reform. The Qi v. Chen case (2001) was considered to be the Chinese version of Marbury v. Madison and gave rise to a heated discussion of the judicial review power in China. This article will analyze the doubts on the Qi case and the prospects of judicial review it indicates through comparison with Marbury v. Madison. Although Qi v. Chen opened the door for constitutional litigation, its dramatic facts and strained application of the Constitution threw it into question. Nevertheless, its effect …

Marbury In Mexico: Judicial Review’S Precocious Southern Migration, M C. Mirow

Faculty Publications

In attempting to construct United States-style judicial review for the Mexican Supreme Court in the 1880s, Ignacio Vallarta, president of the court, read Marbury in a way that preceded this use of the case in the United States. Using this surprising fact as a central example, this article makes several important contributions to the field of comparative constitutional law. The work demonstrates that through constitutional migration, novel readings of constitutional sources can arise in foreign fora. In an era when the United States Supreme Court may be accused of parochialism in its constitutional analysis, the article addresses the current controversy …

Does The Observer Have An Effect?: An Analysis Of The Use Of The Dialogue Metaphor In Canada's Courts, Richard Haigh, Michael Sobkin

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

In "Charter Dialogue Revisited-Or 'Much Ado About Metaphors,"' it is noted that the original idea behind the dialogue metaphor was simply to describe Canada's constitutional structure. Despite this, the metaphor has been criticized for having normative content and influencing courts and legislatures. In this commentary, the authors analyze all Supreme Court of Canada and lower court uses of the dialogue metaphor and conclude that, with some exceptions, the courts have employed the metaphor properly, i.e., descriptively. Since, however, the metaphor can be misapplied-used other than to describe or explain the relationship between the courts and legislatures in Canada-the authors recommend …

The Populist Safeguards Of Federalism, Robert A. Mikos

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Extant legal scholarship often portrays citizens as the catalysts of federalization. Scholars say that citizens pressure Congress to impose their morals on people living in other states, to trump home-state laws with which they disagree, or to shift the costs of regulatory programs onto out-of-state taxpayers, all to the demise of states' rights. Since Congress (usually) gives citizens what they want, scholars insist the courts must step in to protect states from federal encroachments. By contrast, this Article proposes a new theory of the populist safeguards of federalism. It develops two distinct but mutually reinforcing reasons why populist demands on …

Militating Democracy: Comparative Constitutional Perspectives, Ruti Teitel

Michigan Journal of International Law

Can constitutional review by judges save democracy? This Article identifies and discusses the rise of "militant constitutional democracy" by exploring diverse approaches to the role of constitutional and transnational judicial review in rights protection and the challenges that these approaches present to the workings of democracy, the possibilities of compromise, consensus, and conciliation in political life, and the challenge to other constitutional values as well. "Militant constitutional democracy" ought to be understood as belonging to transitional constitutionalism, associated with periods of political transformation that often demand closer judicial vigilance in the presence of fledgling and often fragile democratic institutions; it …

Charter Dialogue Revisited: Or "Much Ado About Metaphors", Peter W. Hogg, Allison A. Bushell Thornton, Wade K. Wright

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

This article is a sequel to the 1997 article "The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures (Or Perhaps The Charter of Rights Isn't Such A Bad Thing After All)." In the present article, the authors review various academic critiques of their "dialogue" theory, which postulates that Charter decisions striking down laws are not the last word, but rather the beginning of a "dialogue," because legislative bodies are generally able to (and generally do) enact sequel legislation that accomplishes the main objective of the unconstitutional law. The authors also examine the Supreme Court of Canada's dicta on the "dialogue" phenomenon, and …

Constitutionalism From The Top Down, Grant Huscroft

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

Dialogue theory regards judicial interpretation of the Charter as authoritative, and, as a result, denies that continuing disagreement with the courts is legitimate. There is little scope, in other words, for dialogue with the courts in any meaningful sense. The Charter is best understood as establishing strong-form judicial review rather than weak, and legislatures have only as much room to respond to judicial decisions as the courts are prepared to allow.

The Day The Dialogue Died: A Comment On Sauve V. Canada, Christopher P. Manfredi

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

In Sauvé v. Canada (2002) a sharply divided Supreme Court of Canada nullified the inmate disenfranchisement provision of the Canada Elections Act. One of the more important aspects of the majority decision by Chief Justice McLachlin is her refusal to let the concept of dialogue take her down the path of judicial deference. This commentary examines the chief justice's reasons for not taking this path and explores how these reasons reveal the limitations of the dialogue metaphor as originally articulated by Peter Hogg and Allison Bushell. The commentary concludes that any meaningful concept of legislative-judicial dialogue must recognize a coordinate …

Dialogue Theory, Judicial Review, And Judicial Supremacy: A Comment On "Charter Dialogue Revisted", Carissima Mathen

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

By suggesting that we view the judicial-legislative relationship as a dialogue, the authors of "Charter Dialogue" have greatly influenced constitutional debate in Canada. This commentary offers three observations about the authors' latest contribution. First, it queries the continued usefulness of the term "dialogue." Second, it raises concerns with the idea that section 1 of the Charter promotes dialogue, as the term is now explained by the authors. Finally, it queries the authors' perspective on judicial review and their accompanying terminology.

Sharpening The Dialogue Debate: The Next Decade Of Scholarship, Kent Roach

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

The first part of this commentary examines the roles of coordinate construction in which legislatures act on their own interpretation of the constitution, second look cases in which the courts judge the constitutionality of a legislative reply to a judicial decision, and various constitutional remedies. The second part examines some differences in emphasis between the author's approach to dialogue and that taken by Hogg and his co-authors with respect to the justification of the judicial role in the dialogue, the relation between Charter dialogue and common law constitutionalism, and the proper interpretive approach to section 7 of the Charter. Three …

Original Understanding And The Whether, Why, And How Of Judicial Review, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

For more than one hundred years, legal scholars have endlessly and heatedly debated whether judicial review of federal legislation was part of the original understanding of the Constitution. The stakes of the debate are high. If judicial review was part of the original understanding, then there is a strong argument that the practice is grounded in the majority’s will, just as the Founders’ Constitution is. But if it is not—if, as Alexander Bickel and others have claimed, judicial review was a sleight-of-hand creation of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison—then judicial review is either counter-majoritarian or else must …

Due Process Land Use Claims After Lingle, J. Peter Byrne

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court held in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. that challenges to the validity of land use regulations for failing to advance governmental interests must be brought under the Due Process Clause, rather than the Takings Clause, and must be evaluated under a deferential standard. This Article analyzes and evaluates the probable course of such judicial review, and concludes that federal courts will resist due process review of land use decisions for good reasons but not always with an adequate doctrinal explanation. However, state courts can use due process review to provide state level supervision of local land use …

Process Theory, Majoritarianism, And The Original Understanding, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Radicals in Robes, Cass Sunstein posits that there are four primary approaches to constitutional interpretation: perfectionism, majoritarianism, minimalism, and fundamentalism.' The purpose of his eloquent and compelling book is twofold: Sunstein argues for minimalism, an approach that he contends makes most sense for America today; and with even greater force, Sunstein argues against fundamentalism, which he finds "wrong, dangerous, radical, and occasionally hypocritical."' The "Radicals in Robes" who are the targets of Sunstein's book are judges who embrace fundamentalism, which, in his view, embodies "the views of the extreme wing of [the] Republican Party."'

In Securing Constitutional Democracy: The …

Taking Text Too Seriously: Modern Textualism, Original Meaning, And The Case Of Amar's Bill Of Rights, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Championed on the Supreme Court by Justices Scalia and Thomas and championed in academia most prominently by Professor Akhil Amar, textualism has in the past twenty years emerged as a leading school of constitutional interpretation. Textualists argue that the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with its original public meaning and, in seeking that meaning, they closely parse the Constitution's words and grammar and the placement of clauses in the document. They have assumed that this close parsing recaptures original meaning, but, perhaps because it seems obviously correct, that assumption has neither been defended nor challenged. This article uses Professor …