Abstract
Balancing is one of the main issues in current debates on the interpretation of constitutional rights. Numerous authors have raised the objection that balancing is both irrational and subjective. It is argued that this objection is unjustified. To show this, balancing is embedded in a theory of discursive constitutionalism that connects the concept of balancing with the concepts of constitutional rights, discourse, constitutional review, and representation. The main theses are these: first, balancing is based on a rational form of argument that can be made explicit by means of the Weight Formula, and second, constitutional review comports with the requirements of democratic legitimation to the extent that it succeeds in becoming an argumentative representation of the people.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
