Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

The Magnetism of Moral Reasoning and the Principle of Proportionality in Comparative Constitutional Adjudication

Bibliographic Data

ID9532437
AuthorsRichard Stacey (0000-0002-5074-6180, University of Toronto Faculty of Law, corresponding author)
Year2019
Volume67
Issue2
Pages435-475
Publication date2019-07-31
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueThe American Journal of Comparative Law (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0002-919X • E-ISSN: 2326-9197
PublisherOxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1093/ajcl/avz015
OpenAlexW2951270789
LanguageEN
Citations received1

A constitutional limitations clause manages the conflict between constitutional rights and the legislative pursuit of broader social objectives. In six paradigm postwar constitutional democracies—Canada, Germany, India, Israel, Poland, and South Africa—the principle of proportionality has emerged as the analytical fulcrum of the judicial inquiry into the constitutionality of rights limitations. Criticism of the principle of proportionality has crystallized into three main objections: proportionality analysis devalues rights by exposing them to the ordinary processes of political bargaining; it offends the rule of law because it depends on unpredictable moral reasoning; and it involves the unintelligible balancing of incommensurable goods. This Article considers, first, whether limitations jurisprudence in the paradigm countries contains responses to these objections. It argues that there are ways of meeting the devaluation and incommensurability objections, but suggests that models of analysis that purport to meet the unpredictability objection by minimizing the role of moral reasoning are undermined by the continued judicial reliance on moral reasoning in the paradigm countries. The Article argues, second, that moral reasoning maintains this magnetic attraction over judges because the conception of the rule of law at work in the paradigm countries, and which judges and other public officials are committed to upholding, compels judges and legislators to engage directly and fully with the normative commitments a political community makes and which inform its constitution. Because people reasonably disagree over the content and contours of these normative commitments, judges cannot rely on a de-moralized analysis but must make arguments intended to persuade rational, morally autonomous members of a political community how our most fundamental normative commitments should be understood by the legal system

Adjudication · Constitution · Constitutional law · Constitutionality · Jurisprudence · Law and economics · Moral reasoning · Normative · Political science · Politics · Proportionality (law) · Sociology · Criminal Law and Evidence · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Legal and Constitutional Studies

  • Academic freedom as a source of rights’ violations

    Open Access•Monika Stachowiak‐Kudła•Higher Education•2021

Unique citing works1
Citations per year0,2
Citation span2021 - 2021 (1)
Citation velocityhistorical
Highly citedNo
Citation typesNeutral: 1

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae