Constitutional Reform of the Judicial Branch

Symbolic vs. Operational Considerations

Bibliographic Data

ID6239995
AuthorsPeter H Russell (University of Toronto, corresponding author)
Year1984
Volume17
Issue2
Pages227-252
Publication date1984-06-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0008-4239 • E-ISSN: 1744-9324
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0008423900031279
OpenAlexW2142046931
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited10

If the next stage of constitutional renewal is to be the strengthening of national institutions, consideration should be given to the judicial branch of government as well as to the Senate and House of Commons. In assessing reforms in this area it is important to distinguish the symbolic from operational consequences. First priority should be given to constitutional entrenchment of the Supreme Court. Although the significance of such an amendment is largely symbolic, it is needed to remove uncertainties created by references to the Supreme Court in the Constitution Act, 1982. A general guarantee of judicial independence should be abandoned as a misguided exercise in constitutional symbolism. From both a symbolic and operational perspective, reform of section 96 of the original constitution holds out the most interesting possibility of establishing the constitutional basis for a truly national judiciary

Constitution · Government (linguistics · House of Commons · Judicial activism · Judicial Independence · Judicial review · Law and economics · Political science · Politics · Separation of powers · Sociology · Supreme court · European and International Law Studies · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Philosophy

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub