Abstract
In this paper we will analyze the work of two American authors on popular constitutionalism: Michael Serota and Tom Donnelly. Initially, we will study Serota’s notion of Interpretative Competence, which is based on the idea of Constitutional Fidelity and has two dimensions: Constitutional Knowledge and Constitutional Reasoning. Next, we will examine the idea that people do not have Interpretive Competence and that Supreme Court Ministers do. The second part of the paper will deal with Tom Donnelly's agenda for making popular constitutionalism work. In particular, the People`s Veto proposal will be analyzed. The research is qualitative and employs the deductive approach method. The conclusion points out that Donnelly's and Serota's ideas are not as contradictory as they may seem, and that the democratization of constitutional decision-making does not necessarily violate the obligation of constitutional fidelity.
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.
