Abstract
This paper steps outside of the historical debate about the origins and development of judicial review and focuses on the normative claim that Kramer makes near the end of Popular Constitutionalism. Should the Court, as Kramer argues, have a little more humility when it comes to judicial review and its authority over constitutional interpretation? Should the Court have more respect for legislative decision-making? These questions are addressed through a brief exploration of the ideas of a leading skeptic of judicial review, Jeremy Waldron, and a glimpse at the experiences of other rights-respecting nations.
Recommended Citation
Sarah Harding,
Kramer's Popular Constitutionalism: A Quick Normative Assessment,
81
Chi.-Kent L. Rev.
1117
(2006).
Available at:
https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol81/iss3/19
