This chapter continues Chapter 7's defense of constitutional law and judicial review, focusing on both the relative impartiality and the reasonable competence of constitutional procedures. It explains how the most frequently criticized aspects of constitutional process—its obsession with the past, its constraint by a text, the political insulation of its judges—give it a crucial advantage in impartiality over ordinary democracy with respect to issues of democratic authority. The chapter also contends that the superdemocratic nature of the framing and amendment processes, the long-term political dynamics of constitutional decision making, and the participatory nature of constitutional adjudication combine to generate reasonable democratic competence. It rejects strict formalism and open-ended pragmatism in constitutional interpretation, offering instead a methodology based on the concepts of semantic intention and justification discussed in Chapter 5. It closes by comparing the dispute-resolution approach to the popular responses to the countermajoritarian difficulty canvassed in Chapter 7.
Keywords: countermajoritarian difficulty, constitutional law, judicial review, impartiality, decision-making competence, constitutional process, textualism, originalism, legal pragmatism, constitutional framing
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.