Abstract

The entrenchment of a Bill of Rights in a supreme Constitution in South Africa means that constitutionalism will become central in a new emerging jurisprudence. The constitutional requirement that the courts promote “the values which underlie an open and democratic society based on freedom and equality2 implies that the interpretive task will be radically different from what it was under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The duty imposed on the courts by section 39(1)(a) and 7(1) will compel them to make value choices and to make those values explicit through clear and transparent articulation.
 

Highlights

  • The entrenchment of a Bill of Rights in a supreme Constitution in South Africa means that constitutionalism will become central in a new emerging jurisprudence

  • The constitutional requirement that the courts promote “the values which underlie an open and democratic society based on freedom and equality implies that the interpretive task will be radically different from what it was under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty

  • The duty imposed on the courts by section 39(1)(a) and 7(1) will compel them to make value choices and to make those values explicit through clear and transparent articulation

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The entrenchment of a Bill of Rights in a supreme Constitution in South Africa means that constitutionalism will become central in a new emerging jurisprudence. In brief the Law Society refused to register the applicant’s contract for community service, since he disclosed two previous convictions for possession of cannabis, and indicated his intention to continue using it for religious purposes (he is a member of the Rastafari religion). The respondents based their argument on the view that his convictions disqualified him to be admitted as an attorney, because he is not a “fit and proper person” if he intends to keep breaking the law. The only question was whether the law is inconsistent with the Constitution [109], and whether such an inconsistency (or infringement) is justified[111]

CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION
CONCLUSION
Full Text
Paper version not known

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

Disclaimer: 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.