Semiprocedural judicial review

Legisprudence

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 271-300

  Bar Siman Tov, Ittai ^a  

^a BAR ILAN UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

Due process of lawmaking; Judicial review; Legislative process; Procedural review; Proportionality; Semi procedural review; Substantive review

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875875038     PISSN: 17521467     EISSN: 17521475     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5235/17521467.6.3.271     Document Type: Article

References (195)

1. P. Popelier, 'Preliminary Comments on the Role of Courts as Regulatory Watchdogs' (2012) 6(3) Legisprudence 257.
2. Observing that 'administrative process review by courts is gradually developing into a broader technique of constitutional adjudication'.
3. P. Popelier, 'The Court as Regulatory Watchdog: The Procedural Approach in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights' in P. Popelier et al. (eds.), Role of Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012).
4. K. Lenaerts, 'The European Court of Justice and Process-oriented Review' (2012) College of Europe, European Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1/2012, http://www.coleurope.eu/template.asp?pagename=lawpapers, accessed 31 December 2012.
5. K. Meßerschmidt, 'The Good Shepherd of Karlsruhe: The "Hartz IV" Decision on Unemployment Benefits and Social Allowances - A Good Example of Regulatory Review by the German Federal Constitutional Court?' in P. Popelier, A. Mazmanyan and W. Vandenbruwaene (eds.), Role of Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012).
6. P. Popelier, 'The Role of the Belgian Constitutional Court in the Legislative Process' (2005) 26 Statute Law Review 22.
7. D.T. Coenen, 'The Rehnquist Court, Structural Due Process, and Semisubstantive Constitutional Review' (2002) 75 Southern California Law Review 1281.
8. A.C. Bryant and T.J. Simeone, 'Remanding to Congress: The Supreme Court's New "On the Record" Constitutional Review of Federal Statutes' (2001) 86 Cornell Law Review 328.
9. P.P. Frickey and S.S. Smith, 'Judicial Review, the Congressional Process, and the Federalism Cases: An Interdisciplinary Critique' (2002) 111 Yale Law Journal 1707.
10. P. Popelier, 'Preliminary Comments on the Role of Courts as Regulatory Watchdogs' (2012) 6(3) Legisprudence 257.
11. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1917.
12. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1924.
13. Harris v. Minister of the Interior 1952 (2) SA 428 (A) (S. Afr.).
14. Harris v. Minister of the Interior 1952 (2) SA 428 (A) (S. Afr.).
15. HCJ 98/69 Bergman v. Minister of Finance [1969] IsrSC 23(1) 693.
16. HCJ 98/69 Bergman v. Minister of Finance [1969] IsrSC 23(1) 693.
17. P. Popelier, 'Preliminary Comments on the Role of Courts as Regulatory Watchdogs' (2012) 6(3) Legisprudence 257.
18. A. Alemanno, 'A Meeting of Minds on Impact Assessment: When Ex ante Evaluation Meets Ex Post Judicial Control' (2011) 17(3) European Public Law 485, 499-505.
19. D. Keyaerts, 'Ex Ante Evaluation of EU Legislation Intertwined with Judicial Review? Comment on Vodafone Ltd v. Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (C-58/08) (2010) 35(6) European Law Review 869.
20. K. Lenaerts, 'The European Court of Justice and Process-oriented Review' (2012) College of Europe, European Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1/2012 http://www.coleurope.eu/template.asp?pagename=lawpapers, accessed 31 December 2012.
21. K. Meßerschmidt, 'The Good Shepherd of Karlsruhe: The "Hartz IV" Decision on Unemployment Benefits and Social Allowances - A Good Example of Regulatory Review by the German Federal Constitutional Court?' in P. Popelier, A. Mazmanyan and W. Vandenbruwaene (eds.), Role of Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012).
22. P. Popelier, 'Preliminary Comments on the Role of Courts as Regulatory Watchdogs' (2012) 6(3) Legisprudence 257.
23. P. Popelier, 'The Court as Regulatory Watchdog: The Procedural Approach in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights' in P. Popelier et al. (eds.), Role of Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012).
24. P. Popelier, 'The Role of the Belgian Constitutional Court in the Legislative Process' (2005) 26 Statute Law Review 22, 28-29 and 33.
25. Evans v. the UK [GC], no. 6339/05, § 86, ECHR 2007-I.
26. Hirst (no. 2) v. the UK, no 74025/01, ECHR 2005; Hirst (no. 2) v. the UK [GC], no 74025/01, ECHR 2005-IX; Alajos Kiss v. Hungary, no 38832/06, ECHR 2010.
27. R. O'Connell, 'The Right to Democracy' in N. Bechter and G. DeAngelis (eds.), Problems of Democracy: Probing the Boundaries (Inter-Disciplinary Press 2010) 47 and 51.
28. T. Lewis, '"Difficult and Slippery Terrain": Hansard, Human Rights and Hirst v. UK' (2006) Public Law 209, 212-213.
29. A. Alemanno, 'A Meeting of Minds on Impact Assessment: When Ex Ante Evaluation Meets Ex Post Judicial Control' (2011) 17(3) European Public Law 485, 499-505.
30. K. Lenaerts, 'The European Court of Justice and Process-oriented Review' (2012) College of Europe, European Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1/2012 http://www.coleurope.eu/template.asp?pagename=lawpapers, accessed 31 December 2012.
31. While SPR is probably most apparent in the ECJs proportionality analysis, a semi procedural approach can also be observed in the ECJ's case-law on the subsidiarity principle.
32. W. Vandenbruwaene, 'Multi-Tiered Political Questions: The ECJ's Mandate in Enforcing Subsidiarity' (2012) 6(3) Legisprudence 321.
33. K. Lenaerts, 'The European Court of Justice and Process-oriented Review' (2012) College of Europe, European Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1/2012, 3. http://www.coleurope.eu/template.asp?pagename=lawpapers, accessed 31 December 2012.
34. K. Lenaerts, 'The European Court of Justice and Process-oriented Review' (2012) College of Europe, European Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1/2012. 9.
35. K. Lenaerts, 'The European Court of Justice and Process-oriented Review' (2012) College of Europe, European Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1/2012. 2-3.
36. K. Meßerschmidt, 'The Good Shepherd of Karlsruhe: The "Hartz IV" Decision on Unemployment Benefits and Social Allowances - A Good Example of Regulatory Review by the German Federal Constitutional Court?' in P. Popelier, A. Mazmanyan and W. Vandenbruwaene (eds.), Role of Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012).
37. P. Popelier, 'The Role of the Belgian Constitutional Court in the Legislative Process' (2005) 26 Statute Law Review 22.
38. K. Meßerschmidt, 'The Race to Rationality Review and the Score of the German Federal Constitutional Court' (2012) 6(3) Legisprudence 347.
39. K. Meßerschmidt, 'The Race to Rationality Review and the Score of the German Federal Constitutional Court' (2012) 6(3) Legisprudence 347.
40. K. Meßerschmidt, 'The Race to Rationality Review and the Score of the German Federal Constitutional Court' (2012) 6(3) Legisprudence 347.
41. Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980).
42. Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980). 550-551.
43. Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980). 549-550.
44. Ibid. 552: '[R]ather than take the substantive position. I would hold this statute unconstitutional on a narrower ground. It cannot fairly be characterized as a narrowly tailored racial classification because it simply raises too many serious questions that Congress failed to answer or even to address in a responsible way.'.
45. P.P. Frickey and S.S. Smith, 'Judicial Review, the Congressional Process, and the Federalism Cases: An Interdisciplinary Critique' (2002) 111 Yale Law Journal 1707, 1717.
46. D.T. Coenen, 'The Rehnquist Court, Structural Due Process, and Semisubstantive Constitutional Review' (2002) 75 Southern California Law Review 1281, 1314-1328.
47. P.P. Frickey and S.S. Smith, 'Judicial Review, the Congressional Process, and the Federalism Cases: An Interdisciplinary Critique' (2002) 111 Yale Law Journal 1707, 1720-1727
48. Both for a detailed discussion.
49. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 879 (1997).
50. P.P. Frickey and S.S. Smith, 'Judicial Review, the Congressional Process, and the Federalism Cases: An Interdisciplinary Critique' (2002) 111 Yale Law Journal 1707, 1728.
51. P.P. Frickey and S.S. Smith, 'Judicial Review, the Congressional Process, and the Federalism Cases: An Interdisciplinary Critique' (2002) 111 Yale Law Journal 1707, 1728.
52. D.T. Coenen, 'The Rehnquist Court, Structural Due Process, and Semisubstantive Constitutional Review' (2002) 75 Southern California Law Review 1281, 1314-1328.
53. P. Popelier, 'The Court as Regulatory Watchdog: The Procedural Approach in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights' in P. Popelier et al. (eds.), Role of Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012).
54. Hatton v. United Kingdom, no. 36022/97, ECHR 2001; Hatton v. United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, ECHR 2003-VIII.
55. P. Popelier, 'The Court as Regulatory Watchdog: The Procedural Approach in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights' in P. Popelier et al. (eds.), Role of Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012).
56. D.T. Coenen, 'The Rehnquist Court, Structural Due Process, and Semisubstantive Constitutional Review' (2002) 75 Southern California Law Review 1281, 1316-1318.
57. C. Bateup, 'The Dialogic Promise: Assessing the Normative Potential of Theories of Constitutional Dialogue' (2006) 71 Brooklyn Law Review 1109, 1130.
58. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1923.
59. However, it is not the only deviation from pure substantive judicial review.
60. D.T. Coenen, 'The Rehnquist Court, Structural Due Process, and Semisubstantive Constitutional Review' (2002) 75 Southern California Law Review 1281.
61. Identifies a large group of 'semisubstantive rules' that complement substantive judicial review with a judicial examinations of issues beyond the content of the law, such as the identity of the decision-maker; the lawgiver's underlying purpose; the age of the law; the manner in which the law came to be and its form. SPR partially overlaps with a particular subset of Coenen's semisubstantive rules, in which courts examine whether the legislature relied on adequate findings or study.
62. The shift is only partial, because under the emerging SPR courts do not completely turn the role of substantive balancing between rights and interests over to the legislature.
63. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1921-1923.
64. Ibid. 1925; Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 21 (2005): '[W]e have never required Congress to make particularized findings in order to legislate, absent a special concern such as the protection of free speech.
65. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1922.
66. K. Meßerschmidt, 'The Race to Rationality Review and the Score of the German Federal Constitutional Court' (2012) 6(3) Legisprudence 347.
67. S. Navot, 'Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2006) 39 Israel Law Review 182, 201-211.
68. P.P. Frickey and S.S. Smith, 'Judicial Review, the Congressional Process, and the Federalism Cases: An Interdisciplinary Critique' (2002) 111 Yale Law Journal 1707, 1728.
69. P. Popelier, 'The Court as Regulatory Watchdog: The Procedural Approach in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights' in P. Popelier et al. (eds.), Role of Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012).
70. P. Popelier, 'The Court as Regulatory Watchdog: The Procedural Approach in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights' in P. Popelier et al. (eds.), Role of Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012), 1711-1713.
71. P. Popelier, 'The Court as Regulatory Watchdog: The Procedural Approach in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights' in P. Popelier et al. (eds.), Role of Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012).
72. Indeed, one can certainly imagine a semiprocedural model enforcing only procedural regularity, as well as a purely procedural model enforcing procedural rationality. The latter, at least, has been advocated by some academics.
73. V. Goldfeld, 'Note, Legislative Due Process and Simple Interest Group Politics: Ensuring Minimal Deliberation through Judicial Review of Congressional Processes' (2004) 79 New York University Law Review 367.
74. At least in Europe and the U.S.
75. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1917.
76. D. Ben-Porat and L. Ben-David, A Comparative Overview on Judicial Review of the Legislative Process (Knesset Information and Research Center 2005) 2 http://www.knesset.gov.il/mmm/data/pdf/m01513.pdf, accessed 31 December 2012.
77. K. Meßerschmidt, 'The Good Shepherd of Karlsruhe: The "Hartz IV" Decision on Unemployment Benefits and Social Allowances - A Good Example of Regulatory Review by the German Federal Constitutional Court?' in P. Popelier, A. Mazmanyan and W. Vandenbruwaene (eds.), Role of Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012).
78. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'Legislative Supremacy in the United States? Rethinking the Enrolled Bill Doctrine' (2009) 97 Georgetown Law Journal 323, 389-390.
79. D. Ben-Porat and L. Ben-David, A Comparative Overview on Judicial Review of the Legislative Process (Knesset Information and Research Center 2005) 2 http://www.knesset.gov.il/mmm/data/pdf/m01513.pdf, accessed 31 December 2012.
80. J.-P. Duprat, 'The Judicial Review of Ex ante Impact Assessment in France: An Attempt to Fuse the Principles of Legal Certainty and Institutional Balance' (2012) 6(3) Legisprudence page typefirst383/page.
81. Alain Delcamp, Secretary General of the French Senate, Parliaments and Constitutional Courts (Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments 2011) 15.
82. Saying that 'courts therefore make sure to exercise minimum control [over compliance with legislative procedure] (even when such procedures have been constitutionalised)'.
83. In the U.S., for example, although both models are controversial, courts do exercise SPR and impose demanding procedural requirements, while persistently refusing to exercise pure procedural review.
84. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1917.
85. In Belgium, as well, the Constitutional Court in principle only accepts substantive review while excluding pure procedural review (with very limited exceptions), but is showing growing propensity to employ SPR, both in its classic and its emerging judicially-created version.
86. P. Popelier, 'The Role of the Belgian Constitutional Court in the Legislative Process' (2005) 26 Statute Law Review 22, 26-30 and 33.
87. D.T. Coenen, 'A Constitution of Collaboration: Protecting Fundamental Values with Second-Look Rules of Interbranch Dialogue' (2001) 42 William and Mary Law Review 1575.
88. T. Sandalow, 'Judicial Protection of Minorities' (1977) 75 Michigan Law Review 1162, 1183-1190.
89. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1926.
90. Y. Eylon and A. Harel, 'The Right to Judicial Review' (2006) 92 Virginia Law Review 991, 995.
91. A. Stone, 'Judicial Review Without Rights: Some Problems for the Democratic Legitimacy of Structural Judicial Review' (2008) 28 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 1, 1-2.
92. K. Lenaerts, 'The European Court of Justice and Process-oriented Review' (2012) College of Europe, European Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1/2012 http://www.coleurope.eu/template.asp?pagename=lawpapers, accessed 31 December 2012.
93. P. Popelier, 'Preliminary Comments on the Role of Courts as Regulatory Watchdogs' (2012) 6(3) Legisprudence 257.
94. A.M. Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics (2nd edn., Yale University Press 1986).
95. Most famously articulating this countermajoritarian difficulty.
96. M. Tushnet, 'Subconstitutional Constitutional Law: Supplement, Sham, or Substitute?' (2001) 42 William and Mary Law Review 1871, 1879.
97. M. Tushnet, 'New Forms of Judicial Review and the Persistence of Rights- and Democracy-Based Worries' (2003) 38 Wake Forest Law Review 813, 817-818.
98. D.T. Coenen, 'The Pros and Cons of Politically Reversible "Semisubstantive" Constitutional Rules' (2009) 77 Fordham Law Review 2835, 2839.
99. D.T. Coenen, 'The Pros and Cons of Politically Reversible "Semisubstantive" Constitutional Rules' (2009) 77 Fordham Law Review 2835, 2840.
100. C. Bateup, 'The Dialogic Promise: Assessing the Normative Potential of Theories of Constitutional Dialogue' (2006) 71 Brooklyn Law Review 1109, 1128-1131.
101. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1954.
102. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1934-1935.
103. D.T. Coenen, 'A Constitution of Collaboration: Protecting Fundamental Values with Second-Look Rules of Interbranch Dialogue' (2001) 42 William and Mary Law Review 1575, 1866-1869.
104. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1926.
105. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915.
106. J.H. Choper, 'The Political Question Doctrine: Suggested Criteria' (2005) 54 Duke Law Journal 1457, 1505-1507.
107. P. Popelier, 'Preliminary Comments on the Role of Courts as Regulatory Watchdogs' (2012) 6(3) Legisprudence 257.
108. D.T. Coenen, 'The Pros and Cons of Politically Reversible "Semisubstantive" Constitutional Rules' (2009) 77 Fordham Law Review 2835, 2886.
109. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1918.
110. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1927.
111. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915.
112. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'Legislative Supremacy in the United States? Rethinking the Enrolled Bill Doctrine' (2009) 97 Georgetown Law Journal 323, 330, 378-379 and 383.
113. D.T. Coenen, 'The Pros and Cons of Politically Reversible "Semisubstantive" Constitutional Rules' (2009) 77 Fordham Law Review 2835, 2868-2869.
114. G. Staszewski, 'Rejecting the Myth of Popular Sovereignty and Applying an Agency Model to Direct Democracy' (2003) 56 Vanderblit Law Review 395, 468 fn. 256.
115. S. Briant, 'Dialogue, Diplomacy and Defiance: Prisoners' Voting Rights at Home and in Strasbourg' (2011) 3 European Human Rights Law Review 243, 248.
116. D. Nicol, 'Legitimacy of the Commons Debate on Prisoner Voting' (2011) Public Law 681, 685-688.
117. T. Lewis, '"Difficult and Slippery Terrain": Hansard, Human Rights and Hirst v. UK' (2006) Public Law 209, 212-218.
118. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1927.
119. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1972.
120. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'Legislative Supremacy in the United States? Rethinking the Enrolled Bill Doctrine' (2009) 97 Georgetown Law Journal 323, 381-385.
121. D.T. Coenen, 'The Pros and Cons of Politically Reversible "Semisubstantive" Constitutional Rules' (2009) 77 Fordham Law Review 2835, 2871-2872.
122. H.A. Linde, 'Due Process of Lawmaking' (1976) 55 Nebraska Law Review 197, 243.
123. H.A. Linde, 'Due Process of Lawmaking' (1976) 55 Nebraska Law Review 197, 243.
124. H.A. Linde, 'Due Process of Lawmaking' (1976) 55 Nebraska Law Review 197, 243.
125. D.T. Coenen, 'The Pros and Cons of Politically Reversible "Semisubstantive" Constitutional Rules' (2009) 77 Fordham Law Review 2835, 2869-2870.
126. D.T. Coenen, 'The Rehnquist Court, Structural Due Process, and Semisubstantive Constitutional Review' (2002) 75 Southern California Law Review 1281, 1283.
127. J.H. Ely, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (Harvard University Press 1980) 88.
128. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1958-1962.
129. On this influential theory and its relationship to pure procedural review.
130. L. Tribe, 'The Puzzling Persistence of Process-Based Constitutional Theories' (1980) 89 Yale Law Journal 1063, 1069.
131. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1961.
132. D. Estlund, 'Introduction' in D. Estlund (ed.), Democracy (Wiley-Blackwell 2002) 1.
133. F.I. Michelman, 'The Not So Puzzling Persistence of the Futile Search: Tribe on Proceduralism in Constitutional Theory' (2007) 42 Tulsa Law Review 891.
134. T.R. Tyler, 'Governing amid Diversity: The Effect of Fair Decisionmaking Procedures on the Legitimacy of Government' (1994) 28 Law and Society Review 809.
135. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1934-1935 and 1961.
136. R. O'Connell, 'The Right to Democracy' in N. Bechter and G. DeAngelis (eds.), Problems of Democracy: Probing the Boundaries (Inter-Disciplinary Press 2010) 51.
137. P. Popelier, 'Preliminary Comments on the Role of Courts as Regulatory Watchdogs' (2012) 6(3) Legisprudence 257.
138. 'The idea that parliament should act as a forum of rational and informed deliberation has more affinity with a deliberative notion of democracy.
139. INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 951 (1983): 'We see therefore that the Framers were acutely conscious that the bicameral requirement and the Presentment Clauses would serve essential constitutional functions. (...) It emerges clearly that the prescription for legislative action in Art. I, §§ 1, 7 represents the Framers decision that the legislative power of the Federal government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure.'.
140. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'Legislative Supremacy in the United States? Rethinking the Enrolled Bill Doctrine' (2009) 97 Georgetown Law Journal 323, 384.
141. A.C. Bryant and T.J. Simeone, 'Remanding to Congress: The Supreme Court's New "On the Record" Constitutional Review of Federal Statutes' (2001) 86 Cornell Law Review 328, 373-375.
142. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 613-14 (1995) (Souter, J., dissenting).
143. E. Mak, 'Judicial Review of Regulatory Instruments: The Least Imperfect Alternative?' (2012) 6(3) Legisprudence 301.
144. P.P. Frickey and S.S. Smith, 'Judicial Review, the Congressional Process, and the Federalism Cases: An Interdisciplinary Critique' (2002) 111 Yale Law Journal 1707.
145. For this type of criticisms of SPR's imposition of due-deliberation standards.
146. R. Colker and J.J. Brudney, 'Dissing Congress' (2001) 100 Michigan Law Review 80.
147. For this type of criticisms of SPR.
148. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1956 fn. 262.
149. M.C. Stephenson, 'The Price of Public Action: Constitutional Doctrine and the Judicial Manipulation of Legislative Enactment Costs' (2008) 118 Yale Law Journal 2, 49.
150. M.C. Stephenson, 'The Price of Public Action: Constitutional Doctrine and the Judicial Manipulation of Legislative Enactment Costs' (2008) 118 Yale Law Journal 2, 1937-1939.
151. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'Legislative Supremacy in the United States? Rethinking the Enrolled Bill Doctrine' (2009) 97 Georgetown Law Journal 323, 371-372 and 375-380.
152. S. Navot, 'Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2006) 39 Israel Law Review 182, 194.
153. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1932-1934 and 1939-1941.
154. Although the question of whether these sub-constitutional rules, which can be changed by the legislature and are often not enforced by courts, should be considered 'law' is admittedly less clear cut.
155. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'Lawmakers as Lawbreakers' (2010) 52 William and Mary Law Review 805, 811-812.
156. J. Raz, 'The Rule of Law and its Virtue' in J. Raz, The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality (2nd edn., Oxford University Press 2009) 210, 211-213 and 216.
157. F. Schauer, 'Legislatures as Rule-Followers' in R.W. Bauman and T. Kahana (eds.), The Least Examined Branch: The Role of Legislatures in the Constitutional State (Cambridge University Press 2006) 468, 468-469 and 477-478.
158. J. Waldron, 'Legislation and the Rule of Law' (2007) 1 Legisprudence 91, 107-108.
159. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1932-1934.
160. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1665-1666.
161. J. Waldron, 'Legislation and the Rule of Law' (2007) 1 Legisprudence 91, 106-107.
162. D.T. Coenen, 'A Constitution of Collaboration: Protecting Fundamental Values with Second-Look Rules of Interbranch Dialogue' (2001) 42 William and Mary Law Review 1575, 1583 and 1868-1869.
163. J. Scott and S. Sturm, 'Courts as Catalysts: Re-thinking the Judicial Role in New Governance' (2007) 13(3) Columbia Journal of European Law 565.
164. M. Tushnet, 'Alternative Forms of Judicial Review' (2003) 101 Michigan Law Review 2781, 2794-2795.
165. P.W. Hogg, et al., 'Charter Dialogue Revisited - Or "Much Ado about Metaphors"' (2007) 45 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 1, 7.
166. B. Friedman, 'The Importance of Being Positive: The Nature and Function of Judicial Review' (2004) 72 University of Cincinnati Law Review 1257, 1295-1296.
167. B. Friedman, 'Dialogue and Judicial Review' (1993) 91 Michigan Law Review 577, 643-648.
168. P. W. Hogg and A. Bushell, 'The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures (Or Perhaps the Charter Isn't Such a Bad Thing After All)' (1997) 35 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 75, 79-80.
169. K. Roach, 'Dialogic Judicial Review and its Critics' (2004) 23 Supreme Court Law Review 49, 55-57.
170. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 613-14 (1995) (Souter, J., dissenting).
171. Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980).
172. J. Waldron, 'The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review' (2006) 115 Yale Law Journal 1346.
173. On the idea of reasonable disagreement about rights.
174. M. Cohen-Eliya, 'The Formal and Substantive Meanings of Proportionality in the Supreme Court's Decision Regarding the Security Fence' (2005) 38 Israel Law Review 262, 264-269.
175. M. Kremnizer, "Constitutional Proportionality: (Appropriate) Guidelines' in A. Barak et al. (eds.), Israeli Constitutional Law at the Crossroads (forthcoming).
176. M. Cohen-Eliya, 'Towards a Procedural Limitation Clause in the Israeli Constitution' (2007) 10 Law and Government 521, 564-565.
177. P.W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (Carswell 2003) 816-817.
178. A. Barak, 'Proportionality and Principled Balancing' (2010) 4 Law and Ethics of Human Rights 1, 16.
179. For a different view.
180. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
181. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).
182. E. Berger, 'Deference Determinations and Stealth Constitutional Decision Making' (2013) 98 Iowa Law Review (forthcoming) 9-10. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2114357, accessed 31 December 2012.
183. A.C. Bryant and T.J. Simeone, 'Remanding to Congress: The Supreme Court's New "On the Record" Constitutional Review of Federal Statutes' (2001) 86 Cornell Law Review 328, 344.
184. W.W. Buzbee and R.A. Schapiro, 'Legislative Record Review' (2001) 54 Stanford Law Review 87, 111.
185. D.T. Coenen, 'The Rehnquist Court, Structural Due Process, and Semisubstantive Constitutional Review' (2002) 75 Southern California Law Review 1281, 1322.
186. E. Berger, 'Deference Determinations and Stealth Constitutional Decision Making' (2013) 98 Iowa Law Review (forthcoming) 57-60, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2114357, accessed 31 December 2012.
187. M. Kremnizer, "Constitutional Proportionality: (Appropriate) Guidelines' in A. Barak et al. (eds.), Israeli Constitutional Law at the Crossroads (forthcoming).
188. M. Kremnizer, 'Progress towards Constitutional Liberalism and Retreat from It: On the Need for a Liberal Constitution and Judicial Review of the Laws of the Knesset' in Y. Dotan and A. Bendor (eds.), Zamir Book (2006) 691, 717.
189. P.W. Hogg et al., 'Charter Dialogue Revisited - or "Much Ado about Metaphors"' (2007) 45 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 1, 19.
190. G.E. Metzger, 'Administrative Law as the New Federalism' (2008) 57 Duke Law Journal 2023, 2094.
191. G. Liu, 'Rethinking Constitutional Welfare Rights' (2008) 61 Stanford Law Review 203.
192. The justification of pure substantive judicial review as a means for protecting fundamental rights is beyond the scope of this article, and is not necessary here given the plethora of scholarship dedicated to this argument and the fact that it 'has become the global conventional wisdom'.
193. M.C. Dorf, 'Legal Indeterminacy and Institutional Design' (2003) 78 New York University Law Review 875, 891.
194. A defence of pure procedural judicial review is beyond the scope of this article. I have developed the case for pure procedural review in much detail elsewhere.
195. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915.