Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-6bnxx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-17T13:46:27.154Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Index

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2018

Edited by
Ron Levy ,
Hoi Kong ,
Graeme Orr  and
Jeff King
Ron Levy
Affiliation:
Australian National University, Canberra
Hoi Kong
Affiliation:
McGill University, Montréal
Graeme Orr
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Jeff King
Affiliation:
University College London

Summary

A summary is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Deliberative Constitutionalism , pp. 373 - 384
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Index

accountability, 59, 62–63, see also justification
Ackerman, Bruce, 44, 45, 110, 120, 122, 179
administrative governance
delegation to administrators, 24–25
deliberative democracy and, 20–22
electoral democracy and, 18–20, 22–27
presidential administration, 25–26
and public reason approaches, 21–22
administrative law
contrasting views of, 57–58
dialogue, discretion as, 60–64
discretion, administrative, 60–64
and ideals of deliberative democracy, 60–69
judicial deference, 64–69
reasoned administration in, 17–18
administrative tribunals, interpretation of constitutions by, 46–47, 49, 64–69
affective motivation for constitutionalisation, 257, 266–268
aggregative democracy, 18–20
Allan, TRS, 130–131, 177, 191
Argentina, jury system in, 235
argumentation-theoretic perspective on separation of powers, 118
Aroney, Nicholas, 160
Austin, John, 194
Australia
civic education, 329–330
constitutional deadlock, 325
Crown, the, state authority in, 350
education, civics, 333–335
elites in, survey of, 357–366
expert advice, 96–99
jury system, 237, 239
legislatures, constitutional deliberation by, 88–89, 92–95, 96–99
moral justifiability of judicial review, 209, 218
parliamentary scrutiny model
changes to improve effectiveness, 87
concerning trends, 74–76
deliberation, role in, 83
deliberative impact, 76–79
dissent and partisanship on Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR), 74–76
enactment of bill before scrutiny, 74, 81
feedback loop effect, 77
Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), 73–74
impact of regime, 76–82
judicial impact, 82
judiciary, role of, 85–86
key features of, 72–73
legislative impact, 79–82
legislature, competency of, 84–85
lists of scrutinised legislation, 74
operation of, 73–76
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR), 74–76
statements of compatibility, 73–74, 77, 83
uniqueness of, 72
public servants in, survey of, 357–366
Australian Capital Television v. Commonwealth, 160
authenticity, 62
Bächtiger, André, 224
Baker v. Canada (Minister for Citizenship and Immigration), 61
Barber, Nicholas W, 117
Basic Legitimation Demand, 48
Bessette, Joseph, 224
Bickel, Alexander, 221, 222–223, 227
Blais, Andres, 333
Bohman, James, 340
Bolivia, unconstitutional constitutional amendments, doctrine of, 277–278
bootstrapping, 260
Boyce, Peter, 350
Brandeis, Louis, 105
Brexit, 267–268
Britain
Brexit, 267–268
civic education, 329
constitution
constitutional instruments, creation of, 192–194, 196, 201–202
debate over changes in, 191
deliberative constitutions, 199–202
deliberative practice, law as, 191, 192
factual theory of the constitution, 194–195
HS2 case, 192–194, 196
legal positivism, 191–192
unstable constitutions, 196
dialogical rationale and model for popular constitutionalism, 316–317
dialogue, 128, 135
jury system, 237
moral justifiability of judicial review, 208
Office of Speaker’s Counsel, 98
popular constitutionalism, 322, 323
British Columbia, 289, 294
Citizens’ Assemblies, 332–333
Bryce, James, 104–105
Byrnes, Andrew, 77, 81
Canada
compromise in deliberative constitutionalism, 189–190
dialogical rationale and model for popular constitutionalism, 316–317, 320–322
dialogue, 127–128
judicial review of administrative interpretation, 64–69
jury system, 237
notwithstanding clause, 316–317
Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corporation, 65–66
Carty, Kenneth, 333
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), interrogation techniques, 41–43
Chambers, Simone, 31, 39, 332
change, constitutional, through deliberation
British constitution, debate over changes, 191
constitutional instruments, creation of British, 192–194, 196, 201–202
deliberative constitutions, 199–202
deliberative practice, law as, 191, 192
Enlightenment political thought, 197–199
ethical idea of law, 197–199
factual theory of the constitution, 194–195
HS2 case, 192–194, 196
legal positivism, 191–192, 196–197
unstable constitutions, 196–197see also constitutional reforms; unconstitutional constitutional amendments, doctrine of
Chappell, Zsuzsanna, 38–39, 40, 41
Charlesworth, Hilary, 82
Chayes, Abram, 41
circular/linear constitutionalism, 179
circular theory of law, 55
citizens
capacity for deliberation, 326–328, 362–363, 367
demands placed on by deliberative democracy, 1, 252
everyday deliberation by, 225–227, 232
jury service, impact of, 235
knowledge, political, 226–227, 232, 252, see also civics infrastructure; elites; mini-publics
citizens’ assemblies, 285, 331–333, see also mini-publics
civics infrastructure
Australia, 333–335
British Columbian Citizens’ Assemblies, 332–333
capacity of citizens for deliberation, 326–328, 362–363, 367
choice to deliberate, 336
deficit, civics, 325, 327
defined, 324
education, civics, 328–335
elites as alternative to citizen participation, 327
importance of and need for, 325
macro/micro interaction, 335–336
motivation of citizens for deliberation, 326–328
objections to, 335–336
South African Constitutional Assemblies, 331–332
theories of deliberative democracy and, 324–325see also citizens; elites; mini-publics
civil servants
second-order deliberation and, 6see also elites
Clark, Ian, 37–38
co-originality thesis (Habermas)
autonomy, individual/public, 259
barriers to constitutionalisation, 260–262
bootstrapping, 260
components of constitutionalisation, 268
elites, role of in constitutionalisation, 266–268
European Union constitutionalisation, 256, 262–265
federalist debates in the United States, 265–266
founding moments, 256–257, 259, 260, 264–265
nation-states, going beyond for constitutionalisation, 262
people, need for a, 263–265
rhetoric and affective motivation, 257, 266–268
rights/popular sovereignty fundamentalists, 258–259
under/about constitutions, deliberating, 258
cognition, dual process models of, 157
Cohen, Mathilde, 228
Colombia, unconstitutional constitutional amendments, doctrine of, 275–277
common law, rights based in
bill of rights, 143
competing moral demands, 152
dissenting judgements, role of, 151
freedom of speech, 152–153
as integral to statutory frameworks, 148
integration of new statutes, 147
language used to express, 148
political morality, 142, 143, 144–145
positive law as dependent on natural law, 141–142
precedents, 146–147, 150, 151, 153–154
procedural fairness, 146–147, 148–149
separation of powers, 142–143
theory, construction of, 150–151
theory of a statute, need for, 147–148
Commonwealth model
popular constitutionalism, 311–312
rights protection, 126–127, 134–138
compromise in deliberative constitutionalism
bargains compared to, 185
Canadian constitutionalism, 189–190
consensus, privileging of, 183–184
consensus compared to, 185
constitutionalism, 189–190
core/peripheral issues, identification of, 185–187
elected officials and citizens, relation between, 187–188
freedom of religion, 189
as goal of deliberation, 181, 184, 189
legislative compromise, 187–188
liberal theories, 182–184
medical assistance in dying, example of, 185–186
political parties, 188
reasons for, 184–185
second-best fallacy, 184
sharing of resources, 185
value conflicts, 185–187
consensus
compromise comparison, 185
privileging of, 183–184
Constitution, US
deliberation and, 29–31
separation of powers, purpose of, 29–30, 43
constitution-making, see constitutional reforms; unconstitutional constitutional amendments, doctrine of
constitutional conventions, 285–286
constitutional instruments, 192–194, 196, 201–202
constitutional interpretation
circular/linear constitutionalism, 179
constitutionalism defined, 168
constructive interpretation, 174–175, 177–178
deliberation defined, 168–170
design or meaning, deliberation about, 170–172
discourse, deliberative/interpretive, 172–178
reflective equilibrium, 173, 175–176
strong-form deliberation, 169, 170, 172
weak-form deliberation, 169, 170, 172
constitutional reforms
awareness-raising, 291–292
British Columbia, 289, 294
citizens’ assemblies, 285
constitutional conventions, 285–286
deliberation deficit, 284
difference between participation and deliberation, 291–292, 293
elite control syndrome, 283–284
feasibility of mass deliberation, 290–291
Iceland, 286, 287, 288–289, 292, 293
Ireland, 286, 287, 288, 292–293
mini-publics, citizen deliberation in, 284–291, 292
participation and deliberation, 284, 288–290, 291–294
people, recourse to as trend, 282, 283–291
referendums, 283–284
Scottish independence referendum 2014, 283, 291, 293–294
values of, elites and, 363, 364
variety of deliberative methods, 282see also change, constitutional, through deliberation; unconstitutional constitutional amendments, doctrine of
constitutionalisation
barriers to, 260–262
bootstrapping, 260
components of, 268
democratisation and, 261–262
elites, role of in, 266–268
European Union, 256, 262–265
federalist debates in the United States, 265–266
founding moments, 256–257, 259, 260, 264–265
nation-states, going beyond, 262
people, need for a, 263–265
public conversation, development of, 257
rhetoric and affective motivation, 257, 266–268
constitutionalism
compromise in deliberative constitutionalism, 189–190
defined, 3, 58, 168
dialectical relation with deliberation, 6
directions of influence, 3–5
early place in deliberative democracy, 1–2
as neglecting deliberation, 2
constitutionality of legislation
assistance, sources of, 96–99
Australia, 88–89, 92–95
confidentiality of advice, 96–97, 98–99
costs of failure in, 95
Counsel to the Parliament proposed position, 97–99
current practice, 92–95
deliberation by legislatures, 88–89, 89n12
expert advice, 92–94, 96–99
invalidity, political motives for raising, 94–95
obligation of legislatures to deliberate, 90–92
and parliamentary scrutiny models, 84–85
policy distortion, 95
constitutions
ambiguity of, 341–342, 350
defined, 3, 296
and deliberative democracy, connections between, 250–253
different understandings of, 250–251
interpretation by administrative tribunals, 46–47, 49
making, responsibility for, 45
three models of deliberative democracy and, 251–253see also constitutional conventions; constitutional instruments; constitutional interpretation; constitutional reforms; constitutionalisation; constitutionalism; constitutionality of legislation; unconstitutional constitutional amendments, doctrine of
constructive interpretation, 174–175, 177–178
courts
dialogue, and different jurisdictions, 127
dialogue, connection with deliberative democracy, 132–133
empirical dimension to deliberative constitutionalism, 227–229, 232
institutional integrity of state courts, doctrine of, 161
interaction with legislatures, 126
legal/political protection of rights, 129–132
mechanisms for facilitating dialogue, 133–138
popular constitutionalism and avoiding damage to trust in, 312, 313, 320
protection of rights by, 125see also elites; judiciary; snap judgements; unconstitutional constitutional amendments, doctrine of
Craig, Paul, 194
Crouch, Colin, 339
Crown, the
ambiguity of, 342–344
New Zealand, constitutional reforms in, 342–349
state authority in, 341, 350
cultural communities, defence of, 104
culture of justification, 50
Cutler, Fred, 336
Dahl, Robert, 286
de Tocqueville, Alexis, 30, 234–235, 241
decision rule for juries, 241–242
deference, judicial
politics of as institutional deliberation, 64–69
as respect, 66–69, 70
delegate model of representation, 224
delegation to administrators, 24–25
deliberation
about design or meaning, 170–172
defined, 168–170
dialectical relation with constitutional practice, 6
first-order, 5–6
original meaning of, 46
and reasoned decision-making, distinction between, 46
second-order, 6
secret, 39
strong-form, 169, 170, 172
weak-form, 169, 170, 172see also participation and deliberation
Deliberation Day, 122, 231, 279
deliberation deficit, 284
deliberative constitutionalism
academic work on, 351–352
aim of this book, 3
approaches to, 167
circular/linear constitutionalism, 179
constitutionalism defined, 168
constructive interpretation, 174–175, 177–178
deliberation about constitutionalism, 167
deliberation defined, 168–170
design or meaning, deliberation about, 170–172
difficulties with, 59–60
directions of influence, 3–5
discourse, deliberative/interpretive, 172–178
first-order deliberation, 5–6
key components, 58
legitimacy as issue, 6–7
as meta-theory, 3
as normative order, 338–340
reflective equilibrium, 173, 175–176
second-order deliberation, 6
strong-form deliberation, 169, 170, 172
weak-form deliberation, 169, 170, 172see also compromise in deliberative constitutionalism; empirical dimension to deliberative constitutionalism
deliberative democracy
accountability, 59
at administrative/executive level, 59–60
administrative law and, 60–69
as born of constitutional democracy, 181
citizens, demands placed on by, 1
compromise with electoral democracy, 22–27
consensus, privileging of, 183–184
constitutional changes under, 272–274
and constitutionalism, difficulties with, 59–60
and constitutions, connections between, 250–253
defined, 117–118, 246–247
development of, 1
dialogue, discretion as, 63–64
discursive democracy, 248–249, 252
dualism and, 44–46
early place of constitutionalism in, 1–2
ideal, as an, 24
increased interest in, 2
institutionalisation, difficulty with, 24
legitimacy and, 21
mini-publics, 247–248, 251–253, 254
normative assumptions underlying debates, 338–340
procedural constraints, 183
public reason theories, 20–21
reasoned administration and, 21
reciprocity, 59
Scottish independence referendum 2014, 254–255
self-interest, exclusion of arguments based on, 23
systemic, 249–250, 252, 253, 254–255
three models of, 246–250, 251–253
and truth, 23–24
voting and, 60see also ideals of deliberative democracy
deliberative filtering, 4
deliberative modelssee parliamentary scrutiny models
deliberative rigour
Lawyers Group, 29, 35–37
requirements for, 28
deliberative telescoping, 5
democracy
aggregative, 18–20
discursive, 248–249, 252
electoral, 18–20, 22–27
and legal justification, 31
popular constitutionalism as justified by, 312, 313, 320
symbols and performativity, 340–342, 349–350
traditional, deliberative democracy as reaction to, 1see also co-originality thesis (Habermas); deliberative democracy; electoral democracy; referendums
design, constitutional, moral justifiability of judicial review and, 204–205, 217–218
dialectical equilibrium model, 156, 162–165
dialogue
administrative discretion as, 60–64, 69–70
Canada, 127–128
Commonwealth model of rights protection, 126–127, 134–138
connection with deliberative democracy, 125–126, 132–133
courts in different jurisdictions, 127
criticisms, 127–129
dangers of, 126–132
dialectical equilibrium model, 162–165
discretion as, 60–64, 69–70
inter-institutional interaction as focus of, 126
legal/political protection of rights, 129–132
mechanisms for facilitating, 125–126, 133–138
New Zealand, 128–129
popular constitutionalism, rationale and model for, 314–315, 316–323
potential problem with, 125
promotion of constitutional values, 125
range of constitutions, 134
United Kingdom, 128, 135
Dicey, AV, 192, 195, 196
discourse, deliberative/interpretive, 172–178
Discourse Quality Index, 224
discretion, administrative
defined, 60
as dialogue, 60–64, 69–70
as top-down exercise of power, 60
discursive democracy, 248–249, 252
diversity, defence of, 104
Dryzek, John, 38, 250, 339–340
dual process models of cognition, 157
dualism
and deliberative democracy, 44–46
international law level, 54–55
multi-level monism, 47–53, 55–56
Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 66
Dworkin, Ronald, 147, 156, 164–165, 173, 174–175, 176–178, 182, 205
Dyzenhaus, David, 59–60, 66
education, civics, 328–331
Australia, 333–335
British Columbian Citizens’ Assemblies, 332–333
South African Constitutional Assemblies, 331–332
efficiency rationale for separation of powers, 116–117, 118
Eisgruber, Christopher, 228, 229
Elazar, Daniel, 102
electoral democracy, 18–20
compromise with deliberative democracy, 22–27
political parties and deliberative democracy, 121–122
elites
as alternative to citizen participation, 327
Australia, survey of public servants, 357–366
causes of problem with, 366–368, 369
constitutional, second-order deliberation and, 6
decisions incompatible with deliberative democracy, 368
defined, 352
deliberative capabilities of, 367–368
dominance of decision-making, 368
elite control syndrome, 283–284
first-order deliberation, 353–354, 358–362, 366
institutional actors, values tied to, 364–366
interactions with interlocutor groups, 358–362
mini-public deliberation as elite, 309
misunderstandings of deliberative democracy, 366–367
as pivotal in deliberative constitutionalism, 352
as potential problem, 352, 353–357
public, quality of deliberation by, 362–363, 366, 367
public servants in Australia, survey of, 357–366
role of in constitutionalisation, 266–268
second-order deliberation, 354–357, 362–366, 368
selective favouring of institutions, 368
values of constitutional reform, 363, 364see also citizens; civics infrastructure; courts; judiciary; legislature
Elkin, Stephen L, 299
Elster, Jon, 3, 251, 295–301, 309
Elstub, Stephen, 309
empirical dimension to deliberative constitutionalism
citizens’ everyday deliberation, 225–226, 227, 232
courts, 227–229, 232
delegate model of representation, 224
deliberative democracy and judicial review, 221–223
Discourse Quality Index, 224
hopes based on, 220, 231–232
knowledge, political, of citizens, 226–227
legislatures, 223–225, 232
mini-publics, 229–231, 232
outcome and process considerations, 222–223
public-spiritedness, 224–225
self-interest, 224–225
trustee model of representation, 223, 225see also jury systems in deliberative democracy; moral justifiability of judicial review
England
civic education, 329
dialogical rationale and model for popular constitutionalism, 316–317see also Britain
Enlightenment political thought, 197–199
equality
as criterion of deliberative democracy, 227–229
deliberative constitutionalism and, 60
Estlund, David, 222
ethical idea of law, 197–199
European Union
Brexit, 267–268
constitutionalisation, 256, 262–265
democratic deficit, 338–339
elites, role of in constitutionalisation, 266–268
founding moments, 264–265
people, need for a, 263–265
Evans, Mark, 330
Evans v. Attorney General, 149–150
everyday deliberation by citizens, 225–227, 232
executivessee citizens; elites; separation of powers
experimentation, policy, 102, 104–108
expert advice
improving, 96–99
lack of, 92–94
factual theory of the constitution, 194–195
Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (US) (RFRA), 111–112
federalism and human rights
challenges for the future, 111–112
complexity of, 112
deliberative federalism, 102–103, 104–108, 111–112
disparate peoples, bringing together of, 102
dispersal of power, 102
experimentation, policy, 102, 104–108
freedom of speech, 105–106
minorities, defence of, 104
morality policies, 106–108
Obergefell v. Hodges, 110–111
polygamy, defeat of, 107
power, division and limitation of, 103–104
protection of rights, 103–104
religious liberty and anti-discrimination, 111–112
same-sex marriage, 108–110
state resistance to same-sex marriage, 109–110
United States, 101–102
US Supreme Court, role of, 110–111
ways to protect rights via federalism, 102see also rights; separation of powers
Federalist debates in the United States, 265–266
feedback loop effect, 77
Ferejohn, John, 228
first-order deliberation, 5–6
deliberative constitutionalism, 5–6
elites, 353–354, 358–362, 366
Fisher, Louis, 133
Fishkin, James S, 122, 229, 231, 279, 287
flag referendums in New Zealand, 347–349
formal authorisation, ladder of, 48, 49, 50, 53
forums, deliberativesee mini-publics
founding moments, 256–257, 259, 260, 264–265
Fournier, Patrick, 333
France, jury system in, 238–239
Fredman, Sandra, 132
freedom of religion, 189
freedom of speech, 105–106, 152–153, 160–161
in mini-publics, 304–305
Fuller, Lon, 50, 69, 146, 168
fundamental rights
bill of rights, 143
as integral to statutory frameworks, 148
language used to express, 148
political morality, 142
positive law as dependent on natural law, 141–142
procedural fairness, 148–149
separation of powers, 142–143see also federalism and human rights; rights
Fung, Archon, 246
Gadamer, Hans-Georg, 191, 199, 200
Gallie, WB, 176
Gardbaum, Stephen, 127, 128–129, 228, 314–315, 319
Garner, Duncan, 348
Garrett, Elizabeth, 98
Ghai, Yash, 113
Goldsmith, Jack, 31–32
Goodman, Nelson, 173, 179
Greece, 122–123
group polarization, 236–237
Gutman, Amy, 92, 117, 181, 182, 183, 184, 246, 251, 328–329
Gwyn, William B, 115–116
Habermas, Jürgen, 4, 21, 36, 39, 118, 338–339, 353, 356, see also co-originality thesis (Habermas)
Haidt, Jonathan, 157–158
Haigh, Yvonne, 330
Hamilton, Marci A, 112
Hart, HLA, 51, 52–53, 153–154, 159, 168, 194–195, 196
Hendricks, Carolyn, 368
Hess, Diana, 331
Hiebert, Janet, 84, 85, 86
Hobbes, Thomas, 52, 53
HS2 case, 192–194, 196
human rightssee co-originality thesis (Habermas); common law, rights based in; federalism and human rights; parliamentary scrutiny models; rights
Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Australia), 73–74
Hume, Robert J, 109
Hungary and moral justifiability of judicial review, 219
Hurrell, Andrew, 41
Iceland, 286, 287, 288–289, 292, 293, 300
ideals of deliberative democracy
accountability, 59
administrative law and, 60–69
deference as respect, 66–69, 70
dialogue, discretion as, 63–64, 69–70
justification, 64, 67–69
reciprocity, 59, 63, 69
incorporation of international law, 54–55
India
history of judicial review in, 204, 212–217
Kesavanada Bharati v. Kerala, 274–275
Minerva Mills v. Union of India, 275
unconstitutional constitutional amendments, doctrine of, 271, 274–275
Indonesia, moral justifiability of judicial review, 219
inspiration and constitutionalisation, 257
institutional integrity of state courts, doctrine of, 161
institutionalisation, deliberative democracy’s difficulty with, 24
integrity, theory of law as, 156
international community, perceptions of legitimacy in national security decisions, 41
international law
constitutional deliberation and, 45
incorporation of, 54–55
level of, 54–55
interpretation, constitutionalsee constitutional interpretation
interpretation, constructive, 174–175, 177–178
interpretation of legal traditionsee legal tradition, interpretation of
interpretive communities, 36–37
interrogation techniques, CIA’s use of, contrast with Lawyers Group, 41–43
intuitive judgementssee snap judgements
Ireland, 286, 287, 288, 292–293
Issacharoff, Sam, 210–211
Italy
jury system in, 238
mini-publics in, 301–309
Japan, jury system in, 239
Johnstone, Ian, 32, 36–37
judicial deference, 64–69
judicial review
strong/weak forms, 221see also empirical dimension to deliberative constitutionalism; moral justifiability of judicial review
judiciary
empirical dimension to deliberative constitutionalism, 227–229, 232
instructions to juries, 243–244
and parliamentary scrutiny models, 85–86
political morality and, 142
second-order deliberation and, 6see also courts; elites; snap judgements; unconstitutional constitutional amendments, doctrine of
jury systems
Argentina, 235
Australia, 237, 239
authority, limits to, 238–239
Canada, 237
composition of juries, 239, 243
decision rule, 241–242
deliberative bodies, juries as, 234–236, 244–245
evaluation of performance, 236–237
France, 238–239
group polarization, 236–237
impartiality, 240–241
Italy, 238
Japan, 239
judicial instructions, 243–244
jurors, impact of jury service on, 235
Jury and Democracy Project, 235
legitimacy and, 234–235
non-discrimination, 240–241
note-taking and questions by juries, 244
nullification, 242
outside the courts, 236
peremptory challenges, 240–241
Powers v. Ohio, 241
privacy, juror, 244
procedural requirements for deliberation, 241–242
reduction in use of, 233
Russia, 234
satisfaction of jurors with process, 332
scope of juries’ role, 243
selection of jurors, 239–241
size of juries, 242–243
South Korea, 238
Sweden, 239
tailoring, 242–244
unanimity, 241–242
United States, 237, 238, 239
use and availability of, 237–238
value to larger system, 234–236
justification, 67
decentring of, 64, 67–69
justification, culture of, 50
Kable v. Director of Public Prosecutions, 161
Kant, Immanuel, 197–199
Katyal, Neal, 36
Kelsen, Hans, 45–46, 47–48, 51, 52, 53
Kesavanada Bharati v. Kerala, 274–275
Kildea, Paul, 326–327, 333–334
Kincaid, John, 105, 106–107
knowledge, political, of citizens, 226–227, 232, 252
Kong, Hoi, 235
Koppelman, Andrew, 108, 109
Kramer, Larry, 206, 311
Kreimer, Seth F, 101
Kymlicka, Will, 104
Lafont, Cristina, 309
Landemore, Hélène, 300
Landwehr, Claudia, 250
Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 160–161
Lauterpacht, Hersch, 54
law
circular theory of, 55
constitutional, directions of influence, 3–5
linear theory of, 55
Lawyers Group
authority of, 34
CIA’s use of interrogation techniques, contrast with, 41–43
consensus as aim of, 35–37
core participants, 33
deliberative rigour, 35–37
equality among members, 34–35
expertise of members, 40
influence of broader interpretive groups, 37
as interpretive community, 36–37
legitimacy of national security decisions, 38–41
as micro deliberation in larger system, 38–41, 43
Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), role in group, 34–35
potential of, 29
public justification of decisions, 40–41
purpose of, 33
secret deliberation, 39
learning to deliberate
Australia, 333–335
British Columbian Citizens’ Assemblies, 332–333
education, civics, 328–331
South African Constitutional Assemblies, 331–332
LeDuc, Lawrence, 349
legal analysis
and national security decision-making, 31–33, 43
legal justification
democracy and, 31
and legitimacy, 30
national security decisions, 30–31
legal order, theory of
deliberative constitutionalism as, 45
multi-level monism, 47–53
legal tradition, interpretation of
competing moral demands, 152
critique and revision, openness to, 147
dissent, 149–150
dissenting judgements, role of, 151
freedom of speech, 152–153
integration of new statutes, 147
legal positivism and, 151–152
legislative aim, honouring, 149–150
as legitimacy safeguard, 154–155
moral reasoning, closeness to, 143, 144
nurturing and developing, 143–145
precedents, 141–142, 146–147, 150, 151, 153–154
theory, construction of, 150–151
theory of a statute, need for, 147–148
legal validity, 48
legality, principle of, 45
legislation, constitutionality ofsee constitutionality of legislation
legislatures
compromise, 187–188
dialogue, connection with deliberative democracy, 132–133
empirical dimension to deliberative constitutionalism, 223–225, 232
interaction with courts, 126
legal/political protection of rights, 129–132
mechanisms for facilitating dialogue, 133–138
second-order deliberation and, 6see also elites; separation of powers
legitimacy
accountability, 59
deliberative democracy and public reason and, 21
discretion as dialogue, 63–64
European Union constitutionalisation, 262
founding moments, 260
inclusion of citizens in decision-making, 38
international community, perceptions of by, 41
interpretation of legal tradition as safeguard of, 154–155
as issue for deliberative constitutionalism, 6–7
jury systems and, 234–235
Lawyers Group and national security decisions, 38–41
legal justification and, 30
mini-publics, 252–253, 286–288see also moral justifiability of judicial review
Leib, Ethan, 230
Levi, Edward, 32, 92
Levy, Ron, 6, 91–92, 235, 328, 367
Lewis, Nick, 348
liberal theories, 182–184
linear/circular constitutionalism, 179
linear theory of law, 55
Locke, John, 197
Loughlin, Martin, 70
Mansbridge, Jane, 35, 36, 39
Marder, Nancy, 235
material concretisation, ladder of, 48, 50, 55
McAvoy, Paula, 331
McDowell, Gary L, 101
meaning or design, deliberation about, 170–172
Melbourne Corporation v. Commonwealth, 161–162
Mendelsohn, Matthew, 327
Mendes, Conrado, 228
Michelman, Frank, 259
micro-deliberation
Lawyers Group as, 38–41see also mini-publics
Mill, JS, 105
Minerva Mills v. Union of India, 275
mini-publics
Australia, 333–335
British Columbian Citizens’ Assemblies, 332–333
citizens’ assemblies, 285
common good, reference to, 307–309
constitutional reform, 283
consultative nature, 297
deliberative constitutionalism, 297–301
deliberative democracy, 247–248, 251–253, 254
democratic constitutionalism, 296–297
demographic representation, 300
as elite deliberation, 309
elites as disfavouring, 364–365
empirical dimension to deliberative constitutionalism, 229–231, 232
flexibility in location, 300
freedom of expression, 304–305
imbalance in active participation, 305–307
increased importance of, 295
Italy, 301–309
legitimacy, 252–253, 286–288
limitations of research, 310
normative criteria for deliberative assemblies, 295, 298–301
not regulated by constitutions, 299
participants in, 297
participation and deliberation, 283, 284–291, 292
preceding referendums, 301
reasoning and argumentation, 307–309
representation, 286–288
respect among participants, 303–305
secrecy and publicity combined, 299–300
size, 298–299
South African Constitutional Assemblies, 331–332
as specially convened, 299
suggestions for, 310see also citizens; civics infrastructure
minorities, defence of, 104
monarchy, constitutionalsee Crown, the
monism, multi-level, 47–53, 55–56
moral justifiability of judicial review
adaptability of judicial review, 219
assumptions by Waldron, 203–204, 206, 207–211
Australia, 209
complexity of issue, 204
context-sensitive approach, 204, 210, 211, 213–219
design, constitutional, implications for, 204–205, 217–218
Hungary, 219
India, history of judicial review in, 204, 212–217
Indonesia, 219
judicial practice, implications for, 205, 218–219
methodological part of Waldron’s argument, 206–207
as mixed normative/empirical question, 203, 204, 208–211, 219
New Zealand, 208
‘reasonably good working order’ democracies as, 207–211
responses to, 203
scope of Waldron’s argument, 210–211, 213, 224–225
United Kingdom, 208
United States, 208, 218
usefulness of Waldron’s argument, 211
Waldron’s case on, 205–207
moral psychology, snap judgements in, 157–158
morality policies, 106–108
multi-level monism, 47–53, 55–56
Mureinik, Etienne, 50
Mutz, Diana, 225–226
nation-states, going beyond for constitutionalisation, 262
national security
application of deliberative democracy, 28
Constitution, deliberation and, 29–31
deliberative rigour, 28
legal analysis, role of, 31–33, 43
legal justification, 30–31
robust internal processes, need for, 29
transparency, 28–29see also Lawyers Group
Nationwide News v. Wills, 160
natural law, positive law as dependent on, 141–142
New Zealand
ambiguous constitution, 350
constitutional reforms, 342–349
Constitutional Review 2010–2013, 344–347
Crown, the, state authority in, 341, 342–349, 350
dialogical rationale and model for popular constitutionalism, 316–317
dialogue, 128–129
flag referendums, 347–349
moral justifiability of judicial review, 208
popular constitutionalism, 322
public engagement, lack of in reforms, 337
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), 349
Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police, 61
Nino, Carlos S, 120
normative reasoning, model of, 162
norms, constitutional
defined, 58
effect on deliberation, 4
first-order deliberation, 5–6
second-order deliberation, 6
notwithstanding clause, Canada, 316–317
nullification, jury, 242
Obergefell v. Hodges, 110–111
Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), role in Lawyers Group, 34–35
Orr, Graeme, 91–92
Parkinson, John, 286, 290, 291
parliamentary scrutiny models
changes to improve effectiveness, 87
concerning trends, 74–76
deliberation, role in, 83
deliberative impact, 76–79
as deliberative models, 72–73
effectiveness, measuring, 73
enactment of bill before scrutiny, 74, 81
feedback loop effect, 77
impact of Australian regime, 76–82
judicial impact, 82
judiciary, role of, 85–86
key features of, 72–73
legislative impact, 79–82
legislatures, competency of, 84–85
operation of Australian model, 73–76
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR) (Australia), 74–76
statements of compatibility, 73–74, 77, 83
uniqueness of Australia, 72
parliamentary systems
political parties under, 121
separation of powers and, 120
participation and deliberation
difference between, 291–292, 293
feasibility of mass deliberation, 290–291
integration of, 293–294
linking deliberation to participation, 292–293
referendums, 284
small group deliberation, 288–290see also mini-publics
Pasquino, Pasquale, 228
performative aspects of politics
codes of, 337
issues and agenda in democratic events, 338
New Zealand, constitutional reforms in, 342–349
serious recognition of, 349–350
symbols, political, 340–342, 349–350
tensions with deliberative constitutionalism, 349–350
Pildes, Richard, 30
pluralism
compromise in deliberative constitutionalism, 189–190
compromise as goal of deliberation, 181, 184, 189
consensus, privileging of, 183–184
deliberative democracy and, 182–183
interpretative legal, 66
liberalism and, 182
policy distortion, 95
policy laboratory, 102, 104–108
policy-making and the law, 31–33
political morality, 142, 143, 144–145
political parties
compromise, 188
deliberation, role in fostering, 121–123
under separation of powers, 121–123
politics of deference
Canadian, 64–69
as institutional deliberation, 64–69
polls, deliberative, 229–231
polygamy, defeat of, 107
popular constitutionalism
adoption of dialogical model, 316–319
Britain, 322, 323
Canada, 316–317, 320–322
Commonwealth model, 311–312
compatibility of dialogical model with, 320
courts, avoiding damage to popularity of, 312, 313, 320
and deliberative democracy, 315–316
democracy as justification for, 312, 313, 320
dialogical rationale and model for, 314–315, 316–323
England, 318–319
as enhancing deliberative democratic goals, 311
insufficient justifications for, 311, 312–314
New Zealand, 316–317, 322
notwithstanding clause, Canada, 316–317
principal central to, 311
public trust, 312, 313, 320
success of dialogic models, chances of, 320–323
wisdom of the crowd as justification, 312, 313, 320
positive law as dependent on natural law, 141–142
positivism, 66, 151–152, 191–192, 196–197
power, division and limitation of, 103–104
Powers v. Ohio, 241
Pozen, David, 311
Prakash, Saikrishna, 312
precedents, 141–142, 146–147, 150, 151, 153–154
presidential systems
administration, 25–26, 31
political parties under, 121–123
separation of powers and, 118–119
presidentialism, 114
procedural fairness, 146–147, 148–149
proceduralism and constitutionalisation, 257
proportionality reasoning, 354, 368
public conversation
development of, 257see also mini-publics
public interest
discretion as dialogue, 62see also mini-publics
public reason approaches, 20–22
public servantssee elites
public-spiritedness, 224–225
publicity principle, 28n.2
R (on Application of Nicklinson) v. Ministry of Justice, 135–138
Rao, Neomi, 36
Rawls, John, 21, 27, 163, 172–177, 178–179, 182, 183, 292, 356
Raz, Joseph, 52–53
reasoned administration
in administrative law, 17–18
compromise between electoral/deliberative democracy, 24–27
and deliberative democracy, 21
electoral democracy, 18–20
legitimacy and, 21
process over truth, no privilege given, 27
reciprocity, 59, 63, 69, 183
referendums
flag referendums in New Zealand, 347–349
mandate for constitutional change, 283
mini-publics as preceding, 301
participation/deliberation relationship, 283–284
reflective equilibrium, 150, 173, 175–176
reforms, constitutionalsee constitutional reforms; unconstitutional constitutional amendments, doctrine of
religious liberty and anti-discrimination, 111–112
representation
delegate model, 224
demographic, of mini-publics, 300
mini-public deliberation, 286–288
trustee model, 223, 225
respect, deference as, 66–69, 70
rhetoric and constitutionalisation, 257, 266–268
rights
Commonwealth model of rights protection, 126–127, 134–138
courts, protection of rights by, 125
dialogue, connection with deliberative democracy, 125–126, 132–133
legal/political protection of, 129–132
mechanisms for facilitating dialogue, 125–126, 133–138see also co-originality thesis (Habermas); common law, rights based in; federalism and human rights; freedom of expression; freedom of religion; parliamentary scrutiny models
rigour, deliberative
Lawyers Group, 29, 35–37
requirements for, 28
Roach v. Electoral Commissioner, 161
Rowe v. Electoral Commissioner, 161
Sager, Lawrence G, 107–108
same-sex marriage
deliberative telescoping, 5
Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (US) (RFRA), 111–112
federalism and human rights, 108–110
Obergefell v. Hodges, 110–111
state resistance to, 109–110
Supreme Court, role of, 110–111
Sanders, Steve, 109
Saunders, Cheryl, 334–335
Scottish independence referendum 2014, 254–255, 283, 291, 293–294
scrutiny modelssee parliamentary scrutiny models
second-order deliberation
civil servants and, 6
deliberative constitutionalism, 6
elites, 6, 354–357, 362–366, 368
judiciary and courts, 6
norms, constitutional, 6
secret deliberation, 39
Sedley, Stephen, 338
self-interest, 23, 224–225
semi-presidential systems, separation of powers and, 119
separation of powers
argumentation-theoretic perspective, 118
checks and balances, 114–116
common law, rights based in, 142–143
definition, 114
different systems of, 117–120, 123–124
efficiency rationale, 116–117, 118
inter-branch deliberation, 118–120, 123–124
multiple forms of, 113
parliamentary systems, 120, 121
political parties under, 121–123
presidential systems, 118–119
presidentialism, 114
pure systems of, 114
purpose of, 29–30, 43
rationales for, 115–117
semi-presidential systems, 119see also federalism and human rights
small groups, deliberation bysee mini-publics
Smyth, Laura, 72
snap judgements
constitutional decisions, 160–162
and constitutional deliberation, 156
core/penumbral cases, 159
dialectical equilibrium model, 156, 162–165
dual process models of cognition, 157
ethical scenarios, 156
legal decisions, 158–160
moral psychology, 157–158
normative component, 158
and reflective reasoning, 160
unusual cases, 161–162
Somin, Ilya, 226
South African Constitutional Assemblies, 331–332
South Korea, jury system in, 238
statements of compatibility, 73–74, 77, 83
statutory framework
basic rights as integral to, 148
discretion as dialogue, 62
integration of new statutes, 147
theory of a statute, need for, 147–148
Steiner, Jürg, 224
Stepan, Alfred, 103
strong-form deliberation, 169, 170, 172
Sunstein, Cass, 132–133, 312
Supreme Court and federalism and human rights, 110–111
Sweden, jury system in, 239
symbols, political, 349–350
Crown, the, in New Zealand, 341, 342–349
New Zealand, constitutional reforms and, 342–349
as performative, 340–341
understanding of, 350
systemic deliberative democracy, 249–250, 252, 253, 254–255
Tekin, Serdar, 259, 261
terrorist trials, procedural fairness and, 148–149
Thayer, JB, 131
Thompson, Dennis, 92, 117, 181, 182, 183, 184, 246, 251
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), 349
transparency in deliberative democracy
discretion as dialogue, 62–63
national security, 28–29
tribunals, administrative, interpretation of constitutions by, 46–47, 49
trustee model of representation, 223, 225
truth, deliberative democracy and, 23–24
Tulis, Jeffrey K, 118, 119
Tushnet, Mark, 95, 206
Uhr, John, 91, 92
unanimity, jury, 241–242
unconstitutional constitutional amendments, doctrine of
application of, 274–278
basis of, 274
Bolivia, 277–278
Colombia, 275–277
contribution to deliberative democracy, 281
defined, 271
deliberative democracy, constitutional changes under, 272–274
as deliberative opportunity, 271–272
democratising fundamental change, 278–280
fundamental changes, 274
India, 271, 274–275
institutional alternatives, 278–280, 281
ordinary amendments/revisions, distinction between, 272–274
problems with institutions, 274–278, 281
United Kingdomsee Britain
United States
federalist debates, 265–266
founding moment, 256–257
jury system, 237, 238, 239
moral justifiability of judicial review, 208, 218
national security and Lawyers Group, 28–43
Office of Senate Legal Counsel, 98
same-sex marriage, 5see also administrative law; federalism and human rights
unstable constitutions, 196–197
validity, legal, 48
value conflicts, compromise in, 185–187
value pluralism, 26–27
Vermeule, Adrian, 98
Vinx, Lars, 51
voting and deliberative democracy, 60
Wade, HWR, 194
Waldron, Jeremy, 83, 84, 130, 144, 203–211, 228–229, see also moral justifiability of judicial review
Walters, Mark, 55, 59, 66
Walzer, Michael, 104, 290, 341
Warren, Mark, 326
weak-form deliberation, 169, 170, 172
Williams, Bernard, 48
Yoo, John, 312
Zurn, Christopher, 228–229, 231

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Index
  • Edited by Ron Levy, Australian National University, Canberra, Hoi Kong, McGill University, Montréal, Graeme Orr, University of Queensland, Jeff King, University College London
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Deliberative Constitutionalism
  • Online publication: 18 April 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108289474.029
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Index
  • Edited by Ron Levy, Australian National University, Canberra, Hoi Kong, McGill University, Montréal, Graeme Orr, University of Queensland, Jeff King, University College London
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Deliberative Constitutionalism
  • Online publication: 18 April 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108289474.029
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Index
  • Edited by Ron Levy, Australian National University, Canberra, Hoi Kong, McGill University, Montréal, Graeme Orr, University of Queensland, Jeff King, University College London
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Deliberative Constitutionalism
  • Online publication: 18 April 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108289474.029
Available formats
×