Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

The Unfulfilled Potential of the Court and Legislature Dialogue

  • Grégoire C. N. Webber (a1)
Abstract

Abstract. Constitutional scholarship has been exploring the idea that the court and the legislature engage in a dialogue over the meaning of the constitution. Yet, despite many contributions to the idea of dialogue over the last decade, its potential remains unfulfilled. The epistemological potential of dialogue remains understudied, in part because the court continues to be viewed as the supreme, if not also the sole, expounder of the constitution. For dialogue's potential to be realized, the legislature should be acknowledged as a co-ordinate actor in expounding constitutional meaning and both court and legislature should assume a disposition for dialogue.

Résumé. La littérature en matière constitutionnelle explore l'idée que la cour et le législateur s'engagent dans un dialogue sur le sens à donner à la constitution. Cependant, malgré les nombreuses contributions à l'idée du dialogue au cours de la dernière décennie, son potentiel ne s'est pas épanoui. Le potentiel épistémologique de l'idée du dialogue demeure sous-étudié, en partie parce que la cour continue d'être considérée comme étant l'entité suprême, sinon la seule entité, qui puisse développer le sens de la constitution. Pour que l'idée du dialogue puisse être actualisée, le législateur devrait être reconnu comme étant un acteur complémentaire à la cour pour développer le sens de la constitution et tant la cour que le législateur devraient être disposés au dialogue.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Grégoire C. N. Webber, Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism, McGill University, 3661 Peel Street, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1X1; gregoire.webber@elf.mcgill.ca.
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Larry Alexander and Frederic Shauer . 1997. “On Extrajudicial Constitutional Interpretation.” Harvard Law Review 110: 1359.

Robert Alexy . 2005. “Balancing, Constitutional Review, and Representation.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 3: 572.

Barry Friedman . 1993. “Dialogue and Judicial Review.” University of Michigan Law Review 91: 577682.

Lon L. Fuller 1978. “The Forms and Limits of Adjudication.” Harvard Law Review 92: 353.

Stephen Gardbaum . 2001. “The New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism.” American Journal of Comparative Law 49: 707.

Aileen Kavanagh . 2004. “The Elusive Divide between Interpretation and Legislation under the Human Rights Act 1998.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 24: 259–85.

James B. Kelly 1999. “Bureaucratic Activism and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: The Department of Justice and Its Entry into the Centre of Government.” Canadian Public Administration 42: 476511.

Richard McKeon . 1954. “Dialectic and Political Thought and Action.” Ethics 65: 133.

Gustav E. Mueller 1958. “The Hegel Legend of ‘Thesis–Antithesis–Synthesis’.” Journal of the History of Ideas 19: 411–14.

Kent Roach . 2006. “Dialogue or defiance: Legislative reversals of Supreme Court decisions in Canada and the United States.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 4: 347.

Luc B. Tremblay 2005. “Legitimacy of Judicial Review: The Limits of Dialogue between Courts and Legislatures.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 3: 617.

Mark Tushnet . 2003a. “Judicial Activism or Restraint in a Section 33 World.” University of Toronto Law Journal 53: 89.

Jeremy Waldron . 1999. Law and Disagreement. New York: Oxford University Press.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique
  • ISSN: 0008-4239
  • EISSN: 1744-9324
  • URL: /core/journals/canadian-journal-of-political-science-revue-canadienne-de-science-politique
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×