The relationship between citizenship and constitutional courts.
To Democratize constitutional justice.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36446/rlfp154Keywords:
Citizenship, Dialogical Constitutionalism, Constitutional Courts, Deliberative Democracy, participatory proceduresAbstract
The model of dialogical constitutionalism proposed by Roberto Gargarella in The Law as a Conversation among Equals, has a place for constitutional courts, under the condition that their decisions are aimed at safeguarding the conditions of dialogue in the political system, and that they incorporate mechanisms for inclusive public deliberation in their decision-making processes. In this sense, the book’s approach participates in a sector of constitutional theory that assigns a relevant role to extra-judicial actors in the development of the interpretation of the constitution. This article analyzes the main positions in the debate on the relationship between citizenship and constitutional interpretation, and situates the book’s proposal in that discussion, identifying its convergences and divergences with respect to these approaches.
Downloads
References
Ackerman, B. (2006). “Interpreting the Women’s Movement”. California Law Review, 94, 1421–1437.
Balkin, J. (2011). Constitutional redemption: Political faith in an unjust world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Balkin, J. y Sanford, L. (2001). “Understanding the Constitutional Revolution”. Virginia Law Review, 87, 1045–1108.
Caldeira, G. y Gibson, J. (1992). “The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court”. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 635–664.
Epstein, L. y Knight, J. (1997). The Choices Justices Make. Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Eskridge, W. (2001). “Channelling: Identity-based Social Movements and Public Law”. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150 (1), 419–525.
Friedman, B. (2003). “Mediated Popular Constitutionalism”. Michigan Law Review, 101, 2596–2632.
Gargarella, R. (2006). “El nacimiento del ‘constitucionalismo popular’”. Revista de libros de la Fundación Caja Madrid, 112, 15–18.
Gargarella, R. (2021). El derecho como una conversación entre iguales: Qué hacer para que las democracias contemporáneas se abran –por fin– al diálogo ciudadano. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI.
Levinson, S. (1988). Constitutional Faith. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Marshall, T. (1989). Public Opinion and the Supreme Court. Winchester, MA: Unwin Hyman.
Mayeri, S. (2004). “Constitutional Choices: Legal Feminism and the Historical Dynamics of Change”. California Law Review, 92, 755–839.
Minow, M. (1987). “Interpreting Rights: An Essay for Robert Cover”. The Yale Law Journal, 96 (8), 1860–1915.
Mishler, W. y Sheehan, R. (1993). “The Supreme Court as a Countermajoritarian Institution? The Impact of Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions”. American Political Science Review, 87 (1), 87–101.
Murphy, W. y Tanenhaus, J. (1968). “Public Opinion and the United States Supreme Court: Mapping of Some Prerequisites for Court Legitimation of Regime Changes”. Law and Society Review, 2, 357–384.
Norpoth, H. y Segal, J. (1994). “Popular Influence on Supreme Court Decisions”. American Political Science Review, 88 (3), 711–724.
Pope, J. (1996). “Labor’s Constitution of Freedom”. Yale Law Journal, 106, 941–1031.
Post, R. (2003). “The Supreme Court, 2002 Term: Foreword: Fashioning the Legal Constitution: Culture, Courts, and Law”. Harvard Law Review, 117 (4), 4–112.
Post, R. y Siegel, R. (2004). “Popular Constitutionalism, Departmentalism, and Judicial Supremacy”. California Law Review, 92 (4), 1027–1043.
Rubin, E. (2001). “Passing through the Door: Social Movement Literature and Legal Scholarship”. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150, 1–83.
Siegel, R. (2001). “Text in Contest: Gender and the Constitution from a Social Movement Perspective”. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150, 297–351.
Siegel, R. (2004). “The Jurisgenerative Role of Social Movements in United States Constitutional Law”. Presented at SELA, Oaxaca, México.
Siegel, R. (2006). “Constitutional Culture, Social Movement Conflict and Constitutional Change: The Case of the de facto ERA”. California Law Review, 94, 1323–1419.
Siegel, R. y Post, R. (2007). “Roe Rage: Democratic Constitutionalism and Backlash”. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 42, 373–433.
Sunstein, C. (1999). One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tushnet, M. (1999). Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tushnet, M. (2009). “Dialogic Judicial Review”. Arkansas Law Review, 61 (2), 205–216.
Tushnet, M. (2022). “Institutions for Realizing Popular Constitutionalism”. Revus. Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law, 47.
Waldron, J. (1999). The Dignity of Legislation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
West, R. (1990). “Progressive and Conservative Constitutionalism”. Michigan Law Review, 88 (4), 641–721.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Revista Latinoamericana de Filosofía Política
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
