In this study, W. J. Waluchow argues that debates between defenders and critics of constitutional bills of rights presuppose that constitutions are more or less rigid entities. Within such a conception, constitutions aspire to establish stable, fixed points of agreement and pre-commitment, which def...

Full description

Bibliographic Details

Main Author:	Waluchow, Wilfrid J. (Author)
Format:	Electronic eBook
Language:	English
Published:	Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2007
Series:	Cambridge studies in philosophy and law
Subjects:	Judicial review / Canada Civil rights / Canada Common law / Canada Judicial review Civil rights Common law Kanada
Online Access:	BSB01 UBG01 Volltext
Summary:	In this study, W. J. Waluchow argues that debates between defenders and critics of constitutional bills of rights presuppose that constitutions are more or less rigid entities. Within such a conception, constitutions aspire to establish stable, fixed points of agreement and pre-commitment, which defenders consider to be possible and desirable, while critics deem impossible and undesirable. Drawing on reflections about the nature of law, constitutions, the common law, and what it is to be a democratic representative, Waluchow urges a different theory of bills of rights that is flexible and adaptable. Adopting such a theory enables one not only to answer to critics' most serious challenges, but also to appreciate the role that a bill of rights, interpreted and enforced by unelected judges, can sensibly play in a constitutional democracy
Item Description:	Title from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 05 Oct 2015)
Physical Description:	1 online resource (x, 283 pages)
ISBN:	9780511498893
DOI:	10.1017/CBO9780511498893