Five professors (Rebecca Brown, John Denvir, Roderick Hills, Mark Tushnet, and Jeremy Waldron) have authored review essays for a University of San Francisco Law Review symposium about my book, Constitutional Self-Government. This article replies to them. Constitutional Self-Government argues that judicial review should be regarded not as a constraint upon democracy, but as one ingredient in a complex array of institutions that aim to implement democracy more fully than could be done through legislatures or elections alone. The argument depends upon two claims. One claim is philosophical; it maintains that democracy is not reducible to "government by legislatures" or "government by elections." The second claim is partly empirical; it maintains that judicial institutions, if combined with other institutions, are pragmatically well-suited to achieve some democratic goals. I argue that my critics implicitly accept the first, philosophical claim. They vigorously dispute the second claim. Their criticisms of that claim compel me to deepen and refine the accounts of legislation, voting, and judging offered in Constitutional Self-Government. Their insights also demonstrate the need for continued discussion of what form judicial review should take in the United States and elsewhere. I try to show, however, that my critics do not advance any sound reason to suppose that judicial review is undemocratic.
{"title":"Constitutional Self-Government and Judicial Review: A Reply to Five Critics","authors":"C. Eisgruber","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.347284","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.347284","url":null,"abstract":"Five professors (Rebecca Brown, John Denvir, Roderick Hills, Mark Tushnet, and Jeremy Waldron) have authored review essays for a University of San Francisco Law Review symposium about my book, Constitutional Self-Government. This article replies to them. Constitutional Self-Government argues that judicial review should be regarded not as a constraint upon democracy, but as one ingredient in a complex array of institutions that aim to implement democracy more fully than could be done through legislatures or elections alone. The argument depends upon two claims. One claim is philosophical; it maintains that democracy is not reducible to \"government by legislatures\" or \"government by elections.\" The second claim is partly empirical; it maintains that judicial institutions, if combined with other institutions, are pragmatically well-suited to achieve some democratic goals. I argue that my critics implicitly accept the first, philosophical claim. They vigorously dispute the second claim. Their criticisms of that claim compel me to deepen and refine the accounts of legislation, voting, and judging offered in Constitutional Self-Government. Their insights also demonstrate the need for continued discussion of what form judicial review should take in the United States and elsewhere. I try to show, however, that my critics do not advance any sound reason to suppose that judicial review is undemocratic.","PeriodicalId":83425,"journal":{"name":"University of San Francisco law review. University of San Francisco. School of Law","volume":"37 1","pages":"7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85340022","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"In re K.I.: an urgent need for a uniform system in the treatment of the critically ill infant--recognizing the sanctity of life of the child.","authors":"A L Guevara","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83425,"journal":{"name":"University of San Francisco law review. University of San Francisco. School of Law","volume":"36 1","pages":"237-60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"25894488","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Science fact or science fiction? The implications of court-ordered genetic testing under Rule 35.","authors":"A S Niedwiecki","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83425,"journal":{"name":"University of San Francisco law review. University of San Francisco. School of Law","volume":"34 2","pages":"295-353"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"22559342","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Mis-conceptions: the moment of conception in religion, science, and law.","authors":"E Spahn, B Andrade","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83425,"journal":{"name":"University of San Francisco law review. University of San Francisco. School of Law","volume":"32 2","pages":"261-333"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1998-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"25894487","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：