The Relationship between Democracy and Constitutional Review (Case Study of the United States of America)

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Boo Ali Sina University

2 Assistant Professor, Boo Ali Sina university

Abstract

One of the foundations of constitutionalism is the Constitutional review. The review is arised from two necessities: the hierarchy among resources and the supremacy of the Constitution. This has prevailed in two forms of the American and European model; the first by means of judicial entities and the latter by non-judicial ones. The existential philosophy of the Constitutional review entity has caused abundant debates, especially in the American tradition. The main question of this article through an analytic-descriptive method is to examine such debates and their reasons for devolving the review of the constitutionality of a popular and elected entity to a limited and non-elected authority in the American system. The opposition to the majority principle, opposition to the general will of the people and change in the concept of democracy are the main reasons of the opponents. The proponents emphasize on compatibility with democracy and majority principle and conceptual evolution of rule of law and guarantee of the rights.

Keywords


  1. الف) فارسی

    آلتمن، آندره (1385)، درآمدی بر فلسفه‌ی حقوق، ترجمه‌ی بهروز جندقی، قم: پژوهشگاه امام خمینی (ره).

    بارنت، اریک (1382)، مقدمه‌ای بر حقوق اساسی، ترجمه‌ی عباسعلی کدخدایی، تهران: میزان.

    پروین، خیرالله (1394)، «جستاری بر اندیشه‌ی دادرسی اساسی در جهان»، مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، دوره‌ی 6، ش 1، صص 61-83.
    تروپه، میشل (1383)، «منطق توجیه صیانت از قانون اساسی»، ترجمه‌ی عباسعلی کدخدایی محمدرضا ویژه، مجله‌ی حقوق، ش 66، زمستان، صص 261-291.
    جلالی، محمد و قاسم‌علی صداقت (1395)، «بررسیمبانیاعتباردموکراتیکنظارت اساسی»، دانش حقوق عمومی، سال پنجم، ش 15، صص123-143.
    حبیب‌زاده، توکل (1393)، «نظارتقضاییورویکردهایدیوانعالی فدرالآمریکادرتفسیرقانوناساسیدر پرتوتحولاتسیاسیواجتماعی»، دانش حقوق عمومی، سال سوم، ش 10، زمستان، صص 113-137.
    ریدی، برایان (1392)، فلسفه‌ی حقوق، ترجمه‌ی حسن خسروی، تهران: مجد.
    زارعی، محمدحسین (1394)، گفتارهایی در حقوق عمومی مدرن، تهران: خرسندی.
    زارعی، محمدحسین و احمد مرکز مالمیری (1384)، «مفهوم و مبانی کنترل قضایی با تأکید بر نظام حقوقی ایالات متحده‌ی آمریکا»، تحقیقات حقوقی، ش 42، صص150-197.
    زولر، الیزابت (1390)، درآمدی بر حقوق عمومی، ترجمه‌ی سید مجتبی واعظی، تهران: جنگل.
    شوالیه، ژاک (1378)، دولت قانونمند، ترجمه‌ی حمیدرضا ملک‌محمدی، تهران: دادگستر.
    غمامی، سید محمدمهدی و همکاران (1395)، دادرسی اساسی تطبیقی مطالعه‌ی مبانی، ساختارها و صلاحیت‌های نهاد دادرسی اساسی، پژوهشکده‌ی شورای نگهبان.
    فاورو، لویی (1389)، دادگاه‌های قانون اساسی، ترجمه‌ی علی‌اکبر گرجی، تهران: جنگل.
    فرومن، میشل (1382)، «حمایت از آزادی و برابری در رویه‌ی قضایی دیوان عالی فدرال آمریکا»، ترجمه‌ی علی‌اکبر گرجی، نشریه‌ی حقوق اساسی، ش 2، صص 189-212.
    واعظی، سید مجتبی (1390)، «مطالعه‌ی تطبیقی مبانی و کارکرد الگوهای دادرسی اساسی»،پژوهش حقوق تطبیقی، دوره‌‌ی 15، ش 2، صص 154-173.
    ویژه، محمدرضا (1390)، مبانی و ساختار دولت حقوقی، تهران: جنگل.
    مرکز مالمیری، احمد (1385)، حاکمیت قانون، انتشارات مجلس، چ دوم.
    موسی‌زاده، ابراهیم و همکاران (1389)، دادرسی اساسی در جمهوری اسلامی ایران (اصول قانون اساسی در پرتو نظرات شورای نگهبان 1359-1389)، معاونت تدوین تنقیح و قوانین و مقررات ریاست جمهوری.

     

    ب) ب )انگلیسی

    1. Barak,Aharon (2006), The judge in a democracy, Princeton university press.
    2. Ackerman, B. (1991), We the people, Harvard university press.
    3. Almendares, Nicholas,patric , le bihan,(2015), “Increasing Leverage:judicial review as a democracy enhancing institution”, Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 10.
    4. Bellamy (2007), The democratic constitutionalism: why European should avoid American style constitutional judicial review. European Political Science vol 7 issue 1
    5. Goldoni, Marco (2013), “Constitutional reasoning According to Political Constitutionalism: Comment on Richard Bellamy”, German Law Journal, vol 14, No 8.
    6. Bicle, Alexander (1984),The leatest dangures branch, the supreme court, new heaven ,yala
    7. Chemerinsky.(2004), “In Defense of Judicial Review: The Perils of Popular Constitutionalism”, illinios law review, No 3.
    8. Brettschneider,corey (2007), Democratic rights and the substance of self government, princton university press.
    9. Dowrkin,Ronald(1990), A bill of rights for Britain, Chatto & Windus
    10. Dowrkin, Ronald (2001), Law's Empire,harvrd university press
    11. Eisgruber,Christopher,(2001), Constitutional self-government, harvrd university press.
    12. Eisgruber,Christopher,(2002), Constitutional self-government and judicial review, a reply to 5 critics.Stanford law review, vol 37.
    13. Ely, John hart.(1980),Democracy and distrust: a theory of judicial review, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    14. Freeman , Samuel,(1990), “Constitutional democracy and the legitimacy of judicial review, law and philosophy, vol 9, No 4.
    15. Farber, Daniel, sherry, Suzanna (2009), Judgment calls, principle and politics in constitutional law, oxford university press,
    16. Ford, P,l,(1904), The writing of Thomas jeferson, New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons,1904 vol 10.
    17. Ginsburg, Tom (2003), Judicial review and new democracyConstitutional Courts in Asian Case, Cambridge University press,
    18. Gardbaum, Stephan (2014), Separation of power and the growth of judicial review in established democracy (or Why has the Model of Legislative Supremacy Mostly been Withdrawn from Sale?),UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 14-06 Electronic copy available at:

    http://ssrn.com/abstract=243090

    1. Hardin, Russell (2002), Liberalism, Constitutionalism, and Democracy, oxford university press
    2. Hirshman, Charles (2004), The role of religion in the origins and adaptation of immigrant groups in the United States. International Migration Review, 38
    3. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay;(2005), The federalist, edited with historical and literary annotations and introduction by J. R. Pole.Hackett Publishing Company, Inc
    4. Gyorfi, Tamas,(2016), Against the New Constitutionalism(Elgar Monographs in Constitutional and Administrative Law series), Edward Elgar Publishing Cheltenham
    5. Hook, Sidney,(1962), The paradox of freedom, university of California press.
    6. Lever, Annabelle,(2009), Democracy and judicial review: are they really incompatible? Perspectives on politics. (Forthcoming) available at:

    http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/23097/

    1. Lever, Annabelle (2007), Is judicial review undemocratic? Public Law.
    2. Mace , George (1972). “The antidemocratic character of judicial review”, California law review, vol 60 , issue 4, article 3,
    3. Main, Berbard main (1997), Principle of representative, Cambridge university press
    4. Post, Robert (1998), “Democracy, Popular Sovereignty, and Judicial Review”, California law review, vol 86, issue 3,
    5. Shapiro, Ian, Casiano Hacker-Cordon (1999), Democracy's Value. Cambridge university press.
    6. Sinnott-Armstrong , Walter (2003), “Weak and Strong Judicial Review”, Law and Philosophy ,Vol. 22, No. 3/4, Judicial Review.
    7. Strauss, David (2013), We the people they the people and puzzle of democratic constitution,Texas Law Review vol 91.
    8. Tamanaha,B,(2004), The rule of law:history,politics,theory.cambridge university press.
    9. Theyer, James (1893), The origin and scope of the American doctrine of constitunal law, harvardlaw review.
    10.  Trib ,Laurence (2000), American constitutional law, 3 ed, Foundation Press
    11. Tushnet, Mark (1999), Taking the constitution away from courts,princton university press.
    12. Tushnet, Mark (2003), New forms of judicial review and the persistence of rights and dangerous based worries. 38 Wake Forest .L.Rev. 813-838.available IN in http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/247/
    13. Tushnet, Mark (2006), Weak-Form Judicial Review and "Core" Civil Liberties, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Vol 41.
    14. Tushnet, Mark (2008), Weak Courts, Strong Rights: Judicial Review and Social Welfare Rights in Comparative Constitutional Law,Princton universitu press
    15. Waldron, Jeremy,(1993), “A Right-Based Critique of Constitutional Rights”, Oxford Journal Legal Studies 13 (1): 18-51.
    16. Waldron, Jeremy (2006a), law and disagreement, oxford, UK: oxford university press.
    17. Waldron,Jeremy (2006B), “The core of the case against judicial review”, the Yale law journal.
    18. Waldron, Jeremy (2002), Eisgruber's House of Lords, 37 university of sanfransisco law review. 89.
    19. Waldron, Jeremy (2014), Judicial Review and Judicial Supremacy, New York University Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers. P 495.
    20. Waluchow, W.J. (2007), A Common Law Theory of Judicial Review.The Living Tree. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
    21. Weingast, Barry R.(2005), Self-Enforcing Constitutions: With an Application to Democratic Stability In America’s First Century. STANFORD UNIVERSITY. AVAILABLE IN

    http://www-siepr.stanford.edu/conferences/Institutions2005/weingast_self-enforcing.pdf