Concepts in constitutionalism 500HS

8 Pages·2002·0.27 MB·English

by  Choudhry, Sujit

Y
R
A
R
B
LI
W
A
L
N
KI
S
A
L
A
R
O
B
CONCEPTS IN CONSTITUTIONALISM 500HS
VOLUME I - PART I
2002-2003
Spring Semester
Professor Sujit Choudhry
Faculty of Law
University of Toronto

CONCEPTS IN CONSTITUTIONALISM 500HS
VOLUME I-PART I
2002-2003
Spring Semester
Professor Sujit Choudhry
Faculty of Law
University of Toronto
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2018 with funding from
University of Toronto
https://archive.org/details/conceptsinconsti01chou
CONCEPTS IN CONSTITUTIONALISM 500HS
Prof. Choudhry
2002-2003
Spring Semester
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I - PART I
The Counter-Majoritarian Dilemma and Institutional Dialogue: The American Debate
Decision Avoidance
A.M. Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar
of Politics (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril, 1962), 16-23, ch. 4. 1
G. Gunther, “The Subtle Vices of the ‘Passive Virtues’ - A Comment on
Principle and Expediency in Judicial Review” (1964) 64 Colum. L. Rev. 1.50
Judicial Minimalism
J. Thayer, “The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of
Constitutional Law” (1893) 7 Harv. L. Rev. 129.63
L. G. Sager, “Fair Measure: The Legal Status of Underenforced
Constitutional Norms” (1978) 91 Harv. L. Rev. 1212.77
G. Calabresi, “Foreword: Anti-Discrimination and Constitutional
Accountability (What the Bork-Brennan Debate Ignores)”
(1991) 105 Harv. L. Rev. 80.104
M. J. Perry, The Constitution in the Courts: Law or Politics?
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), ch. 10.140
C. Sunstein, “Foreword: Leaving Things Undecided”
(1996) 110 Harv. L. Rev. 4.147
N. Devins, “The Democracy-Forcing Constitution”
(1999) 97 Mich L. Rev 1971.196
C.J. Peters, “Assessing the New Judicial Minimalism”
(2002) 100 Colum. L. Rev. 1454.208
1
The Canadian Debate
The Charter
P.W. Hogg & A. Bushell. “Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures”
(1997)35 0.H.LJ. 75. 250
C. P. Manfredi & J.B. Kelly, “Six Degrees of Dialogue: A Response to
Hogg and Bushell” (1999) 37 O.H.LJ. 513.275
P.W. Hogg & A. Thornton, “Reply to ‘Six Degrees of Dialogue’”
(1999)37 0.H.L.J. 529.283
F.L. Morton, “Dialogue or Monologue?” (April 1999) Policy Options 23.287
K. Roach, The Supreme Court on Trial: Judicial Activism or
Democratic Dialogue (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2001), chs. 10, 14, 15.291
J. L. Hiebert, Charter Conflicts: What Is Parliament’s Role?
(Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2002), ch. 3.330
The Secession Reference
Refei'ence Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217...341
S. Choudhry & R.J. Howse, “Constitutional Theory and the Quebec
Secession Reference" (2000) 13 C.J.L.J. 143 .386
D. G. Cowper & L. Sossin, “Does Canada Need a Political Questions
Doctrine?” (2002) 16 S.C.L.R. (2d) 343.400
L. Sossin, “The Rule of Law and the Justiciability of Prerogative Powers:
A Comment on Black v. Chretien" (2002) 47 McGill L.J. 435.416
M. Graber, “The Nonmajoritarian Difficulty: Legislative Deference to the
Judiciary” (1993) 7 Studies in Am. Pol. Devel. 35.428
From Judicial Supremacy to Non-Judicial Constitutional Interpretation
Judicial Supremacy: For and Against
L. Alexander & F. Schauer, “On Extrajudicial Constitutional Interpretation”
(1997) 110 Harv. L. Rev. 1359.467
K. E. Whittington, “Extrajudicial Constitutional Interpretation: Three
Objections and Responses” (2002) 80 N.C. L. Rev. 773.482
ii
Non-Judicial Constitutional Interpretation
K. E. Whittington, Constitutional Construction: Divided Powers and
Constitutional Meaning {Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), ch. 2.522
L. Fisher, “Constitutional Interpretation by Members of Congress”
(1985) 63 N.C.L. Rev. 707.548
Hiebert, supra, ch. 5.569
An Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the
opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession
Reference,'S.C. 2000, c. 26 [Clarity Act].583
An Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives
of the Quebec people and the Quebec State, S.Q. 2000, c. 46 [Bill 99].587