Matthew A Hennigar
Biographic Data
| ID | 2139542 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Matthew A Hennigar |
| GIVEN NAMES | Matthew A |
| FAMILY NAME | Hennigar |
| SIGNATURE | HENNIGAR M A |
| VERIFIED | No |
| TOTAL WORKS | 4 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 25 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 4 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2004 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2010 |
| H-INDEX | 3 |
Exploring Complex Judicial–Executive Interaction
This article analyzes the federal government's concessions before the Supreme Court of Canada that its own laws are unconstitutional under the Charter of Rights, marking the first time that concessions have been analyzed empirically in Canada. Using data from 1984–2004, the author finds that full concessions of unconstitutionality are exceptionally rare but that partial concessions are not uncommon. There is weak support for the hypothesis that g…
Conceptualizing attorney general conduct in Charter litigation
The conduct of attorneys general in litigation involving the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been the subject of little theoretical contextualization by social scientists. Legal scholars, beginning with John Edwards, have dominated discussion of this issue to date, largely to advocate that attorneys general should act independently of their governments, because to do otherwise would, in their view, violate the Constitution. Without addressing …
Why Does the Federal Government Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in Charter of Rights Cases? A Strategic Explanation
Despite the impressive body of scholarship dedicated to analyzing litigation involving the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Supreme Court of Canada, there remains an incomplete understanding of why these cases come to the Court. Notably absent from the literature is sustained analysis of why governments, the most frequent class of appellant, bring Charter cases to the Supreme Court. Recent work has addressed the decision to appeal by the U.S…
Expanding the ‘Dialogue’ Debate
The inter–institutional dynamics between courts and elected governments under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have recently, and widely, been characterized as a "dialogue" over constitutional meaning. This article seeks to expand the systematic analysis of "dialogue" to lower courts of appeal, using Canadian federal government responses as a case study. In the process, the article clarifies the hotly debated operational definition of …
Expanding the ‘Dialogue’ Debate
The inter–institutional dynamics between courts and elected governments under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have recently, and widely, been characterized as a "dialogue" over constitutional meaning. This article seeks to expand the systematic analysis of "dialogue" to lower courts of appeal, using Canadian federal government responses as a case study. In the process, the article clarifies the hotly debated operational definition of …
Why Does the Federal Government Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in Charter of Rights Cases? A Strategic Explanation
Despite the impressive body of scholarship dedicated to analyzing litigation involving the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Supreme Court of Canada, there remains an incomplete understanding of why these cases come to the Court. Notably absent from the literature is sustained analysis of why governments, the most frequent class of appellant, bring Charter cases to the Supreme Court. Recent work has addressed the decision to appeal by the U.S…
Conceptualizing attorney general conduct in Charter litigation
The conduct of attorneys general in litigation involving the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been the subject of little theoretical contextualization by social scientists. Legal scholars, beginning with John Edwards, have dominated discussion of this issue to date, largely to advocate that attorneys general should act independently of their governments, because to do otherwise would, in their view, violate the Constitution. Without addressing …
Exploring Complex Judicial–Executive Interaction
This article analyzes the federal government's concessions before the Supreme Court of Canada that its own laws are unconstitutional under the Charter of Rights, marking the first time that concessions have been analyzed empirically in Canada. Using data from 1984–2004, the author finds that full concessions of unconstitutionality are exceptionally rare but that partial concessions are not uncommon. There is weak support for the hypothesis that g…
Expanding the ‘Dialogue’ Debate
The inter–institutional dynamics between courts and elected governments under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have recently, and widely, been characterized as a "dialogue" over constitutional meaning. This article seeks to expand the systematic analysis of "dialogue" to lower courts of appeal, using Canadian federal government responses as a case study. In the process, the article clarifies the hotly debated operational definition of …
Why Does the Federal Government Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in Charter of Rights Cases? A Strategic Explanation
Despite the impressive body of scholarship dedicated to analyzing litigation involving the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Supreme Court of Canada, there remains an incomplete understanding of why these cases come to the Court. Notably absent from the literature is sustained analysis of why governments, the most frequent class of appellant, bring Charter cases to the Supreme Court. Recent work has addressed the decision to appeal by the U.S…
Conceptualizing attorney general conduct in Charter litigation
The conduct of attorneys general in litigation involving the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been the subject of little theoretical contextualization by social scientists. Legal scholars, beginning with John Edwards, have dominated discussion of this issue to date, largely to advocate that attorneys general should act independently of their governments, because to do otherwise would, in their view, violate the Constitution. Without addressing …
Exploring Complex Judicial–Executive Interaction
This article analyzes the federal government's concessions before the Supreme Court of Canada that its own laws are unconstitutional under the Charter of Rights, marking the first time that concessions have been analyzed empirically in Canada. Using data from 1984–2004, the author finds that full concessions of unconstitutionality are exceptionally rare but that partial concessions are not uncommon. There is weak support for the hypothesis that g…
Charter (4 works) · Judicial and Constitutional Studies (4 works) · Law (4 works) · Law (4 works) · Political science (4 works) · Supreme court (4 works) · Criminal Law and Evidence (3 works) · Government (linguistics (3 works) · Appeal (2 works) · Constitutionality (1 works)