Prologue: North American constitutionalism?

International Journal of Constitutional Law

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 203-212

  Hirschl, Ran ^a   Eisgruber, Christopher L ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745941780     PISSN: 14742640     EISSN: 14742659     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/icon/mol002     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Jeff Sallot, How the Charter Changes Justice, The Globe and Mail (Toronto), April 17, 1992, at A11.
2. Stephen Zamora et al., Mexican Law (Oxford Univ. Press 2004), vii.
3. For a discussion of Nafta qua constitution, see, e.g., Stephen Clarkson, Uncle Sam and Us: Globalization, Neoconservatism, and the Canadian State (univ. Toronto Press 2002).
4. See, e.g., Charles Epp, The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective (Univ. of Chicago 1998)
5. Ran Hirschl, Towards Juristocracy: The Origins And Consequences of the New Constitutionalism (Harvard Univ. Press 2004).
6. Seymour M. Lipset, Continental Divide: The Values and Institutions of the United States and Canada (Routledge 1990), 101-110.
7. See, e.g., Mayo Moran, Talking about Hate Speech: A Rhetorical Analysis of American and Canadian Approaches, 1994 Wisc. L. Rev. 1425 (1994)
8. Melissa Haussman, Abortion Politics in North America (Lynne Rienner Pub. 2005).
9. See, e.g. Stephen Newman, ed., Constitutional Politics in Canada and the United States (Suny Press 2004)
10. See, e.g. Stephen Newman, ed., Constitutional Politics in Canada and the United States (Suny Press 2004)
11. See, e.g., F. L. Morton & Rainer Knopff, The Charter Revolution and the Court Party (Broadview 2d ed. 2000)
12. Christopher Manfredi, Judicial Power and the Charter (Oxford Univ. Press 2d ed. 2001)
13. Robert Martin, The Most Dangerous Branch: How The Supreme Court of Canada Has Undermined Our Law and Our Democracy (McGill-Queen's Univ. Press 2003).
14. This trend may soon change with President George W. Bush's recent appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court, as well as with the January 2006 election of a Tory government in Canada, and the introduction of a televised public hearing as part of the process for appointing judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.
15. In its landmark judgment of R. v. Oakes [1986] S.C.R. 103 the SCC introduced a two-pronged approach to interpreting the Charter's "limitation clause."
16. In practice, however, section 33 lacks wide public legitimacy. While to describe it as a political "dead-letter" would be an exaggeration, since 1982 there have only been a handful of significant instances in which governments have either invoked (or seriously attempted to invoke) this clause. See Tsvi Kahana, The Notwithstanding Mechanism and Public Discussion: Lessons from the Ignored Practice of Section 33 of the Charter, 44 Can. Pub. Admin. 255 (2001).
17. See, e.g., Peter W. Hogg & Allison A. Bushell, The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures (or Perhaps the Charter of Rights Isn't Such A Bad Thing After All), 35 Osgoode Hall L. J. 75 (1997)
18. Kent Roach, The Supreme Court on Trial (Irwin 2001)
19. Janet Hiebert, Interpreting a Bill of Rights: The Importance of Legislative Rights Review, 35 British J. Pol. Sci. 235 (2005); for a recent critical account,
20. see Luc B. Tremblay, The Legitimacy of Judicial Review: The Limits of Dialogue between Courts and Legislatures, 3 Int. J. Con L. (I-CON) 617 (2005).
21. Roach, supra note 12, at 239.
22. Louis Fisher, The Curious Belief in Judicial Supremacy, 25 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 85, 87 (1991).
23. See, e.g., Barry Friedman, Dialogue and Judicial Review, 91 Mich. L. Rev. 577 (1993)
24. Christopher L. Eisgruber, Constitutional Self-Government (Harvard Univ. Press 2001).
25. Zamora et al., supra note 2.
26. A few classic accounts here are: Louis Hartz, The Founding of New Societies (Harcourt 1964)
27. Gad Horowitz, Conservatism, Liberalism, and Socialism in Canada: An Interpretation, 32 Can. J. Econ. & Pol. Sci. 143 (1966)
28. Donald Forbes, Hartz-Horowitz at Twenty: Nationalism, Toryism, and Socialism in Canada and the United States, 20 Can. J. Pol. Sci 287 (1987)
29. and Lipset, supra note 5.
30. North American Free Trade Agreement, Dec. 17, 1992, U.S.-Can.-Mex., 107 Stat. 2057 (1994), 32 I.L.M. 605 (1993) [hereinafter NAFTA]. Chapter 11 of NAFTA provides foreign companies the right to sue any signatory of the agreement for actions taken by that government against their property that are tantamount to expropriation.
31. See, e.g., Neil Nevitte, The Decline of Deference: Canadian Value Change in Cross-National Perspective (Broadview Press 1996).
32. Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791 held that limits on the delivery of private health care in Québec violated Québec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Three of the judges also ruled that the limits on private health care violated section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The decision could have significant ramifications on health care policy in Canada and may be interpreted as paving the way to a so-called "two-tier" health care system.
33. Sotirios A. Barber, Welfare and the Constitution (Princeton Univ. Press 2003).
34. See Mark Tushnet, Foreword: The New Constitutional Order and the Chastening of Constitutional Aspiration, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 29, 33 (1999). (2004).
35. Lawrence G. Sager, Justice in Plainclothes: A Theory of American Constitutional Practice (Yale Univ. Press 2004).