Not In for a Pound—In for a Penny? Must a Majoritarian Democrat Treat All Constitutional Judicial Review as Equally Egregious?

Abstract

This paper makes the case that majoritarian democrats who oppose rights-related constitutional review have much less cause to oppose other sorts of constitutional review, most obviously federalism-related judicial review. Taking up the challenge laid down by Adrienne Stone, the paper aims to give a principled basis for opposing rights-based constitutional review while at the same time accepting, or being much more relaxed about, federalism-related and other sorts of constitutional review. And it does this from the explicit vantage of one who is a majoritarian democrat who opposes bills of rights in well-functioning democracies.