Abstract
Abstract This chapter explores how the ideas set out in Part 1 translate into potential doctrinal guidance for courts in the context of judgments about the intensity and scope of judicial review. Specifically, it explores debates about constructional choice and the making of constitutional implications, and the application of doctrines of proportionality and US-style tiered review. It suggests that the legitimacy of constitutional implications will depend on an amalgam of legal and political factors, and the degree to which implications respond to threats to the “democratic minimum more” or urgent, systemic, and irreversible risks to human dignity. It further shows how attention to risks of electoral and institutional monopoly, democratic blind spots, and burdens of inertia can usefully inform the application of tests of this kind.
Published Version
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 call